Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #7: Homelessness Grift, Pharma Corruption, Chris Cuomo, Walton Family, and More!

Episode Date: October 9, 2021

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/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.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. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community.

I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your

podcasts. Thank you. 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 as part of our ongoing partnership with The Daily Poster, we have David Sirota, founder of Daily Poster. What's your full title, editor? Founder and editor. There we go. Okay. Founder, editor of The Daily Poster. Also's your full title, editor? Founder and editor. There we go. Okay.

Founder, editor of the Daily Poster, also has a podcast project coming out. Also, by the way, happened to co-produce and co-write a film, No Big Deal, that has Leo DiCaprio in it. But today, David, we wanted to talk to you about a really important piece of reporting that you and your team there, Andrew Perez and Walker Bragman, put out this week. If we can throw that tear sheet up on the screen. Headline says, Congress may let opioid billionaires get legal immunity legislation to hold the Sacklers accountable stalls as the Chamber of Commerce begins lobbying on the bill. People who watch this show probably know the Sacklers are behind Purdue Pharma. They were the major villains behind the entire opioid crisis, pushing Oxy on people who really didn't need Oxy, lying about when they knew how addictive it was,

and just have been incredibly bad actors here. So there's an effort to actually hold them accountable. They've been pushing to make sure, okay, well, we might come to this settlement and this agreement, but we have to make sure we're not liable for anything ever again. And not just us, but all the people around us, this very large list of people and entities that they want immunity for. Bring us up to speed on what you found here, David. So that's exactly right. What they want to do is use something called a non-debtor release, which is a technical term that in some courts in bankruptcy, the courts will extend essentially legal immunity to other parties that are not the company itself. So in this case, Purdue Pharma is the Sackler owned corporation that went into a bankruptcy court. And by the way, these companies can essentially

venue shop. They can look for what they believe are the best courts that will give them the best deal. So Purdue goes into a court that is notoriously willing to give corporate folks immunity. It goes into that court, the Purdue company does, and says, we are declaring bankruptcy. And in the process, the Sacklers have said, we will pay out claims, a couple billion dollars worth of claims, in exchange for you, the court, saying that other governmental entities can now or in the future may not hold us accountable. So you've got a bunch of attorney generals, for instance, in individual states who want to sue and go after the Sacklers for damages in their states. And essentially, because of the existing law in this court, the court is allowed to say to state attorneys generals, for instance, you are no longer allowed to hold the

Sacklers accountable. And so what the bill in Congress was designed to do was to say, no, no, no, no, no, you can't have non-debtor releases. Courts cannot just grant legal immunity to all sorts of parties in these bankruptcy courts. In other words, courts cannot just use the bankruptcy process to shield corporate executives and the like from legal accountability and legal liability. But here's the issue. That bill, which had been moving forward, has now stalled in Congress precisely at the moment that one of the most powerful corporate lobby groups in the country has started lobbying on the bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has started lobbying on the bill. Now, you might ask, what does the Chamber of Commerce, what do they care about this in

particular, right? Well, you can understand the implications of this. If companies in general are not allowed to get these releases, it doesn't just affect the Sacklers. It wouldn't just affect the opioid situation. It could hold tons and tons of corporate executives accountable when they try to use the bankruptcy courts to shield themselves. So the Chamber of Commerce has an interest in this kind of legislation. One thing I should say, it's not clear in the lobbying records which side the chamber is lobbying on, but they would not respond to our request for comment on that. And so I think you can put two and two together.

That is an incredible part of this, which is that the Chamber of Commerce element, which is that they have, and I guess explain, why would other big business have interest in getting some of this non-debtor release not, sorry, renewed through Congress and not targeted under the guise of the Sacklers. What interest did they have? Because if you're a corporate executive at another company, uh, and you do all sorts of, you pull all sorts of shenanigans, uh, and then your company, uh, is, is bankrupted. You want to have the ability to go into bankruptcy court and say, and have the court say, uh,

uh, state attorneys, generals attorneys generals, local law enforcement officials cannot go after you. You want that power. You want the courts to be able to give you that shield. This legislation would say courts cannot give you that shield. So there is a wider corporate interest in this. But of course, the question is, what's the public interest, right? I mean, we're in a country where we hear in our politics all the time, law and order and hold folks accountable. Not passing this bill essentially is Congress saying, we're not going to take action to make sure that wrongdoers are held accountable. And of course, that goes with a series of things that we've seen in this country. I mean, we've talked about before the

reporting that we've done on nursing homes and how in the state of New York, New York and other states granted essentially legal immunity to the owners of nursing homes during the pandemic. There's a whole trend of corporate powers that be in politics trying to get shields so that the legal system cannot hold the powerful accountable. And so where are we in terms of the potential settlement with the Sacklers? Because I know we had covered here how one of them in a court hearing said, hey, I might blow this whole thing up if you don't agree to having this massive immunity for myself, for my family, for all the people who were involved potentially. So where are we in terms of them being granted that immunity and ultimately the settlement being finalized?

I mean, by the way, think about how insane it is that the Sacklers, the billionaire family, seems to be the one calling the shots, not law enforcement. Oh, we're going to blow up the deal. It's like, you guys were the ones who helped create the opioid epidemic and you're calling the shots? It's kind of an incredible commentary. Where we are is this. The settlement that was proposed would compel the Sackler family to hand over a couple billion dollars. This is part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Of course, it should be noted that they get to remain a multi-billion dollar family. I've seen one calculation say that they will essentially earn back on interest and

investment the amount of money that they're being compelled in this current settlement to hand over. But in that settlement, you've seen the state of Connecticut, its attorney general, object. And you've seen the Biden administration say that it may appeal the settlement. The settlement is now essentially under review at a higher court level. It remains to be seen whether those appeals work. Congress has a chance that it could still technically intervene. But as we've discussed, the bill that would be a kind of intervention in this remains stalled. And finally, David, on the chamber in general, they've been in the news a lot lately because they've had a longstanding position of basically exclusively backing Republicans.

They've broken with that recently. That has very much upset the Republican caucus. But what does that do, if anything, in terms of their power in Washington? What does it say about the Democratic Party that the Chamber of Commerce now feels like maybe they have some good allies over there? I think it says it's not very good what it says about the Democratic Party. I mean, you've seen as an example, I flagged this on Twitter yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce has on its website, it is boasting that it has funneled money to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. That is literally on the Chamber of Commerce's website. So what it says is that the Chamber of Commerce sees an opportunity to continue dominating Washington and fronting

for a corporate agenda. It sees an opportunity inside the Democratic Party. I don't want to say that there's a full shift here. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce is still very much wired in to the Republican Party, but clearly it is also wired into the Democratic Party. And so what we see is the dynamics in Congress now are you have most of the Republican Party and a decent chunk of the Democratic Party that often fronts for corporate interests, and you have a smaller crew of progressive Democrats and one or two on any given issue, a couple, maybe a handful of Republicans on specific issues. On the Sackler Act, for instance, there are some Republicans who say they support that bill. But basically, when we look at the two parties, it's easy to say, oh, there's Republicans

and there's Democrats. It's actually no. When it comes to corporate matters, it's usually most of the Republican Party and a decent chunk of the Democratic Party and then a much smaller crew of folks in Congress who are willing to challenge that agenda. And the Chamber of Commerce kind of exemplifies that. Big ties into the Republican Party and now growing ties into the Democratic Party. David, I know I say it a million times, but following your reporting really helps people understand what's actually happening in Washington. Not just the theater, not the like silly reasons that cable news makes up as to why Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are doing things, but you help to understand how things actually work, who are the key players involved that you may not have even heard of,

and how it can be that, you know, people who are truly villains, like the Sacklers, can end up with their fortunes intact and with members of Congress ultimately siding with them. So thank you for that reporting. We're, again, very excited to be partnered with you guys. And I know our audience has been really excited to hear more of what you guys are up to over there. Absolutely. We support you 100%. Thank you really much, David. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it. Our pleasure. A lot more for you guys tomorrow. Hey, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was? Well, here we are again to remind you that becoming a premium member means you don't have to listen to our constant pleas for you to subscribe. So what are

you waiting for? Become a premium member today by going to BreakingPoints.com, which you can click on in the show notes. I wanted to bring you what is truly one of the most disgusting stories I think we have ever covered about how some shameless operators in New York City are making millions off of the homelessness crisis there. Let's throw this reporting for the New York Times up on the screen. Housing boss earns a million dollars to run shelters despite a troubled past. The subhead there says some executives at nonprofit groups that operate New York City homeless shelters are benefiting from the plight of the people that they serve. And I just want to read you the opening couple of paragraphs here. It says,

soon after Jack Brown III quit his job at a private prison company, his former employer accused him of fraud. A few years later, after Mr. Brown started a nonprofit to run halfway houses, a federal audit found it had failed to deliver key services. The New York State Comptroller concluded in another review that he had shown a disturbing pattern of ethical violations, but none of that history seemed to bother officials in New York City. Since 2017, as homelessness has risen to record levels, the city has awarded more than $352 million to a non-profit run by Mr. Brown to operate shelters. That money is meant to help homeless people, of course, but it has benefited Mr. Brown, too. It has channeled contracts worth at least $32 million into for-profit companies tied to Mr. Brown, allowing him to earn more than a million dollars a year.

Money that is supposed to go to help the most vulnerable people in the entire city. And he is making millions. And by the way, the investigation goes on to show that he is not alone in these sort of exorbitant salaries. Part of the way that he does this is, as they sort of indicate there in the beginning, not only does he run the shelters, in some cases he owns the building that he runs to them, he runs the company that provides the food, that provides the janitorial services. So he is running all aspects of all of the companies that relate to these shelters. And you know what, Sagar?

It would be absolutely abhorrent even if he was doing a good job at these things, but the residents who are living in these shelters say that they're filthy, that there's rats, that there's vermin, that there's violent fights in the hallway, that they are an utter and complete disgrace. While this man, and by the way, some of his family members in on the deal as well, making millions of dollars skimming money from the people who needed the absolute most. What a complete and utter disgrace. No, and actually, if you read even more into it, you can see that he uses the nonprofit to funnel money to all sorts of different places. So one example is he has a firm, which he already has a substantial stake in, that then gets over $3 million in rent from the nonprofit. And so then he can draw for-profit salary from the firm that's getting the rent, and he's the director of the nonprofit itself. It's the same thing. He's got a for-profit companies that all provide key services. So other examples, though, is he's

also stacked his family members, not only on the boards here, but on the boards of all of these for-profit entities, which are then making and raking in all of this money, which is all provided by the city. Now, previously, he was a top executive at a private prison contractor, which is kind of amazing. And actually, that same one had a bribery scandal in Albany, and it was even fined $300,000. As you already pointed out, we already know that the

services themselves that they're receiving in the shelter are not even good. So what he's doing is he's skimming millions of dollars, not just for himself, but everybody else off of the top and creating this whole nonprofit industrial complex. New York City, because housing is right there, has to funnel the money to somebody, and they can't do it natively. So he's the one who takes the money, presents the board their obligation. They can do a box check, making millions of dollars here on the side. It's just a total and complete scam. And it's, you know, look, it's actually, basically, if you want to look into homelessness, Griff, like this is what a lot of it looks like. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. LA, Austin, a lot of cities

are doing the exact same thing. I just cannot imagine being able to sleep at night bilking millions. Million dollars, apparently. The people who are the most vulnerable. And as you described it, it's like the nonprofit that he's the head of is like the center of the wheel. And then all the spokes around it are these for-profit enterprises that can get contracts from the nonprofit. And that enables him and his family members to earn private sector salaries. Exactly. For supposedly helping the homeless. And again, these shelters are atrocious in terms of the quality of life provided to the residents there. But this is not an isolated problem. Let me read you another paragraph from this

report. This year, the city has directed $2.6 billion to nonprofits to operate homeless shelters. Officials already know they have a problem with some of them. Nine of the 62 groups that run shelters are on an internal city watch list for issues that include conflicts of interest and other financial problems. That's according to records reviewed by The Times. All of those groups, even the ones that have been flagged, like this is a big problem, they've got conflicts of interest, they've got other financial impropriety, they're still getting city funding city funding. So you have billions out there and these shameless, shady operators who are just looking to cash in are able to take advantage because the city's in kind of a desperate

situation. They've got a big problem on their hands. They have trouble finding operators that are actually good and not just shamelessly trying to bilk millions off the top. And so they completely fail to hold these folks to account because ultimately, you know, they don't want to actually good and not just shamelessly trying to bilk millions off the top. And so they completely fail to hold these folks to account because ultimately, you know, they don't want to deal with this issue. They just want it all to go away. No, exactly. And the more you look into it, it's all part of the broader system. And we should underscore once again that like the people at these shelters are the ones who are being screwed because not only are they homeless, but the guards apparently sleep during fights and undercooked food has been giving the residents stomach problems. So not only are the most vulnerable people who the money is supposed

to be being spent to actually being screwed over, this dude is making a million dollars a year on the top, on top of money funneling to his family members. So as you said, I don't know how the man sleeps at night, but it ain't just him. There's a lot of other men who are implicated in this as well. Yeah, that is exactly right. And right now it says about 77,000 people are homeless living in New York City. That number expected to grow as pandemic eviction protections are lifted. And you see even more people fall into despair and unable to find housing in what is an insanely expensive city where rents, you know, first housing prices skyrocketed. Now rents are skyrocketing as well. So this is a terrible situation. And Eric Adams is going to have a lot on his plate to try to deal with it.

Good luck. All right. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We're going to have more content for you later. Wow. You guys must really like listening to our voices. While I know this is annoying, instead of making you listen to a Viagra commercial,

when you're done, check out the other podcast I do with Marshall Kosloff called The Realignment. We talk a lot about the deeper issues that are changing, realigning in American society. You always need more Crystal and Saga in your daily lives. Take care, guys. You guys might recall we covered that New York Times op-ed in which Chris Cuomo over at CNN was basically caught dead to rights

having grabbed his boss's ass back in 2005 in front of her husband and then emailing her an apology. Now, the woman who came forward, her name was Shelly Ross, she says she did so not because she necessarily wants to see him punished, but because of his hypocrisy over not covering the sexual harassment allegations against his brother, actively helping to cover up some of those harassment allegations. The fact that he stands up on his TV show and says he's a big advocate of women and all of this,

and she said, no, you're not. I know what you did to me. You need to be held to account. Now, you would think, Crystal, a high-profile op-ed in the New York Times with the email where he straight up says he was sorry would be enough in order to facilitate an apology from Chris Cuomo on the air or the CNN brass to say a

word or Brian Stelter who covers the media and all of this stuff over there. But apparently she hasn't heard a damn word. Here's what she had to say in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly. But this is a pattern. And I really do wonder about the women inside of CNN and whether they feel safe working around this guy and the other guys. I also feel badly for Brian Stelter, who has been totally compromised. He is the chief media critic. He has a great resume. He really is a good reporter. And he said nothing about it. And Brian Stelter knows me. He knows the position of authority I held at multiple networks. He's interviewed me he's actually done like a he he wrote a new york times feature about me when i took over the cbs early show and i had an wrote an editorial that was published in the new york times that literally went viral. I've seen it picked up as far away as the Taipei Times. It was trending on Twitter, Twitter burn up. And these are all things that our Brian Stelters beat. Did he not report on this at all? No. And he came under fire

for not reporting on it. But where Brian Stelter is compromised is I read over the weekend when the House bill was going into the wee hours of the morning. And Brian Stelter did a column how CNN and MSNBC were live with the coverage in Congress as at 1 o'clock in the morning midnight and you know even as early as 11 o'clock he wrote that that fox uh news was had programming on tape well i think that brian stelter lost his his moral authority to quote on what other networks cover and choose to cover and don't cover show me the lie people show me a single lie in what she just said she's completely right i mean they report on fox not covering this well look your star anchor and as low as his ratings are

he is still the star there it's all you, you know, within a bit of perspective. Chris Cuomo was outright caught, accused. There's no ambiguity here. He said he was sorry. He acknowledged his conduct in the email. She was his boss. She puts it out there in the New York Times. He doesn't say one word. And like she said, Brian knows who she is. He's covered her before. They've literally spoken and nothing. So these people, they're all hypocrites. All of them for the way that they cover this. It's not like Fox

who has its own problems. You know, exactly. Oh yeah. They're relishing this. It is funny. Don't get me wrong. Total cesspool. Yeah, maybe look

inside the house too in terms of what's happening there. Yeah. Look, the New York media scene is a very small town. I guarantee you, Shelley Ross is a high-level TV producer. She is well-known. Not just by Brian Stelter, but by all of the high-level executives at CNN.

This is not some crank. This is a credible person who brought the receipts in a New York Times editorial that got tons of attention and traction, and you don't hear anything from these people. It just shows you they feel they are so above any kind of accountability. They act with total impunity that you don't even have to respond. You don't have to issue an apology. You don't have to say anything. CNN just continues to go as if nothing. You don't have to say anything. CNN just continues to go as if nothing. And then Brian Stelter, I mean, the reason she's calling him out, he's supposed to be the one who has the sometimes difficult job of even holding your own media

organization to account, talking about their coverage, talking about any conflicts of interest. Boy, that ship sailed a long time ago. Remember the apology tour he did on behalf of CNN, CNN PR? Of course I remember, yeah. On whose show was it? Was it Colbert or somebody like that? It was on Stephen Colbert, yeah. Yeah, and he goes- Covering up for Cuomo. Yeah, it talks about how, well, this was a very difficult, I don't think anyone knew how to handle this situation. This is very unique, very unusual. It's just a crazy situation. You're like, what? It's a classic example of conflict of interest. This is as old as the profession of journalism.

And the way that you all handled it was atrocious. So to hold yourself out as some neutral I'm just going to call balls and strikes and be tough on my own guys, it's absurd. I like the way she does it though. She does it in a very bless his heart kind of a way. She's at the beginning, she's like I feel really bad for him. And I think he can be does it, though. She does it in a very, like, bless his heart kind of a way. You know, she's at the beginning.

She's like, I feel really bad for him. And I think he can be a very good reporter. I know him. He even covered me. He wrote a story on me. He wrote a profile of me when I took over CBS early show or whatever it was that she said. Yeah, so I kind of like the way that she handled him there. But it just shows you they just care about the bottom line.

They're not principled. There's no, you know, all of their pretending to care so much about Me Too and sexual harassment and whatever. It's all well and good until it has to do with anything that's actually uncomfortable, anyone who actually benefits your profit margins directly. There you go. Exactly right. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. One more thing, I promise. Just wanted to make sure you knew about my podcast with Kyle Kalinsky. It's called Crystal Kyle and Friends, where we do long form interviews with people like Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Glenn Greenwald. You can listen on any podcast platform or you

can subscribe over on Substack to get the video a day early. We're going to stop bugging you now. Enjoy. So big story in the Wall Street Journal, not big because of necessarily the amount of media coverage that it got, but big in terms of potential impact and implications that caught both of our eyes. Let's throw this tear sheet up there on the screen. The headline is, the Colorado River is in crisis. The Walton family, that's the Walmart heirs, are pushing a solution. Walmart heirs have spent heavily to promote their view that water markets,

so effectively privatizing water, are the best way to deal with a dwindling supply. Let me just read you the first couple of paragraphs here so you can figure out what we're talking about. The first ever official shortage on the Colorado River has intensified a debate over how to provide water for 40 million people across the Southwest and irrigate fields of thirsty crops like wheat, cotton, and alfalfa. Few voices outside government are more influential than that of the Walton family. Billionaire heirs to the Walmart Inc. fortune who have long advocated water markets as a key part of solving the region's woes. Some environmental groups say the Waltons, the Walton Family Foundation, has given about $200 million over the past decade to a variety of advocacy groups,

universities, and media outlets involved in the river. No other donor comes close. Two federal officials, once affiliated with the foundation, have been named to key Biden administration posts overseeing the river. So look, I have gone down a rabbit hole on the Colorado River and water rights in general. And I'm going to curtail a little bit of, because I could go on for a long time about this. But effectively, there's been a compact that has controlled water rights along the Colorado River for about 100 years. And the problem is a couple of things now. First of all, when they first came up with the numbers to allocate water amongst farmers and cities, and there's a number of indigenous tribes who rely on the river as well,

when they first did this, they happened to calculate the water flow during one of the rainiest seasons in history. So they over-allocated the water. They gave out too many rights to the people in various interests in the region. And this was a compact that was, you know, this was a complicated agreement that actually has served us pretty well for that hundred years or so. So the problem now is not only did they over-allocate it to start with, but because of climate change and because of drought, the flow in the Colorado River has been reduced by about 20% just over the past decade. So now that over-allocation is starting to become a big, big issue. You have a lot of groups that are competing for this water. And one thing that you should understand about the Colorado River is this water is central to basically having us

been able to develop the West in the first place. And you have a lot of people who not only depend for their livelihood, but for their entire way of life on this river. You think about farmers, you think about ranchers, you think about the native tribal nations that are dependent on this river. And then you also think about these large and growing cities that are very thirsty that also need this water. So it's a very complicated issue. And I don't want to oversimplify this. The people who are advocating for a market approach effectively say, look, let's just turn this into a commodity. Let's sell off the water to the highest bidder. It will get more expensive. That's acknowledged by all involved.

That means that people will have more of an incentive to conserve. So ultimately, this will be good. Who does that? Who does that advantage? Well, it advantages the cities. It advantages whoever's got money. There's already these private investors and hedge fund groups betting and speculating that water is going to become this extraordinarily valuable commodity. So they're jumping in and buying up land and trying to get their hands on water rights right now as we speak. So obviously, it advantages the people who have the money to pay. Again, that's disproportionately like cities and rich people and investors.

And it very much disadvantages some of the traditional beneficiaries, people like the farmers and ranchers, people like the tribal nations that depend on this. So that's who the Waltons have thrown in with that solution. And zooming out, okay, if you don't care at all about the water rights and stuff, it very much connects to something we've been talking about on this show that Anand Giridharadas has talked about, which is how dangerous and destructive it is when billionaires throw their money around on a particular cause, it becomes incredibly, incredibly distortive. That's the problem. And if you read deeper in the report, it says, quote, potentially magnifying the family influence, a pair of officials once

affiliated with the foundation have now been named to positions within the Biden administration, which hold considerable sway over the river. Ms. Trujillo, sworn into her position in June, was the project director for the Walton-funded Colorado River Sustainability Campaign. Her current position oversees the Bureau of Reclamation, the largest wholesale of water in the United States under the Interior Department. Classic revolving door. Classic, I'm pretty sure we already know what she believes. Classic, when she leaves, I wonder where she would want to go work. You know?

I wonder where, you know? Well, and when you're floating this much money to all the nonprofits and universities and everybody who's involved in this question, well, then it becomes very hard to dissent, right? If you want to get your grant, if you want to be able to do your research, whatever your work ultimately is, then you've got to play ball with the Waltons. You certainly can't be against privatizing the Colorado River because they're going to pull your funding and then you're going to be hosed.

And they have examples here of where they've done exactly that. That's right, people who've had their funding. People who've had their funding pulled and the Waltons say, well, they're no longer in alignment with what we're looking for here. Look, another example is Bill Gates and public health. Okay. Exactly. And it can be that people actually genuinely have good intentions. It doesn't matter. When you have that much money in one sector, it becomes incredibly distortive. And any non-market potential solutions, an update to this compact, which was non-market based, that has served pretty well for a long time, those things become more and more out of reach. The money drives towards a consensus that ultimately here, I mean, there's just zero doubt about it, is going to benefit

private investors. It's going to benefit hedge funds. It's going to benefit the wealthy and make sure, yeah, they've got whoever's willing to pay the highest price is going to have access to this water. And there's also, you know, there's something really to be said here to a deeper story about our values and what matters and what counts. I've been reading this book about the Colorado River as part of why I've been interested in this subject. And some of these ranchers, I mean, this has been their family going back generations and generations, more than 100 years. So if a market might look at this and just say, hey, look, you use a lot of water to irrigate your fields. This water could be put to a higher market value use in the cities or with an almond farmer instead

of a cattle rancher or whatever it is. There's zero account taken for, yeah, but this is everything for me. This is my whole life. This is my family's whole life. This is what we've been doing. This is all we know to do. Like, this is what we want to do. And this water is something we thought we could depend on and have forever. Now, the flip side of that is, look, if private investors are going to come in and pay millions and millions of dollars for these ranches to buy up the water rights, maybe you've got farmers and ranchers who say, you know what, at that price, sure, I'm good and I'm happy about this. Yeah. It's a bad situation, no matter how you slice it, when you've got Walmart money, $200 million that's really driving this debate, rather than the interest of the competing

stakeholders, the environmental pressures, and what actually is going to work for everybody involved in the region. Yeah, look, the West is part of America. We actually have a duty to preserve it, both in national interest, but also just because that's who we are. And if this was something that the ranchers were independently being able to punch at the same weight as the Waltons, then fine. Okay, let's debate. But something tells me they don't have the same amount of representation. We've covered meatpacking, how they've screwed over our ranchers.

I would say, hey, even if almonds fetch a higher price, I don't know, maybe we should have our own meat in a country that eats mostly meat. Maybe I'm crazy. These are all things which we should have a debate without the influence of these people. And something tells me that they're just not doing it out of the bottom of their heart. And they want to grow water markets. Why? I mean, look, they're implicitly funding something in order to create an entire new market.

I remember Enron. I remember California deregulation and what happens with commodity trading. I'm not saying it isn't always bad, but if you do it wrong and with the right interests involved, people make billions of dollars and the people who actually need this stuff get screwed. So I'm very cautious whenever it comes to this. At the very least, a private water market of the type that they envision certainly would guarantee that people who are as wealthy as the Waltons are always going to have access to water. Not going to be a problem

for them. It wouldn't be a bad thing. They can sell it to Bill Gates' land. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. Some very exciting news for our premium subscribers and for everybody else out there. From day one, everybody said, I love listening to you guys.

As a podcast, why can't I use my Spotify app? And trust me, it's been a big question. Well, today, you can. So for my Spotify app? And trust me, it's been a big question. Well, today, you can. So for all of our premium subscribers out there, you just have to go in your Supercast member dashboard. If you don't have that email customer service, we'll get it taken care of really quickly. You can log in. There's a link right there. You can say open up on your Spotify app, and then you are good to go. You no longer have to listen on Apple or whatever. So we are officially on both the big platforms.

And for everybody else out there, I know that there were a lot of people who said, hey, we really want to listen to you on Spotify too. Is there any way that we can make our premium feed show up there? Well, now the answer is yes. So what are you waiting for? Link is down there in the description.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, well, one of the things that we offer our premium members is that you get to listen to the full show both one hour earlier than everybody else, and you get to listen to it completely uncut. No ad breaks, none of that stuff. So I think it's a pretty good deal. But the most important thing is, remember, guys, we need your support. It's the only way our pay our bills around here. We can't rely on YouTube monetization when they demonetize us all the time. So this is really the only way we can support the show. We can make sure that you guys get the content that you want.

And in exchange, we try to give her as much benefits as we can. Extra interviews a month, an hour early, AMAs, all of that. But really, it's just about support. Premium subs, got the Andrew Yang interview before anybody else. We do extended interviews all the time that go on to the premium subscribers. Andrew Yang interview before anybody else we do extended interviews all the time that go on to the premium subscribers

but yeah this is something we've been working on for a while it's taken months there's a lot of big things happening behind the scenes this was number one

on the list I heard your concerns that's what we're trying to do yeah so it's worth just so to lay on again the model here is listen

if you can't afford it watch on YouTube you can go to any, watch on YouTube. You can go to any of the podcast apps, including Spotify, and the whole show is there. Minus, the only thing you don't get, you get ad breaks, which is, yeah, I know, kind of annoying, but whatever. We live with that. The discussion after our monologues. That's the only thing that's missing there. So if you can't afford it, just do that, guys.

No big deal. But with the premium subscribers and the Supercast technology, which is actually really cool. And by the way, the guys there have been behind us. They believed in us from the beginning. Extraordinarily helpful when we were having launch day issues. They were there with us. They're helping us handle all of these types of things. So shout out to them. But with the premium subscription, you get the full thing with no ads, including our conversations and all of that, in a private RSS feed that you can listen to now on any of the major platforms.

Previously was any of them except for Spotify. Which I know. Which was a pain because a lot of them except for Spotify. Which I know. Which was a pain because a lot of you guys love Spotify. I get it. So now there's no longer that caveat. You can listen on any of the platforms. It's a big step forward for us. We're really excited about it.

Thanks to Spotify for working with us to make that happen. Thank you, Spotify. But, you know, we keep trying to improve things bit by bit here and continue to think about ways that we can make this the best possible experience for you guys. Because we love you guys. That's right. We believe in you. We love you.

We are so grateful you give us hope in this country. Truly. It's true. You make us believe that it's all going to be okay in the end. So, anyway, excited to bring this little piece of good news to you guys. We love you so much. And we'll have more for you later. Stay tuned.

We've got some even more bigger announcements. It's coming soon. All right. We'll see you guys soon. Thanks for listening to the show, guys. We really appreciate it. To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

It really helps other people find the show. As always, a special thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to crystalandsauger.com. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there.

Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices,

and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.