The Young Turks - House of Cards

Episode Date: May 9, 2024

Biden pauses arms shipment to Israel ahead of assault on Rafah. Kerem Shalom crossing reopened, Israel says, but the U.N. says aid still holds up. Republicans mock Marjorie Greene after vote to oust Mike Johnson fails miserably. ""Blackstone has misled investors."" Has the world's largest private-equity firm built a $114 billion house of cards? " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. I'm so upset. Oh my God.

Begat! Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a massive show with lots of late-breaking news to share with you today. Later in the program, we'll talk about how Marjorie Green decided to call the Republican Party's bluff today and call for a vote of no confidence on House Speaker Mike Johnson. We'll be covering that and some of the pretty intense criticisms that members of the Republican Party had for Marjorie Taylor Green. It turns out when it comes to funneling our taxpayer money to defense contractors, there is a united front with both parties fighting against anyone in Congress who dare question any military spending for wars abroad. So we're going to get to that later in the show. Obviously, we have some updates on the war on Gaza and some of the fallout following Israel's unwillingness to accept a ceasefire deal.

Allegedly, negotiations are still ongoing. We'll get into those details. In the first hour, we're also going to talk a little bit about how one of the biggest and most successful private equity firms in America is being accused of manipulating and potentially even defrauding some of their investors. It is a big story that I think has been kind of playing out under the radar. And I want to give you all details about that. One of their biggest investors in a fund, that they've created is actually the University of California system. So we're going to get to that in the first hour. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me to talk about a whole host of stories. We're going to have a little bit of fun. Of course, we're also going to give you some

updates on the many trials that Donald Trump is facing, or now that I think about it, might not be facing after all. And I'll tell you why. So stick around for the second hour of the show as well. And as always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream. watching us live on YouTube. So great free way to help spread the word about our show and what we do here at TYT. You can also become a member by going to tYT.com slash join or smash that join button if you're watching us live on YouTube. All right, without further ado, let's get into some updates on Gaza. You know, if there's an American help or somebody else being held, there's every expectation

that Americans come and kill them as well. Yeah, that was Republican congressman Brian Mast, literally calling on American soldiers to risk their lives to free American hostages who are held captive by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Now, of course, he doesn't want to fight in that effort himself, and he certainly doesn't want to stop supplying Israel with the 2,000 pound bombs that they're dropping on Gaza, which very likely has killed hostages and could have potentially killed American hostages if they haven't already. But that is what Brian Mass wants to do. He wants to risk the lives of the men and women in our armed services in order to free the hostages. He's willing to sacrifice Americans in a way that Israel's unwilling to do, that's for sure. Now, with that said, the White House has been nearly as absurd, but Israel's decision to move forward with its assault on Rafa shows that the White House might have finally experienced a red line, a genuine red line, because there are all these stories littered across the news today about how the Biden administration has halted weapons shipments to Israel. Now I want to be clear that this might just be smoke and mirrors. I'll explain why, but first let me give you the details as it's being reported. So the shipment being prepared for delivery to Israel last week, which has now been halted,

included 1,800, 2,000-pound bombs and 1,500-pound bombs. The Biden administration is reviewing other planned transfers that are not set to ship imminently a White House officials said, that pertains to 6,500 joint direct attack munitions, which convert free fall dumb bombs into precision guided weapons. Now, anonymous White House sources also confirmed in interviews with the Washington Post that the pause in weapons deliveries to Israel is, in fact, meant to reevaluate our military support for the Israeli defense forces after Netanyahu decided to basically invade Rafa against the wishes of the Biden administration. John Hudson writes in the Washington Post, Israel should not launch a major ground invasion

in Rafa where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere to go, said a senior administration official, explaining the U.S. decision to pause the weapons shipments, quote, We are especially focused on the end use of the 2,000 pound bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza. Now look, the reason why there's this panic in regard to a ground invasion in Rafa is because of the fact that you have more than a million. Some reports indicate as many as 1.5 million displaced Palestinians sheltering in this tiny, tiny, tiny, stretch of land. And you have to keep in mind, Gaza was already densely populated. Now you have a densely populated region of the world, the population within that region,

basically getting displaced into an even smaller stretch of land. And so dropping 2,000 pound bombs in Rafa, doing a ground invasion in Rafa, will take a war that has already seen a disproportionate number of innocent civilian slaughtered, and basically put that terrible atrocity on steroids. You're going to see a lot more innocent people killed. Biden knows, I don't know how immoral Biden finds that, to be quite honest with you, because Biden has stood by Israel regardless of what Israel has wanted to do. But I think Biden has also realized that there are some real political ramifications

associated with endless commitment to Israel, regardless of how it carries out this war. So he might be trying to have his cake and eat it too here because there hasn't really been a final decision made on these weapons. The weapons could very well still be sent to Israel. This is just a pause. Let's just keep it real. And then not only that, you have to keep in mind that Israel has already been flooded with so many weapons, thanks to the United States, that a simple pause in weapons isn't going to stop them from invading Rafa. And in fact, I want you to hear from a Lakud party official. I'm sure you've heard of her before.

Her name is Tal Gottlieb. She had some threats for the United States and Gaza, following word that the Biden administration is pausing weapon shipments to Israel. Let's watch. Arsautauteroyem, she'll not let's tell us, tili medouiacing. Walla, there's new hearts of the Brit. There's not tilling no medoyakim.

And there's not the right to gondent. So, maybe in a time to use in a time to use in

a specific, I'm using in the not meduoying and I push at

10 bigni bignanem. 10 bignaniam. 10 binioning. That's what

I'm doing. So for our audio listeners, she threatened to drop bombs and collapse 10 buildings instead of

use precision guided munitions as retaliation for the United States doing this pause on the weapons delivery. So she's threatening to kill civilians in Gaza. She's specifically referring to buildings in Gaza that she will intentionally bomb and collapse in order to send the United States and the taxpayers, by the way, who are funding these weapons for Israel, a message.

I mean, look, I've said this before, I'm going to say it again, the thing that really gets under my skin, especially as an American who sees the real pain and suffering that Americans in this country are going through and the neglect that they've experienced by our government, right? When I see this sense of entitlement from other countries about how we must fund their wars or how we must give them weapons, like they are entitled to our taxpayer money, that infuriates me beyond words, okay? And it should infuriate every American beyond words, because that taxpayer money didn't just fall from trees. That is money that we pay into the system that is supposed to improve our lives. I don't know, have you guys experienced your lives improve? Have you experienced your hard-earned taxpayer money being redirected back to your community, to your state, to your country, to make it better for yourself and for your fellow Americans? That is the thing that frustrates me.

And then for her to turn around in that angry, entitled tone and threatened to kill more innocent civilians if Israel doesn't get its way is just, but you know, the college protesters are the bad guys, and we need to have endless house hearings about that in order to virtue signal to A-PAC that our members of Congress are fully on board with anything and everything Israel wants. But let's move on, because there are some more details, as reported by the Washington Post, in regard to the pause in weapon shipments. A second U.S. official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, described the move as a shot across the bow intended to underscore to Israel or Israeli leaders the seriousness

of U.S. concerns about the offensive in Rafa, where an estimated 1.5 million displaced Palestinians are amassed or massed in camps near Gaza's border with Egypt. But again, don't feel too pleased with the Biden administration yet. Let's wait and see how this all really plays out because there is a possibility that they're just going to go ahead and green light the weapons shipment after all. And the United States, as I mentioned earlier, has flooded Israel with so many weapons that this pause really has no impact in regard to a ground invasion and Rafa. The Israeli military has enough weapons supplied by the U.S. and other partners to conduct the Rafa operation if it chooses to cast aside U.S. objections. And you have to keep in mind, there are conflicting objectives here when it comes to Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to hold on to power by keeping this war going as long as possible.

Biden wants the war to end because it is hurting him electorally with his key voters, with the Democratic base. Also, none of the pauses applied to the billions of dollars in additional Israel aid passed by Congress last month. With regard to that, the Biden administration just approved $827 million worth of weapons and equipment for Israel. in the latest tranche of foreign military financing. So in other words, this could very likely be smoke and mirrors. And it could be a more strategic attempt by the Biden administration to garner favor among Democratic voters who have been just absolutely disgusted with how this war has been carried out in Gaza, with the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza, and with the fact that the Biden administration really hasn't used any leverage to get a, belligerent Netanyahu under control as he continues to conduct this war in a way that has led to the highest number of civilian casualties as possible. So with that all in mind, knowing that

Israel has more than enough weaponry already to carry out their ground offensive in Rafah, I want you to listen to a very panicky, like lunatic in the Senate. This is Senator Lindsey Graham, who is heavily funded by weapons contractors, weapons manufacturers. There isn't a war this man hasn't loved. There isn't a war this man hasn't wanted to fund. And so during a Senate hearing today, he decided to go off on Lloyd Austin and give this insane statement. Let's watch. This is obscene. It is absurd.

Give Israel what they need to fight the war they can't afford to lose. This is Hiroshima and Nagasaki on steroids. This is Hiroshima and Nagasaki on steroids. That is what Lindsay Graham said. During an official Senate hearing today in regard to the Biden administration, just briefly pausing weapons shipments to Israel, a country that has been flooded with American-made weapons, I mean, for a long time, but that's been put on steroids.

Okay, you want to talk about. steroids. That whole weapon shipment process has been put on steroids ever since this current war started on October 7th. Now Biden is also hoping that a ceasefire will be reached before Israel intensivize its invasion into Rafa. And I want to be clear, the assault on Rafa has already begun. So the news reports, they're like, oh, Biden's hoping that Israel doesn't, you know, do an invasion into Rafa. They've already begun bombing Rafa. There's footage of it. Like, Let's not pretend like this hasn't already begun. Yesterday it was reported that Israel also took control of the Rafa border crossing,

which has been an incredibly critical area in which humanitarian aid has entered. It typically enters through the Rafa border crossing, but it's not been shut down since Israel has taken control of it. And as a result, humanitarian aid has come to a crashing halt. All the fuel that entered Gaza went through Rafa crossing. said Jeremy Kondinik, who is the president of refugees international. The whole aid operation runs on fuel. So if the fuel is cut off, the humanitarian operation collapses. Water can't be pumped. Lights cannot be kept on in hospitals or whatever remains of hospitals in the Gaza

strip. Vehicles cannot distribute aid. Now Israel shut the Ratha border crossing and today claimed that they have opened the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. And I want to be clear, Israel ended up shutting down that border crossing after Hamas targeted it with some strikes. They killed four Israeli soldiers. And yeah, that was a stupid move because, of course, Israel is going to shut down that border crossing in retaliation for that. Now, Israel is claiming that they have since opened that border crossing, but humanitarian aid organizations claim that is not true. Kareem Shalom, a crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip was reopened Wednesday, Israel said. But the UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, says that basically it was impassable, right?

Palestinian refugees said it was impassable. There were other humanitarian aid organizations who said similar things, and if you look at footage of the humanitarian aid trucks that are just stalled in a long, long line outside of that border crossing, you'll see evidence of what these humanitarian aid organizations are claiming. The World Health Organization said Wednesday that with fuel unable to enter through Rafa, hospitals in southern Gaza only have three days of fuel left. Now cut that down to two days because that was a statement that they made just yesterday. And so the situation in Gaza has now worsened. Obviously, the very slow trickle of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip was already a problem. Now it has come to a screeching halt. There is a full-blown famine in the northern half of the Gaza Strip. In fact, Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife made that clear during an interview over the weekend. and she's not some hippie-dippy progressive.

She's someone who married a warhawk like John McCain and is absolutely horrified at what she is seeing on the ground in Gaza, including in the north, where there is now a full-blown famine. So those are your updates on what's currently transpiring in Gaza. It's absolutely heartbreaking. And I don't really think that Netanyahu is genuinely interested in engaging in good faith ceasefire talks because that would mean an end to the war. And an end to the war means having to be confronted with your own constituents who have

been very aggressively protesting Benjamin Netanyahu even before this current war began. I mean, with the attempt to disempower the judicial branch of the Israeli government, You had mass protests in Israel. You have Benjamin Nanyahu facing very serious corruption charges. He doesn't want to face that. And he certainly doesn't want to face the consequences of his failure to keep Israelis safe on October 7th. So I think anyone who has fooled themselves into thinking that these ceasefire talks or Israel's participation in these ceasefire talks are actually done in good faith, you just have to wake up to what the motivating factors are for Netanyahu specifically.

It's about political power. It's about not wanting to face the consequences for his own actions. And that's really running counter to what is best in releasing the hostages, doing what's right for the Israeli citizens, and also doing what's right to protect as many human lives, civilian lives in the Gaza Strip. So there you have it. That's your update. I also want to just address one thing before we go to break. And I've been debating whether or not I address this. Sorry, I have an eyelash in my eye, just drive me crazy. But I'm going to do it because it was something I was confronted with yesterday that was so deeply insulting, not just to me, but to my team, the people who work hard every single day to put this show.

together. So someone who's been a longtime viewer of the show, someone who I've communicated to directly put something out online about how, oh, you know, it's real nice that Anna and Jenk are passionate in defending Palestinian lives and everything. But I mean, does it really matter when they have a Zionist working for them? Okay. Basically this viewer says that the work that we do, do as individuals on the main show does not matter because we happen to have one contributor that they disagree with on the network. One. So rather than judging individuals on an individual basis, rather than hearing what individuals have to say about this very serious topic and judge those individuals individually, this person has decided to totally trash my team.

and the work that we do because, again, they don't like one person. And so this is the kind of toxic purity testing that I see going on that I want no part of. And if you're going to come to us after the torture we put ourselves through every single day to watch all of that, like heartbreaking footage, you guys don't know. And look, you don't know what it's like to sit alone in front of your computer, literally all day long, watching these horrific videos, consuming this horrific content in order to research and produce the kinds of stories that we do for you guys, right? And then hear that that hard work doesn't matter because there's one person on the network

that individuals disagree with. If you're going to insult my team over that purity nonsense, don't watch the show. I don't want you in the audience. If you are not capable of judging people individually and if you are going to take a massive crap on the hard work that we put in every single day because you disagree with one person, I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Do not watch the show. That's it. It's that simple. I want smart people. I want adults. I want critical thinkers watching the show. But more importantly, I want. I want people. I want adults. I want critical thinkers watching the show. But more importantly, I want, I want people who actually respect the hard work that my producers put into this show every day. And if you're not going to do that, you don't get my respect. And you don't get me crying over you threatening not to watch the show. We got to take a break. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian with you. Let's get right to our next story, a late-breaking story that ended up being a bit of an embarrassment for Marjorie Taylor Green. The form of the resolution is as follows, declaring the office of Speaker of the House representatives to be vacant. This is the uniparty for the American people watching. Much to the disgust of her Republican colleagues, Marjorie Taylor Green today, just a few hours ago, filed a motion to oust Speaker Mike Johnson. Now, there were some questions as to whether Congresswoman Green was going to do this, especially considering the fact that you have Democrats who are willing to vote to protect. Mike Johnson. After all, he did secure military funding for Ukraine, for Israel. These are the things that Marjorie Green has taken issue with. And it appears that Democrats have

made good on their promise. They did in fact protect House Speaker Mike Johnson. And so a vote has already happened. Mike Johnson is safe. The vote was 359 to 43. Now, you heard how she got interrupted as she was calling for a motion to vacate House Speaker Mike Johnson, a deeply conservative House Speaker that Democrats just voted to protect. Well, there's this incredible thing really transpiring right now with the Republican Party with like a long list of Republican lawmakers who are willing to say some pretty vicious things about Marjorie Green over her discussed with this military funding that's being allocated to wars abroad. So, Let's take a look at how they treated her as she was calling for the motion to vacate over and over again.

Develop and grow our majority by building upon our resources and expanding. He instead led us to another CR on January 18th, 2024 and got it passed with the support of 207 Democrats. All Democrat members of the committee voted to advance the measure to the floor. While removing this uniparty speaker will not give the speaker's gavel to the Democrats, which would only happen if Republicans actually vote for Hakeem Jeffries. So that happened on the House floor. As she was speaking, there was also a press conference with Republican lawmakers taking place. And they lined up one by one to basically taunt Marjorie Taylor Green, argue that she's an agent of chaos. One member of Congress even referred to her as Moscow Marge over her objections to further funding Ukraine's defense against Russia. By the way, Ukraine has lost two more territories and that followed the United States appropriating more money to that war effort, just something I thought I would bring up since it's not

really something the US press wants to focus on in order to encourage our government to keep funding a war that seems to have no real end in sight. But nonetheless, there is this very real civil war playing out within the Republican Party, Although only 43 people voted along with Marjorie Green, or 42, 43 including Marjorie Green in order to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson. So when Marjorie Green refers to it as a uniparty, I think when it comes to military funding, it very much is a union, unit party. And I think that she might have diluted herself, as Democrats have, deluded themselves in the past, in thinking that there were members in her own party who actually had objection. with funding forever wars, or wars happening outside of the United States, having nothing to do with the United States.

And so Green Trial tried and failed to get Johnson to bent to her will before calling to ouster him. Her move came after a two-day stretch of meetings this week with Johnson, in which she tried to negotiate a series of demands in exchange for not calling the ouster vote. Among the demands were cutting off all future USA to Ukraine defunding the Justice Department and imposing a 1% across the board cut on all spending bills if lawmakers are unable to negotiate a deal to fund the government in September. Now, that attempt had zero chance of succeeding, as reported by NBC News. Johnson allies plan to immediately move to table or kill Greens vacate motion to GOP

sources said. Now, obviously, this was before the vote took place. It's already been killed, as I mentioned earlier. But Johnson's GOP allies are in a strong position to beat back Green's efforts, given that Democratic leader said on April 30th, that their rank and file members will help dismiss Green's motion to vacate the Speaker's chair. So one other thing I should note is that while Marjorie Green was on the House floor calling for a motion to vacate, apparently, According to the New York Times, Republicans lined up on the House floor to shake Johnson's hand and pat him on the back. It's like, thanks, buddy. You worked real hard to ensure that we could deliver to our defense contractors. You really, really did us a solid. We've got your back. Yes, the Uniparty stands tall. Okay. So they're doing that as Marjorie Green is calling for a motion to vacate. And look, Marjorie Green, I find to be an incredibly. unsavory person. And sometimes she doesn't think through what she's doing or saying.

Okay, I'm trying to be as generous to her as possible in how I word this because I do think that it's important to have members of Congress who actually have some interest in pumping the breaks when it comes to military funding for other war efforts outside of the United States. Okay, yes, I'm talking about Ukraine, yes, I'm talking about Israel. I'm certainly a lot more open to helping Ukraine, but I'm not open to a blank check with no end in sight. And no one's asking any questions about what is the plan? Is it really feasible for Ukraine to win this war? And if so, how? Like, these are legitimate questions. These are finite resources that are being funneled not just to Ukraine or

to Israel. Like, let's keep it real. This is a sneaky way to redistribute distribute wealth from the bottom to the top, from U.S. taxpayers to weapons manufacturers. So when we talk about things like the Israel lobby, as it pertains to our funding of this war on Gaza, it's not just about what the Israel lobby wants, which of course consists of evangelicals and all sorts of religious zealots who think all sorts of crazy things about what that land is really meant for. No, no, it's also about how the money that gets allocated for these war efforts ends up being funneled straight into the pockets of the weapons manufacturers and the defense contractors. So I like the fact that she's willing to question these things. You know,

smearing her as Moscow Marge is laughable to say the least. Honestly, I haven't really seen much from Marjorie Green to indicate that she's a loyalist to Putin or Russia. But she does seem to have a problem, as many on the America first side say, you know, the voters at least say, that, hey, you know what? We actually do want to improve our country with the resources that we are paying into taxes. Can we please do a little more of that and a little less of funding wars abroad? I think that's a legitimate point. But it is interesting how you'll see members of both sides of the aisle come together to squash any member of Congress who has an issue with the blank checks for wars abroad. And look, I get that a lot of people in the

audience think that the effort to help Ukraine is a noble one and they're fully on board, fully in favor. And I totally get that perspective. I just don't think there's really a plan in place or a genuine assessment to see if Ukraine has a chance of winning this war. They keep losing territory and we're allocating hundreds of billions of dollars to that effort. And, you know, the longer it goes on and the more territory Ukraine loses, the more I start to wonder, hey, those reports that came out a year ago indicating that the U.S. didn't want Ukraine to engage in peace negotiations because they wanted this war or to use this war to weaken Russia. It looks like there might be some credibility to that argument or to those reports. Anyway, I just hate seeing all these innocent people dying. I think that people are also right in noting that maybe the opportunity for peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are over.

Because in the beginning, Russia was losing the war and was definitely much more open to engaging in peace talks. I don't think Putin's really interested anymore. He's now winning the war. So I don't know what the real solution is, but I don't have any problem with any lawmaker, whether they're a Democrat or Republican calling into question whether allocating this money for war efforts make sense. So she lost today, she lost big time. And I think it's a big wake-up call for her. But I do wonder what the ramifications will be for the Democratic Party. I wonder what the ramifications will be for Republicans who basically did what they needed to do to protect House Speaker Mike Johnson.

For Democrats, they were fearmongering about Mike Johnson as soon as he was elected into that leadership role. Oh, he's a religious sell it. He's dangerous for the country. Oh, my God, we can't believe it. We're in so much trouble with him as the House Speaker. But we're going to vote to protect him from getting ousted? I don't know. Are Democratic voters going to care about that? They might not, they might not even be fully aware of what went down today, depending on how this story is reported or how it's framed to the the press. But there's that side and then there's also the Republican side who will have to essentially deal with confrontations from Republican voters who have grown increasingly disgusted with what the U.S. is willing to fund in wars abroad. So we'll see what the fallout is going to be if there's any fallout at all. But I do think that there are voters on both sides of the political aisle who are calling the military funding into question. And more importantly,

are calling the uniparty feel that we have in this country as it pertains to certain political issues. They're calling that into question. And I'm glad to see that they are because I do think that's a problem, especially in a democracy when voters are supposed to have actual options. When it comes to war funding, when it comes to what the state department is up to, it certainly does feel like we don't have many options. Seems like both parties are usually in cahoots. Hungry now. Now? What about now?

Whenever it hits you, wherever you are, grab an O. Henry bar to satisfy your hunger. With its delicious combination of big, crunchy, salty peanuts covered in creamy caramel and chewy fudge with a chocolatey coating. Swing by a gas station. Oh, Henry today. Oh, hungry, oh, Henry. All right.

Let's move on to one more story before we take a break. Sorry, Kate. I just, I really want to get this out. All right. This story's a little bit out of left field, but it caught my attention, and I thought that it was fascinating to say the least. the least. It's really running under the radar. So is the private equity firm Blackstone misleading or even potentially defrauding their investors? Well, financial analysts and hedge fund

managers seem to imply that the firm is maybe doing that when it comes to one of the real estate investment vehicles they offer to investors. Now, the average investor in this investor, in this investment vehicle contributes about $70,000 to it. So when you think of private equity firms, obviously you think of like super wealthy people, but they've been marketing this investment vehicle to some normal everyday investors. $70,000 obviously is a lot of money. I'm not minimizing that.

But to me, that sounds more like people are looking for something to invest, like some of their nest egg in for retirement. It's not like they're putting in, you know, an average of a million dollars or more. But this real estate investment vehicle is called B-Rite. And the problem is a huge portion of that portfolio is heavily invested in risky real estate. I'm talking about commercial real estate like office buildings, warehouses, retail buildings. And if you look at what the economy is basically showing us as it pertains to commercial

real estate, it's a really bad investment. But something really strange is happening because B-Rite has been showing impressive returns while the rest of the economy is showing massive dips in commercial real estate. So look, it all started as a huge success. As Business Insider rights by offering an annual dividend of about 4% in a world where interest rates were close to zero, B-Rite quickly became a giant. At its peak in 2021, the fund was attracting as much as $3 billion a month in new investments. Today, B-Reed boasts of $114 billion, about 8% of Blackstone's entire fee earning assets, and has generated over $5 billion. in management and performance fees.

Now understand how these private equity firms work, right? Private equity firms allow for investors to invest in private businesses or private entities. These are investments that you cannot make through the publicly traded stock market, right? And so there are certain regulations that impact the stock market that do not impact the investment, investment vehicles offered by private equity firms. So something definitely seems off. So despite the commercial real estate industry getting like totally battered by high interest rates and the impact of the pandemic, all of a sudden you're noticing the opposite

is happening with Blackstone and the B-Rate offering they have for investors. In fact, since its inception, the fund has delivered an annualized net return of 10.5% and that's double the index of publicly traded REITs. And REITs are basically investment funds having to do with real estate. Now, to be fair, the fund did crash temporarily when interest rates began to rise. And this is back in 2022, investors got super panicky about it. And they tried to cash out of B REIT. So in the fall of 2022, after the Fed's interest rate increases began to shake the commercial real estate market, investors began asking for their money back. More than 50, $15 billion to date, faced with a run on the fund, Blackstone cited a provision that allowed

it to take its time refunding antsy investors, a decision that only served to further alarm the markets. They didn't have the liquidity to pay the investors when they wanted to cash out of the investment vehicle, which is not a good sign. So shares in Blackstone tumbled nearly 20%. Last year, though, B-Reat failed to generate enough cash to cover its annual dividend. But it did rebound, especially in recent months, which is a red flag. Because again, commercial real estate has not improved in the last few months. B-Reed announced it was able to fulfill 100% of its repurchase requests. It received in February, which had slowed to just under $1 billion. Amid the promise of a rebound, Blackstone stock has gained

almost 50% from its lows. Quote, I believe we'll look back at 2023 as the cyclical bottom for our firm. Steve Schwartzman, Blackstone CEO, told analysts at an earnings call in January. But what's really going on? How did it rebound? How does that make any sense when commercial real estate has not rebounded? And by the way, let's take a quick look at what the portfolio for B-Reed looks like. What are they invested in?

So look, as you can tell, they do have some sound investments here. I mean, sound for investors, not so sound for people looking to protect affordable housing. Because overall, housing makes up 53% of the real estate in B.Reed's portfolio. And that is a solid investment considering rent and the price of housing has really gone up. And that translates to major gains for these investors. But that's not the case with the rest of this portfolio because the rest of the fund mostly invests in riskier real estate like industrial buildings, offices, data centers, and retail. Now considering that's the type of real estate that has, in fact, taken a sharp dip in value

in recent years, how exactly is Blackstone able to continue boasting such impressive returns? Well, this is where Bethany McLean, who's a journalist over at Business Insider, comes in. She starts asking some tough questions. And for her story, she spoke to all sorts of experts to try to get a handle on what's happening here. You know, she spoke to veteran analysts, accountants, and investors. And they're all under the impression that Beerite is a risky bet, which is why hedge fund manager, Nate Copacar, shorted Beirite.

And he says this, it is the absolute definition of a Ponzi scheme. Unless the real estate market comes roaring back, analysts warn, B-Reed could end up shrinking to a fraction of its current size, leaving the funds investors holding the back. And guess what? One of the bigger investors is the University of California system, which dedicated $4 billion of their endowment to this investment. investment vehicle. So let's take a listen to Blackstone Group president and C.O. Jonathan Gray discussing the UC investment on Bloomberg just last year. This is a big win for us. It's a big win for

B-Reed. It's a big win for the University of California who's making this investment. $4 billion of common stock into B-Rite with a minimum effective hold period of six years. But that's not the full story because Blackstone actually had to sweeten the pot in order to convince the UC system to invest in B-RE. Take a look. You know, one thing about this investment, as far as the terms go, they do have a preferred minimum return that they're going to be getting. It's something that's guaranteed to them. Why wouldn't another average investor look at this and say that's preferential treatment? So, the way to think about this transaction is they're actually coming in as a common shareholder

at the B-Reed level with this $4 billion fresh investment. They're taking that investment, and then we're taking a billion dollars of our existing holdings and putting it in this strategic venture. It does give them a minimum return. It gives us some upside participation. Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on though. If Beery has impressive returns, why would Blackstone need to sweeten the deal for the UC system by guaranteeing them a minimum return?

If it is a portfolio that's performing so well, I mean, wouldn't you have to fight institutions and investors off who want to invest in the fund? Now Blackstone went even further to attract the UC system than what was communicated in that video. According to reporting the to entice the university to invest, Blackstone had offered it a special deal. B-Rite agreed to award the university an additional one billion dollars in stock in the event that the funds rate of return fell below 11.25%. The deal was so sweet that UC's board of regents quickly agreed to invest another 500 million dollars on the same terms. But Financial analyst Craig McCann told Business Insider, this is not a good sign.

Quote, contrary to Blackstone spin, the University of California investment strongly supports the view that Beerite is a terrible investment. Okay, so McCann made himself clear, by the way, he used to work as an economist for the Securities and Exchange Commission. He also wrote last year that investors should not accept anything that Blackstone and Beardt state as truthful. He says, quote, surveying some of the ways that Blackstone has misled investors over the past five months, we are more convinced than ever that Beardt is a bad investment created for the benefit of Blackstone. And remember, since we're talking about an investment vehicle offered to regular people by Blackstone, a private equity firm, The fund is not publicly traded and does not have to abide by similar rules that companies traded on the stock market would have to. And as a result, it's impossible to know what the true value of B-Reed actually is.

So B-Reed's returns, by the way, are based on a measure called net asset value or NAV. Okay. So NAV is calculated, but using the value of all of the assets that the fund owns minus the debt, okay, the debt liability. Now, B-Reat doesn't let investors or regulators see some of the crucial assumptions that go into the calculations they make for NAV. And as B-Reed's financial documents state, Blackstone is ultimately and solely responsible for the determination of our NAV. The methods used to calculate it are not prescribed by rules of the SEC or any other regulatory agency and the NAV is not audited by our independent registered public accounting firm. And that is a problem, a huge problem. And so you have analysts saying there's a lot of misleading stuff going on over at Blackstone in regard to this investment vehicle.

Chilton Capital Management analyzed the way that Blackstone adjusts the value of B-Reat and how those changes are reflected in their estimates, in their analysis. rather than being marked to market every day or every millisecond, like public reits, Blackstone adjusts its nav on a monthly basis. In today's volatile real estate market, that means its stated value can lag way behind reality. It inherently is a flawed process when prices are changing quickly, Schilton Capital Management observes. We refer to this imperfect appraisal process as mark to magic. And going back to McCann in a second, I just want to note that Chilton has concluded just this past April that B-Rite is overstating the value of its nav by more than 55%.

McCann, who we heard from earlier, reached a similar conclusion. He calculated that the cumulative returns of other funds in the sectors in which B-Rite is concentrated, meaning like real estate, commercial real estate. plunged by over 30% in 2022, yet Beery claimed that its value increased during the same period. In the dry language of market analysts, McCann called the fund's claims about its nav unreliable. And there are other shady things at play that you should know about. So Blackstone is absolutely incentivized to overvalue its nav because of the fact that, you know, the higher that number is, the more they can charge investors' fees. It's a textbook example of conflict of interest. Robert Chang, the head of securities litigation at Fideras, a consulting firm that specializes in investigating corporate wrongdoing, wrote in a piece about

B.Rite. Fideras calculates that since early 2022, the funds nav per share has remained relatively stable while public reits have lost more than 30% of their value. If B. Reets assets are indeed overvalued, Fideras estimates, estimates investors may have overpaid management and performance fees to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. So there is a conflict of interest there when it comes to Blackstone overstating the value of this investment vehicle. And perhaps the most damning line in this business insider report is the following. Many of the data centers Blackstone says have already created so much value for the fund aren't even up and running yet. They're still in development. You know, growing up, my dad would tell me, don't invest in the

stock market. You thought that it was evil for a whole host of reasons. I mean, look, that was not good advice. But this is the kind of stuff that he was referring to. Because if you're an ordinary investor, you worked real hard, you've got a, you know, okay nest egg and you're hoping you could live off of that. Imagine investing it in some risky vehicle like this as you're being potentially lied to about the value. So we'll see how this story develops, but it's not looking good for those who have decided to invest in B-Rite, especially given what we're noticing in other areas of our economy, or not even other areas of our economy, but other investors vehicles that are heavily invested in commercial real estate.

Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you. I've got a lot of stories to get to. So I'm not sure which one I'm going to want to share with you all, but I promise it's going to be good. So come right back. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going?

I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now and get a free chili dog. Chilly dog not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. is a network with integrity. I'm an ex-mainstream media follower. Thanks to you, Jank, John, and TYT. We're so happy to have you, Kina. I hope you enjoy the show today, and every day we do it in the future. All right, well, let's give you all some updates on, well, it's not really about some of the trials that Trump is involved in. It's more about Trump losing his mind over some of the coverage, which deserves its own critique, to be sure.

Anyway, let's just get to the story. Donald Trump was the only man on that golf course that day who did something stupid enough to land him in the defendant's chair in a courtroom today for the $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about what happened next. But Lawrence, did we really need the slow motion Ken Burns' zoom in effect on Donald Trump? Like why? Why did they go in that direction? But nonetheless, that was Lawrence O'Donnell, who spent his recent shows recounting literally every last detail about Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial in New York. And it seems to have gotten under Trump's skin because late last night he posted the following on truth social. I spotted rating. This is not funny. Okay, I want to be clear and preface this by saying this is not funny. I spotted ratings challenged Lawrence O'Donnell

of MSDNC in the courthouse today. I haven't seen him in years. He looks like crap, a real loser. And then he signs off with his initials, DJT. Thanks Trump. Didn't know who it was until you You made that clear. Now, anyway, listen, Lawrence O'Donnell was clearly proud of the fact that he triggered Donald Trump. He responded by saying Trump posted this right after my show tonight. Must have been something I said. And look, we don't know which part of his program set Trump off specifically. But I do think it's worth watching a little bit of Lawrence O'Donnell's coverage because he did, in fact, dedicate his entire show last night. to the trial, which I don't know. Am I wrong for thinking that's crazy, especially given everything that's happening in the country and around the world right now? Like sometimes because of how long Jank and I discuss a specific story related to the war in Gaza, the whole first hour will end up being taken up by that story. And I actually end up feeling bad about that because there's so many other news stories I think we need to talk about and get to. But the

idea of intentionally dedicating the full hour of your new show to the hush money trial. I just think that that's too much. But he spent the opening monologue recapping Stormy Daniels's testimony yesterday, which for some reason he began with a very long, and yes, creepy description of her appearance. I don't know why he thought it was a good idea, but this is what it sounded like. She entered wearing all black as if on her way to a funeral. The loose fitting, plain black clothing draping from her shoulders to her toes suggested the modesty of a nun. The makeup was minimal. The way she and the other moms and her neighborhood might look when shopping at the local grocery store. The long blonde hair held up with a clip at the back of her head. The way it might be

in a utilitarian way while she was doing dishes or checking one of the horseshoes on her horse. She later spoke of so proudly. When she walked by him, her face had the same expressionless somber look that all the jurors always have when they walk by him looking at the floor. For most of Stormy Daniels testimony, she was wearing professorial eyeglasses that created even more of remove from the image of adult actress. I, but why? But why? I mean, look, I'm not his EP. I'm not his executive producer, and I don't call the shots for his show. But if I did, I'd say, you know, instead of that super slow, lengthy and creepy description of Stormy Daniels' appearance,

everything from like the loose fitting black dress she was wearing to, I don't know, something about horseshoes. How about you cover a different story? Like dedicate maybe like, you know, five minutes of your nightly news program to other news that's happening in the country and around the world. But anyway, he went on to mention how the judge, Judge Juan Mershon, admonished Trump for audibly cursing in the courtroom during Stormy Daniels' testimony. and argued that Trump's lawyers did not do a good job with Stormy Daniels' testimony.

Although Stormy Daniels was so detailed in some of her testimony yesterday that the defense is actually a little giddy about it because they're planning on poking holes in her story during cross-examination in order to destroy her credibility. But guys, the other thing, and Jenk and I talked about this a little bit yesterday, but I want to reemphasize what we were saying. Stormy Daniels literally knows nothing about the charges that Trump is facing in this case. She doesn't know about the falsified documents, how they were falsified, so she can't speak to that. The only reason why she was able to testify in this case is because Trump still denies that he had a sexual encounter with her, which is ridiculous. Everyone knows

he did, including his own supporters. So if he had just fessed up to that, then the prosecution would probably get, you know, rejected if they had requested Stormy Daniels to testify. Because the only thing she testified about was their sexual relationship, which does nothing to help prove the charges against Trump. And the charge against Trump is that he falsified documents in order to cover up the crime of Michael Cohen paying the hush money payment, right? Anyway, regardless of what did it, Trump was definitely triggered by Lawrence O'Donnell's coverage last night. And this apparently isn't the first time Lawrence O'Donnell has gotten under Trump's skin.

And in today's era of politics, this is what people are looking for, triggering the other side, right? The MAGA supporters, team MAGA, they want to trigger the libs. You have Lawrence O'Donnell trying to trigger Trump and succeeding apparently. last week, O'Donnell also attended some of Trump's trial in New York, and observers noticed Trump glaring at O'Donnell and muttering as he left court, which the host talked about on his show that night. Let's take a look. Well, at 4.26 p.m. today, Maggie Haberman posted this to the New York Times live update of the Trump trial reporting from inside the courtroom. Trump left the courtroom, squinting

strangely, at Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC host, as he did. Adam Klassfeld, who has been in the courtroom for us every day, reported that same moment this way. As he exits, Trump turns his head directly at Lawrence, glowers and mutters under his breath. I was sitting right next to him, meaning right next to me. It was my first time in the Trump trial courtroom, and it seems Donald Trump wasn't really pleased to see me. When our news media treats politics like it's nothing more than a blood sport, then politics becomes nothing more than a blood sport.

And we don't actually think about how to hold the right people accountable for their actions or how to work together with those we disagree with in order to accomplish common goals. I think about where we are as a country politically and we're more divided than ever, at least on the surface, because of how these stories are covered, because of how even when it comes to these trials, and I do think that especially when it comes to the handling of classified documents and the fake elector scheme with the election interference case, I do believe that consequences should be paid for those actions. However, the way that these cases are talked about in corporate media, I think cheapens the whole process and puts the idea and the heads of

Americans that this is all just politically motivated and nothing more. And I think that does a disservice to the country, disservice to our legal system and disservice to journalistic media overall. Because if that's what people think of when they think of journalistic media, I just think we're in a lot of trouble. Like focus on the facts. Don't make the story about yourself. The fact that Lawrence O'Donnell is more interested in getting under Trump's skin, rather than reporting the news, is concerning to me. That being said, Trump really needs to get control of himself. Like, relax. Like, the fact that he's giving O'Donnell what he wants is probably not going to vote well for him. But he can't help himself. He loves to pop off

on social media, so he's probably going to keep doing it. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola joins me for the second hour. I don't know. Thank you.