4/6/23: Maddow Refuses To Broadcast Trump Live, Petrodollar Collapsing, Ukraine Negotiations, West Admits Nordstream Coverup, Trump Cash Flow, NPR State Media, Don Lemon's Behavior, Fed Proud Boys, Millions Flee Coastal Cities, New Chicago Mayor

Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do lots of interesting things to break down this morning. We have some fallout from the Trump indictments this week, and in particular a little bit of a media react segment that we want to break down for you how everybody handled the big news. We also have some new revelations. This pretty

interesting comment's coming out of Kiev. Largest openness that they have expressed in terms of diplomatic negotiations that we have seen. This comes as France is meeting with China and expressing also openness to China playing a role as peacemaker there. So we'll break all of that down for you. We also have a whole new story again on the nord stream pipeline, and some open admissions that members of NATO are just like, yeah, we just kind of don't really

want to know. It was like openly admitting, like it's uncomfortable, so let's just not talk about it. We've got some big twenty twenty four fundraising numbers Nikki Haley with a big hull that we can break down for you. And we also have a couple of media stories that we couldn't resist covering one elon designating NPR on Twitter as state affiliated media that caused a whole thing, and some pretty bombshell revelations about Don Lemon's behavior going back years

at CNN, so that'll be interesting. I also excited to have a first time on the show to talk about the Chicago mayor's race, so should be a good one. Before we get to any of that, though, reminder about Spotify video. That's right, you can watch the full video on Spotify for all of our premium members who pay for the show Breakingpoints dot Com to become a premium subscriber, you can go and connect it to your Spotify feed and boom voila, you can watch it there. I know

a lot of you have been taking advantage. I was looking at the numbers and I was like, wow, a huge portion of our audience is actually using this. Oh really Yeah, absolutely, and apparently we are one of the largest gated podcasts on all of Spotify, which is not bad. Guys, thank you all very much. We really appreciate it. So

Breakingpoints dot Com, as I said, that's the reminder. But how did the media handle the Trump arrest and the subsequent coverage, Crystal, Yeah, So, to be honest with you, I kind of empathize with the bind that media organizations are in because you know, we don't love spending a lot of time on ten No, I actually hate doing it. Yeah, it distracts from a lot of other really important issues.

But then again, when you have a former president of the United States being indicted for the first time in history, you kind of have to cover it, at least to some extent. So MSNBC sparked a lot of debate, I think over their handling of it because they decided that they would not carry live Trump's speech that he gave in response to those charges and a number of other potential charges coming down both Pike so Rachel Mattow explained, they're thinking on not taking that speech. Let's take a

listen to what she has to say. I need to tell you that right now, the former president himself is making remarks tonight from his home in Florida, as far as we can tell, and what we were prepared for here is that this is basically a campaign speech in which he is repeating his same lives and allegations against his perceived enemies. It is just getting started. So far, he's just giving his normal list of grievances. We don't consider that necessarily newsworthy, and there's a cost to us

as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. So our deal with you is that we will monitor these remarks. If he does say anything newsworthy, we will turn them around and report on that right away. But for now, just know that it's happening and we're not taking it. So just know that it's happening, we're not taking it. So listen. I think all of these decisions should be considered through the lens of business, decisions to do with

like their journalistic ethics or whatever. Their audience doesn't particularly want to hear a long speech from Trump, so they're not going to play it. They would rather hear, you know, analysis from Rachel and Nicole Wallace and whoever else that they have on the panel. Joy, it's not like they're not covering Trump. They probably cover Trump more than any other network. So it's not like they actually learned, Hey, let's not give this guy any oxygen because it only

empowers him. No, they just feel like their audience doesn't particularly want to hear directly for him from him, So they're making a business ratings decision. In my opinion, Oh, I think you're right. I also do think there is a powerful brainworm over there where the idea that they have a quote responsibility, whereas if they never would have broadcast knowingly lies on their platform, that's never happened. Rachel Maddout and Nicole Wallace, Rachel the dgin of they don't

get journalistic fact fighting. People don't care about the truth. It's all such a joke. I mean, they are paralyzed by the decision that they have the humorist that they believe that they got Trump elected in the first place, which I don't believe that actually for a second. But really, what it comes down to for them is, as you said, they are in a bind where their audience doesn't want

to see the actual newsworthy event. They want to see Rachel and Nicole and Joy all breaking down what's happening. You know, whenever we covered it on our stream, we gave people a preview, and then, because we knew it was a newsworthy event live taking problem, we brought everybody the full thing. You can watch it for yourself. We will tell you what we think afterwards, but in real time.

What I've always found astounding about these critiques from these journalistic professors and all these other little hall monitors is they don't want people to just see something for themselves and make up their own minds. They don't trust Americans enough. It's a good point to watch this and just say, yeah, I think that's a lie, and I think that's oh that was kind of funny. But oh, here's what I think after watching the full thing. Why do you mean

them to tell you? I think that's a great point. There's kind of a nanny state, yes, dude, implicit there that goes along with their whole like freak own of or misinformation and oh my god, we've got to like sensor and crack down, and we can't have these untruths out there whatsoever. Rather than trusting in a democracy people to you know, be able to see the live news event in unvarnished format and then make of it what they will, you know, based on their own facts and knowledge.

And then yeah, with the aid of like, you know, reasonable analysis on the other side, not that I expect as NBC to provide any of that. So I do think you're right that there is an implicit like obsession with controlling the flow of information that's reflected in that decision as well as you know it just being a sort of like brass tacks business decision. Now on the other end of absurdity with CNN, which we talked about on our live stream, you know, again, we made sure

to thoroughly cover the event. Obviously, we gave it, you know, significant attention as well, because it is a historic event, and we had legal analysts on and we took the Trump presser live, and we went through the indictment all

of that. But CNN goes that next level above just like fully analyzing what's going on, and they have to do these like sensationalistic oj Car Chase type shots showing the suburban pulling in front of the courthouse and mounting a camera on the speeding boat to try to catch an image of his plane landing in New York and all of this stuff. So they go to the total opposite, just total sensationalistic extreme. Jake Tapper felt they need to justify that. In his commentary listic listen to what he

had to say. And I know that media critics are taking issue with the way that a lot of the news networks are covering this, but I have to say, you know, as we watch Donald Trump's limo drive on the FDR, this is unprecedented. We've never seen anything like this in the history of this country. I want to count of how many times CNN said unprecedented. You can say it once and I think we always did. Okay,

and that's fine, that's enough. But the point that again he's they let these little nanny state home monitors get in their ears where they have to both justify their coverage or not. It's like you just said, ratings. Also, you know why, I know it was a ratings decision. I was reading Dylan Byer's column last night that was the biggest day of CNN's modern history since the invasion of Ukraine was the Trump arrest. That was their biggest day.

And so yeah, it was a business. They did it because that's what works for all of the time, and the handwringing over oh, we're going to go back to the center the moment Trump was back on the stage, full blown obsession. Soon Trump to speak, shot of the cars, shot of the plane, shot of the empty court. That one, I don't really guess this is this is also just intigency and sure, I mean, this is what is their bread and butter, going over the top with these news

events and completely sensationalizing. Whether I remember the cruise ship that they went all land to cover or the flight what was it? The yeah that I mean, this is like, this is what they do. So the idea that Chris licked, we always were skeptical that Chris licked the new head of the network was really to be like fundamentally different or like represent any fundamental break from the way that

CNN has always been. That's clearly not the case. I actually watched some of their coverage while we were waiting for the charges to drop, which took way too long, and it was like extremely painful, because God, I hate the way on cable news, since it's twenty four hours, they feel the need to fill the airspace even though there's literally nothing happening and nothing to say. So while they're waiting with Trump going through this arraignment, which took

longer than they expected. I mean, they didn't have the charges, they didn't know what happened in the courtroom, and so they just have to spend an hour saying absolutely nothing, and it's so incredibly painful. So the way they try to fill that is with like their ridiculous you know,

speeding boat camera on the helicopter or whatever thing. Once they did get the charges, surprisingly to a lot of folks, some of their legal analysts were not all that impressed with the case that Alvin Bragg laid out and felt that it was somewhat disappointing. They kind of let their they kind of show their hand a little bit that they were hoping for more, and there had been some reporting that, oh, perhaps this will be more than just

Stormy Daniels. Perhaps there's things Alvin Bragg found out that we didn't even have any idea about that wasn't in the public record whatsoever. Of course we know now that turned out to not be the case. The indictment was exactly what we expected. It was all pretty much things that were already in the public record. And so here is one CNN legal analyst admitting her disappointment. Your reaction now that you've had a chance to go through it, is it what you thought it was going to be?

And are you unimpressed? It is what I thought it was going to be in terms of focusing on the payments that were made, the falsification of the records and really tied to the payment that was made to Stormy Daniels. In terms of a case that's being brought against a former president, it's a little underwhelming. It's a little underwhelming.

It's just funny because, as you said, after they built it up and after they you know, you know, after they're sitting there salivating waiting for it, when they actually got the indictment, they were like, yeah, I'm not so sure about this one. I don't know if this one is going to stand, which is you know, if you just even listen to the leaks, you could have said that from the very beginning. I found it amusing also because even the mainstream media now who has been waiting

for this and salivating over it for so long. With this up there on the screen, I mean, even the New York Times has to publish op ed saying like, yeah, this Trump indictment is a legal embarrassment. I haven't seen a vociferous defense of Alvin Bragg on the actual face of the charges yet from any mainstream media outlet, even like liberal Apparatricks, people like Jonathan Chait and others are coming out with columns being like, I don't think that

this is a good case. I think that this does damage in the long run to the case of going after Trump, and that this may in fact backfire on all of them. So it is interesting also in that light of their coverage relative to them. Once they got it, how they then had to interpret what happened. So the Times published i think four different op eds that offered a race, so they had the whole gamut of opinion.

So they did have a defense of the charges. But I think the fact that the you know, Trump and Diamonds is the legal and the fact that they went so hard in that direction allowed that to be published was interesting. I do think Democrats are somewhat uncomfortable, especially that this was these were the first charges to drop, because they are obviously the least serious, they're the oldest, they're the ones that you know it's there are like novel legal theories in play, and pieces of it certainly

seem like a stretch from a legal perspective. On the politics, I'm not sure that the analysis. I think there's a legal analysis, and I think there's a political analysis. To me, the political analysis in terms of Republican primary very clear, and then in terms of the general electorate. As I've said before, I'm not sure that the public is really all that interested in the specific details of whether it's this case or a January sixth case, or a fake

elector case or a document case or whatever. If they like Trump, then they would be opposed to it, and if they don't like Trump, then they're like, okay, whatever. I'm not going to like wring my hands about which particular indictment drops first, or how I feel about the legal analysis of it. I do think again, on the politics of it, Democrats, elite democrats, and I have to say I think also the Democratic base have decided that

it politically benefits them for Trump to be the nominee. Maybe, but we have been to this movie before, and last time they were hoping for Trump to be the nominee back in twenty sixteen, it didn't work out so well for them. So I do think that there is a lot of arrogance around excitement that Okay, he's locking down, looks like the Republican nomination. He's in a much stronger position, He's much more likely to be the Republican nominee. They feel a lot more nervous having to go up against

Ron De Santis or even Nikki Haley. I don't know why, and I just think that that level of hubris about their ability to take out Trump and how damaging these things will be to Trump, I think it should be tempered. That's all im. I'll say, right, I think that's well said, And I think the reason we had to just show this is that I know there's a lot of interesting media analysis right now about the way that they cover it.

Abou are they doing the wrong thing? But as you say, at the end of the day, the elite democratic position is we want Trump, we want them to come back, and the media also finding himself in this very twisted position. They're like how do we do this, How do we

cover responsibly? I think the responsible thing to do is let people make up the minds for themselves to what we try and do here is show you the fullsome nature of where things are and be like, listen, I'll tell you what I think, but you don't have to agree. And that's completely finer with you. You can make up your own damn mind, because that's how it actually should be.

They shouldn't be telling you what to think. And yet you know, apparently that's what the underlying assumption behind the Mattout coverage and all that, which is bolstered also by the business decisions that they have to make. Yeah, I think that's all all said. All right, let's get to international affairs. There's a lot of stuff going on on

SOW that was covered up by the Trump indictment. The first and foremost is a massive story about the petro dollar and about the way that other nations outside of the West are handling relations with China, with Russia, with Visa Viva, the United States and Ukraine. There was a very interesting and noticed clip from Fox News where Senator Marco Rubio actually went on Fox to decry Brazil ditching the petro dollar for future oil transactions with China and

talking about the declining efficacy of US sanctions. Let's take a listen to that. Today, Brazil, in our hemisphere, largest country in the western hemisphere south of US, cut a trade deal with China. They're going to from now on do trade in their own currencies, get right around the dollar. They're creating a secondary economy in the world totally independent

of the United States. We won't have to talk about sanctions in five years because there will be so many countries transacting and currencies other than the dollar that we won't have the ability to sanction them. As we are sitting here focused on some of these nuttiness that's going up. People that are basically dedicating their lives in this country to ensuring that it is legal to mutilate children to do drag shows in schools. They dedicate their lives to this.

And we have another superpower that basically wants to become the world's dominant power at our expense, and these people don't want to focus on it. So very interesting, at least the front part of acrisis to get there. Yeah, I know, it's kind of funny to see the two pair together. But look, he's actually not wrong. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. China and Russia are currently looking to challenge the petro dollars. A

very interesting write up over from Oil Price. What they point to right now is that currently the yuan accounts

for just two point seven percent of the global oil market. However, a lot of the more recent deals in recent weeks are signaling that the Chinese and the Russians are moving to try and sideline the dollar, not only from Brazil, as he said, this is the largest nation in all of South America, but actually during that visit to riod Chi, Shinping in December said that the China and the Arab Gulf states are going to be trying to use Shanghai

petroleum and natural gas exchange platforms to carry out Yon's settlement on oil and gas trades. So a separate infrastructure is propping up through which the petro to replace the petro dollars, specifically to try and circumvent US sanctions. Right now, fifty eight percent of global currency reserves are the US dollar. From twenty twenty two, only two point seven percent of that, like I said, remains in the Chinese one. But I mean even a ten percent increase in that is a

massive sea change to the global reserve currency. But drop even the global reserve currency and all of that rhetoric, Why does it matter, Because let's put this up there, and this is straight from Chinese media from the South China Morning Post. I thought it was important to actually pull the perspective that they are trying to push out there, which is that the Brazilian inroads and d dollarization is

quote reflecting cracks in US currency settlements. Here's really what happened, and this is why it was a huge critic also of what was going on in the initial days of sanctioning. We basically blew up the global financial trade system for a country Russia and or another country Ukraine, which at the end of the day, the material fate of those two countries, especially Ukraine, has a zero impact on the US economy, on the US wave life. I know there's going to have a lot of Ukrainian NEAPO stands in

the comments, but here's the deal. Whoever controls Kiev, that doesn't affect anybody's life in Nebraska. However, there are a lot of other countries and potential conflicts where that is not the case. And so one of the things that I was trying to say then is you only get one shot at this, at showing your hand. You know, whenever you're the empire and you like pull the ripcord on your real like most financial power that you have, you better do it on something that really matters. Decided

to do that on Ukraine. Well, the Chinese, the second largest economy on earth, far more powerful ever than the USSR they saw all that in Beijing and they're like, Okay, that's just never going to ever happen to us, and they're not fools. So what do they do? Immediately they started doing wan deals with Russia that go to India as well. India, then one of the largest nations outside of China, says, well, we still want cheap oil, and so they decide to start pricing things in different currency

when buying from the Russians. The Brazilians, who are not on board with US at all. And how many times Crystal have we pointed to global public opinion that says that the rest of the world does not agree with US on Ukraine. They don't agree with Russia either, but they definitely don't agree with the NATO centric view of the conflict that this is some existential threat to their interests.

They don't really care either way. They're like, yeah, I'm not saying it's good, but you know, like cheap oil is nice because that's what we have to at the end of the the day. We've got to care for our own citizens. So looking at this and just seeing the colossal economic blunder that we have made, we essentially sacrifice really, I think the only chance we ever had at being able to like financially push back on China if we ever wanted to in exchange for the fate of Eastern

Dunboss in Ukraine, which I think is nuts. I mean, there's no balance sheet where any of this makes sense. We really warned about this, yes on that there's a cost to it's not just a cost to our Russian society for the economic warfare that we were waging, but that there were real risks entailed here. But I think

you have to go back even before that. I mean, we have tried to throw our weight around with sanctions far too many times, and even including with regard to Russia before this particular war and illegal invasion, because they had years after our initial round of sanctions to build up barriers to insulate themselves right past twenty thirteen, to insulate themselves from the economic warfare that we wait. So I'm not going to say that it has had no impact.

It certainly hasn't had the impact that we thought here in the West that it was going to have. And this is reminder, with a more or less unified West with regard to China, the views are far less unified among our European allies and US. So we sort of showed our hand here and showed some weakness because China's looking at the and go, hey, if Russia can be basically okay, we can build up some other relationships here that we already have been working on, and then we're

not so worried about these sanctions either. Now, on the other hand, of course, it is a much deeper trading relationship with the Chinese, which both entails a lot more risk for us and also a lot more risk for them. But we gave them the roadmap, We blew our whole wad, so to speak, and allowed them to see exactly how far we could go, and then they can use that as their own roadmap. To make sure they can insulate

themselves from any future economic warfare to come. So listen, I mean, in a sense, number one, can't blame them. Number two, we really kind of asked for it, and we from the beginning have been warning about the potential domestic consequences here and consequences for our standing in the world of using these of weaponizing these sanctions over and over again. Yeah, and I just can't get over how big of fools that we look like on the global stage.

Zoom out of NATO, where apparently we're like the greatest heroes in private. They're happy to take your money and then stab you in the back whenever they want to. We'll get to that. But look at Saudi Arabia, a country that we spend one hundred billion dollars a year in sending weapons to, We underwrite their security. This family would never be in charge if it wasn't for a US global underwriting. They're willing to literally take your money and then look at you and put the middle finger

right in your face. Put this up there on the screen right now. The decision to go ahead and cut oil to raise oil prices was very simple. This is David Ignatius. By the way, who's writing this. The United States doesn't call the shots in the Persian Gulf or the oil market anymore. For better or worse, the era of American hegemony in the Middle East is over. Crown Prince Muhammed Ben Salman pressed oil OPEC producers. This is

the key. MBS specifically went to OPEK and said, we want to cut to buy one million barrels per day to boost the price of crude from eighty five to eighty five dollars a barrel up by six percent? Why to make more money and to make it more difficult for the US economy and for the West during the

ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Now, a real ally would do what a They would either do what you would tell them to do if it's a client state, or b somebody who you know, wants friendly relations and thinks that this is like a give and take relationship would say, all right, we'll hear you out and we'll take the temporary hit. You know, it's not like we aren't one hundred billionaires several times over, and we'll make sure that

oil is cheaper. They don't care. They literally don't. They disregard what Washington has said they have stabbed us now in the eye four or five times whenever it comes to OPEC production, and the only fools are us in Congress. They're still selling them weapons. The Biden administration goes over there and bows down before MBS like a joke, you know, in front of the entire world. They're laughing because they got the President of the United States to come over there. Whatever.

You know, he didn't shake his hand, He just gave him a fist buck. Why he really showed it to him there, mister president. And then the moment you leave, they have China over. They strike this deal with Iran and allow Beijing to be the broker. And if you think Beijing doesn't have its hand behind this decision either, and then you're a fool. I mean, it's like in every single theater all across the world in Asia, in South Korea and Japan, they're doubting whether we're actually gonna

be doing it. You know, the Taiwanese president is transiting through America. I always love how we do these fake diplomatic things. She was in California and she met with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Same thing, you know, the Taiwanese. We're actually been shorting them on arms so that we could send them to Ukraine. I've been looking also and tracking people who are inside DoD are warning about the

level of shortages that we have. We are incurring massive hurts across the world and here at home on behalf of this Ukrainian conflict. And I don't know how you can possibly look, you know, at this from a thirty thousand foot level and say that any of this is worth a visa vi to what we're actually doing. The Russian invasion and we're going to get to this in just a moment. In a lot of ways, has been

just a total disaster for Russia. Of course, it really sort of forced into reality a multipolar world, and maybe it revealed what already existed because the relationships that China has been building around the world. I mean, this goes back years at this point. I was listening this morning to a podcast about their you know, more specifics about their efforts in Africa, where it's a double edged sword.

You know, they load up these countries with a lot of debt, but there are very visible signs of Chinese influence. A road, a dam, a bridge, an airport, sometimes with the Chinese flag flying outside that In some places, people are very grateful for this level of development, whereas the US has basically treated Africa as like another front of their war on terror. So again it's a double edged sword because then at the end of the day, you've

got a nation that's loaded up with debt. But you can see in the seeds that the Chinese government has been planting for years and years. You know, when the US goes to the world and says, hey, we need you on our side in terms of the Ukraine War, most of the world's like, I think we're going to

stay on this one. Actually know, whether it's the African nations, whether it's nations in South America, whether it's India, They're like, you know, we're going to let you work this one out and we're going to kind of stay on the sidelines and see how it all unfold. Yeah there. I mean, look, New Delhi is happy to take cheap gas as long as they can get it. Brazil will do the same thing,

and so will a lot of developing countries. Even the South Koreans are out there selling arms to anybody who's got money, because they're like Oh, American arms are going to Ukraine. We'll take those dollars and we'll make sure that we can stand it up. I was looking at it from a macro view, and I was just thinking about it this way. Only the US is the nation which is not allowed by its elite and its presidents

to act in its own material interests. All other countries on Earth make cold blooded, real politic calculations worth it, not worth it, good for my people, not good for my people. The idea from the unipolar moment onward has been, well, we're such a great nation that we can do both. But listen, guys, China allowed them to rise up in the meantime, not just China. I mean, there's all kinds of global competition that's happening now. We are just like

any other country. It's checks and balance in terms of our sheet, what works and what doesn't, what's good for us? And we too, blessings have been had, all this bounty of energy and money, and you know, all this benefits so called of market capitalism, but a lot of that benefit is fading away. We're at the end of the day,

we're just like everybody else. And I think we're going to learn all that real s Liff, and I actually think that part of the story there is this is a nation that, whether it comes to domestic affairs or foreign affairs or anything else, has allowed corporate power to supersede any sort of interest of the American people or national interest, and so we're unable to act for the

interests of the people. We're unable to act for the interests of the nation because we're so beholden to like whoever's making money off of whatever we're doing in the world. So really clouds our ability to maneuver in the world. Yes, okay, so let's go to the second bar here because it's very important breaking news that actually just came out this morning. President Vladimir's Zelenski telling the Financial Times that Ukraine is ready to talk to Russia on Crimea if their counter

offensive succeeds. Let's go ahead and put it up there on the screen. Kiev is willing to discuss the future of Crimea with Moscow if its forces reached the border of Russian occupied Peninsula, a top advisor to President Zelenski has told The Financial Times these comments were made by the deputy head of Zelensky's office and is the most explicit statement yet of Ukraine's interest in negotiation since it

cut off peace talks with the Kremlin last April. He says, quote, if we succeed in achieving our strategic goals on the battlefield, when we will be able on the administrative border with Crimea, we are ready to open a diplomatic page to discuss this issue. It doesn't mean that we exclude the way

of liberation of Crimea by our army. So obviously that's important because Crimea was originally seized an annexed by Russia in two thousand and thirteen, and one of the major worries here and throughout the West has been that escalating this to a nuclear conflict would come if some sort of Ukrainian offensive is specifically at a US backed weapons or any of that we're used on Crimea, which the Russians genuinely do consider theirs in a way that they

don't consider the newly annexed territories of eastern Ukraine. Now, though it does not necessarily mean it's the opening that we may initially want it to be, because implicit in this is what that Ukraine is going to take back every inch of territory that they have lost since the

initial Russian invasion. Now, of course, Ukrainian counter offensive have been dramatically successful back in March of twenty twenty two, are still waiting to see exactly how that is going to look In twenty twenty three, the long awaited Spring Offensive hasn't yet happened. There's been some discussion that the Russian Spring offensive did not go the way that they want it to be, but it's one of those where we don't know if that was the actual Russi effe

or not. Obviously who has insight into Moscow's plans. Really what's going on is a complete meat grinder going on in the city of Bakmode, where both Ukrainian forces are expending thousands of rounds of ammunition per day and the Russians are losing on order of at least like three to one because they are the attacking party. Very classic in terms of like trench like siege warfare in a

World War One style conflict. The issue right now is one of those where how long could Ukraine realistically keep that going because the amount of shells and ammo that we are giving them is not limitless. Same from the west whereas the Russians have a genuine industrial base and they have thousands and hundreds of thousands of people they can still throw into this conflict if need be, So the question is like who can hold out longer. It's

really a classic World War One type scenario. The issue here too, though, is that yes, they're expressing open to negotiation, but the secondary part of it, crystal where any discussion with Chinese President Shishinping that hasn't happened yet, we don't know if the Chinese shot them down after Zelenski essentially said hey, I'll call you know, let's talk, like you could call me, you can even visit Kiev or any of that. So I'm not quite sure how to make

of this. I genuinely think it's always a good thing when somebody says that they're willing to talk. But also obviously the preconditions here are not realistic, at least in the eyes of the Kremlin. But you know, maybe they need to get realistic too, because it's not like they don't have hundreds of people dying literally per day on the battlefield. Yeah. No, I mean, it's incredibly welcome to see those comments. There's just no two ways about it.

One of the things that we've been very fearful about is that Crimea could represent a kind of, you know, really true redline for Russia in the way that some of the other territories and regions and actions from the Ukrainians may not represent. And you know, we're not alone in that. A lot of NATO allies are fearful of

that as well. You know, it was right after they blew up that Crimean bridge that there started to be real concerns about Russia could see this as an existential threat to the point that they may actually use quote unquote tactical nuclear weapons. That has continued to be a concern. You've seen so rhetoric that I think has been profoundly dangerous from leaders like Nancy Pelosi about Ukraine fully taking back all of Crimean US being fully behind them in

terms of that operation. So it is very welcome to see what is a really notable and significant shift in

tone here from Zelenski. And then, you know, the other question that remains to be seen is if there was a genuine interest from Ukrainians and engaging with peace talks, especially if China was involved in those peace talks, would the us be open to it, would we let it happen, because it sure seems like we would be interested in blocking that, even though the claim has always been from the Biden administration that of course it's the Ukrainians who are in the front seat, and we'll just you know,

back them up in whatever they want to do. See if that holds, if they actually got serious about engaging in peace talks with China. Yeah, we'll see how it goes down. And actually this broke this morning, so we can add some secondary parts of this also. I just want to underscore again just how different things are outside of Washington and outside of like Warsaw and Talin and Kiev's view of the conflict as opposed to literally everybody else.

Go ahead and put this up there on the screen, you know, for all of the discussion of our great European allies and all that they do not see this in any way the same way that we do. The President Macron is in Beijing actually right now, and as many are viewing this, Emmanuel Macrone arrived there specifically to try to carve out a distinct role for Europe that avoids America's confrontation with an assertive China convinced that there is a place for China in ending the war in Ukraine.

So you can see that Macron and actually Olaf Schaltz, the German Chancellor, also both visited Beijing recently, specifically in the attempt to try and bring the Ukrainian conflict to an end and to try and put Chinese pressure on Russia to bring some sort of political settle. This was after we should forget, not forget that Washington ruled out the Chinese peace deal as some sort of joke and

they said that it should not be considered. Well, it turns out that the nations with much more skin in the game than we do in terms of their own territorial borders, they didn't think that at all. The next one up there on the screen two, please, there's been a string of European leaders that have been heading over to Beijing, EU Chancellor, the European Council, the Spanish Prime Minister, the Francis President, and also the EU Commissioner President, President Ursula.

Vonder lyon all of those people's visits to Beijing has specifically been with respect to do two things. Number One, to say, hey, the US, Japan and South Korea. We're not necessarily in any of that. They're like you and I, like we should keep businesses going. We don't really agree with some of their trade war practices and all of that. A in other words, you know, acting in their material interests, and B they want to try and help Beijing bring

some sort of end to the conflict in there. It's just stunning to look at it again and to see France, Germany, all of these countries, the EU, these places are underwritten entirely by the US Global Security Alliance. We are the ones who underwrite their militaries. We sell them all their weapons, and we protect them with our nuclear umbrella. And then though when it comes to China, they're going to do

what they want. I don't even bringrudge them. I would do the same thing as some fool was willing to pay me to do whatever l I wanted. That said, though, I don't know why we continue to do that. Why do we continue to just let ourselves be humiliated like this for our so called you know what Iron brothers and allies. But secondary Crystal they view and again they

have the territory, they have actual territorial skin here. They view this peace deal and peace itself as an actual goal that you should be willing to work towards with anybody who is willing to do that. Unlike President Biden, his National Security Council, and apparently all of the entire Washington lead, France and Germany, especially in the lead up to this ConfL I mean, they took a very different

approach than the US and UK. Now, some of the schism there has kind of been papered over for a number of months, but it's in actions like this that

you see it re emerging. They have a great, much greater commitment to actually trying to resolve this conflict and bring it to an end than certainly the Biden administration has ever demonstrated, and especially with the recent comments very clearly from the Biden administration, you know, immediately dismissing the Chinese Peace Plan, immediately saying that any sort of offer of a ceasefire, brokering of a ceasefire from China should

be rejected out of hand. Clearly, France and Germany have a very different view here, and again, in my opinion, that is very welcome because I think it benefits everyone, including Ukrainians, to try to reach an end to this horrific war which has been devastating to their people first

and foremost. Yeah, I think you're right, Crystal, And just like looking at all of this and just seeing the way that it's all coming together, it is clear that there is a lot going on outside of Washington where people not only disagree with us, are actively bucking us.

We are the ones at the end of the day who might be left holding the bag quote unquote because we're the ones basically funding the entire conflict and b if it does come to sort of settlement and we don't have a major role playing in that and actually bringing that about, what is the conclusion for the rest of the world, especially in a post Iraq environment, is that we are belligerents, that we are opposition to peace,

that we don't care about peace. And that was something that we worked so hard after the perst World War two order to establish that as a given. And sure Vietnam was bad, but you know, during that basically that entire period, it was it was a given that any international settlement would be Washington led. And now that's breaking up, and it's just even more of a sign of multipolarity. Absolutely,

all right, let's go to Nordstream. This is just one of the most laughable things that you are ever going to read. And I almost I'm with a straight face, going to attempt to show you what the new intelligence is showing you around the nord Stream pipeline bomb that's going to put this up there on the screen. Investigators are skeptical of a yacht's role in the nord Stream

pipeline bombing. Officials believe more than one vessel might have been involved in sabotaging the natural gas pipeline and wonder if a fifty foot sailing yacht that investigators have scoured for clues could be a decoy. Yeah you think. Officials hope that the true purpose of this quote unquote deep sea demolition will provide further insight into high stakes international who done it, who could eventually lead to the response

who is responsible and explain their motives. US and European officials said they still don't know for sure who is behind the underwater attack said that they shared German skepticism that a crew of six on a sailboat laid out hundreds of pounds of explosives that disabled the Nordstream pipeline.

Experts noted while it was theoretically possible to do that pipeline by hand, even skilled divers would be challenged submerging more than two hundred feet to the seabed, slowly rising to the surface to allow time for their bodies to decompress. In other words, this was a professional job that basically

only a nation state could do. And the idea that some Ukrainian rotary club that happened to, you know, acquire this fifty foot sailing boat and just row it on out there by themselves, by their own gumption, and then you know, professionally dove down two hundred feet and then stuck a bunch of C four all on this controlled deminition with military grade explosives just seems a little bit skeptical.

My personal favorite quote from the entire thing, let's go and put this up there on the screen, is this, and I'm going to read it in full. At the gatherings of European and NATO policymakers, officials have sett into a rhythm. Don't talk about Nordstream leaders see little benefit from digging too deeply and finding an uncomfortable answer, echoing sentiments of several peers in other countries who said they would rather not have to deal with the possibility that

Ukraine or allies were involved interesting or allies. I think that's the first time that we've ever seen that, and that just opens up the entire discussion as to how all this is playing out. I mean, originally, you know, nobody knew either way. Of course, there were suspicions on both sides, and you had the crazy tweet there from the Polish MP who said, thank you USA for breaking blowing the pipeline before you then deleted it. But yeah, I didn't want to speak to declaratively or any of that.

Despite suspicions. Then though, the New York Times went through the CIA leaks comes out and it's like, no, no, no no, it was the Ukrainians, Like, the Ukraines are the ones who did we see Ukrainian hand But by the ways, Lensky didn't have anything to do with it, so don't worry about that. It was just like a bunch of rogue private Ukrainians that happened to do this. But then obviously everyone was like, well, how did the Ukrainians have

this technology? Like how do they have the you know, the logistics, the wherewithal to pull off the operation like this, and so increasingly these European allies are like, yeah, we just don't really want to know who blew up the pipeline, which is actually crazy because at the time they considered it one of the most significant acts outside of the conflict and thought it was a genuine act of war by the Russians, with fears that it would spiral into

a global conflict. But now even though per their words, they thought it was threatening, you know, the global order and their own energy supply and all that, like, noah, now we have no aga, let's just yeah, let's just move on. Let's just move on. They actually had another piece in here. They said it's like a corpse at a family gathering. This European diplomat said, everyone can see there's a body lying there, but pretends things are normal.

It's better not to know, Okay, I mean, it is amazing, and it is also amazing how pathetic that explanation they tried to run in the New York Times of like, oh, it's at this little like dinky yacht and a group of Ukrainian affiliated you know, partisans but not affiliated with the government, just the Ukrainian Rotary Club operating on their own with such obvious bullshit that even the mainstream press

had to acknowledge that this seems utterly preposterous. But of course they won't give any credence to the reporting from Seymour Hirsh, you know, with all the details about you know, what his sources suggest actually happened. With regards to the US potentially being involved in blowing this thing up, it really is beyond parody, and it is important to underscore this is an act of international terror. I mean this.

They were not wrong in the initial assessment that this is a gigantic deal, that it is an act of war that is a dramatic escalation, But now that it looks increasingly clear and sort of undeniable that it was Ukraine or their allies quote unquote, now they're like, well, maybe it wasn't such a big deal and we should just not talk about it. It's just Lauren, it's a joke. Amazing. Yeah, the ongoing investigation apparently is dead, so I guess we'll never know who blew up the noise. All right, let's

go to the next part here. Some significant news also that happened just a couple of days ago April fourth, let's go and put this up there on the screen.

The official release from NATO. Finland has now officially become NATO's newest member as of April fourth, twenty twenty three, where the flag of Finland was raised upon the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance's office in Brussels, where they signed the Finland Ascension Protocol on July fifth of twenty twenty two, after all thirty national parliaments voted to ratify the country's membership. So currently Sweden is also working its way through the process.

I believe they had to strike some deal with Erdowan and with Turkey around the PKK in order to do so. It's just amusing also interestingly, right Turkey the only nation in NATO that was like, listen, yeah, sure, we'll give it to you, but you actually have to give something to us. It's amazing once again that other countries look

at things in print quid pro quos. We are effectively embracing the new and extending the US nuclear umbrella to Finland, a nation which we never had a security guarantee with ever before, which with eight hundred miles of now new NATO border with Russia, and there was not one debate or consternation in this country about doing so. This is a monumentally strategic decision. You can look at it and

not say that it hasn't dramatically changed the face of Europe. Now, if you in the comments want to comment about why you're willing to go die for the fate of Helsinki, you know you can be my guest. However, Russia has now responded, let's go and put this up there on the screen. Russia says Finland's NATO ascension is a dangerous

and historic mistake. Russia said on Tuesday that the ascension to NATO's military alliance was a historic mistake that would weaken security in the wider region, increase the risk of conflict, and force Moscow to take countermeasures. That's basically the most fulsome comments that they've made on it so far. That they even had some pro Kremlin activists apparently in Moscow but with anti NATO demonstrations. Who knows if that's true

or not. But look from a broader strategic point of view this, let's say you believe the Russians on their face, they said that the reason that they were invading Ukraine was because that Ukraine was getting too close to NATO and to prevent any sort of ascension. So then the West was like, well, to make sure that this never happens again, we should then induct new countries into NATO because Russia said that NATO was getting too close to

its border, so we're getting even closer to their border. Now. I can already hear the screeches about how it would be appeasement not to let Finland and Sweden into NATO. I mean, I didn't say that you wouldn't help them if they got into a conflict. I just said, hey, you know, if you're in NATO now we're basically blood brothers, and we have to go to nuclear war on your behalf. That seems kind of concerning. I'm just wondering exactly what

you bring to the alliance. Finland and Sweden, two countries which are massive welfare states with less than two percent national spending on GDP for literally for years. What are you doing for us? I would be apparently a trader and a pro Kremlin activist to be asking these types of questions, which I would just remind everyone there's a great book called The Wise Men about the people who built the post Cold War or the post war nineteen

forty five International order. These were, as the title alludes, to, the wise men who went through the horrors of the Cold War and of the Second World War and watched fifty five million people die and decided to be cold blooded strategic analysts to try and forge a path through the Cold War in which the world would not be

annihilated through nuclear war. One of those men was George Kennon, and George Kennon who we have spoken repeatedly about here on the show, and I did an entire monologue about some of his private thoughts about NATO expansion, and others warned repeatedly about expanding NATO eastward, specifically to avoid some nightmare scenario like this one. Now again I want to

represent the counterview. The counterview is is that US security guarantees to Finland and to Sweden guarantees that those nations never will be invaded because the cost would be so high to the Russians and extends broader peace and security, you know, throughout the European continent. And maybe you're right, but the problem that I always come back to is if you're wrong, now we are literally going to nuke Russia on behalf of the fate of Helsinki. And you

know I've said this before, helsinc have been there. It's fine, it's a nice place. That said though, just looking at it, as I alluded to earlier in our show cold Hard balance sheet trade with Finland, what is Finland bringing to us? What exactly are we getting out of this? I don't see it. I don't see why we should annihilate our entire country for hell Sinki or for Stockholm. Once again, they're nice places, but I don't know why their fate literally matters to us here at all. Nobody can answer

that question. Yeah, I think you lay that out all very well. There's just two pieces that I would add. Number One, we made a mistake in the past by not listening to our adversaries and what they were saying and taking serious what they were saying. Now, Russia is responsible for the invasions. They're bald, it's illegal, one hundred

percent all of that stuff. However, there is no doubt that our actions in expanding NATO eastward, after basically saying that we wouldn't and over and above the vociferous objections of Russia, that we sort of just swatted aside as bluster and nonsense and big talk, but no action. Clearly that helped provide a justification in terms of Russia's view for this war, illegal war that they launched in Ukraine.

So that's number one. We never learned the mistake of you actually have to listen to your adversaries and take serious seriously what they're saying. The other thing that I would say here is, you know, I think in a sense, and we've been talking a lot about China and how they're viewing this conflict and how in certain ways they have really benefited from this conflict. It really has forced into view what was probably already there, which is a

new multipolar reality. I think this has been This war has been a disaster though for Russia because the last thing they wanted was a NATO expansion. And so even as I you know, obviously share your concerns about what this means for us as well, they are very very unhappy with this, and it's the polar opposite of the result that they would have wanted to see in terms of prosecuting this war. So those are the only two pieces that I would add to Oh you should add.

I mean, look, that's all I think it should be given. Obviously, it's been a disaster for them. This is one of the dumbest things that they've ever done. They've wasted probably hundreds of billions of rubles on them if they crippled their economy, They've become pariahsed in the eyes of the world. They've increased defense spending in Germany and France, which is literally a miracle because there were some cheap asses over there, and you know, it hasn't worked out well for them,

and no matter what decades from now, it won't. The real question is what do you do about it? You're like, do you want to keep kicking them when they're down and assume that they'll always be down? You could think that, you know, that's basically what we did throughout the nineteen nineties and the two thousands. We said, look at this country, it's a joke. They just lost half their territory through the USSR. They're economically in the middle of a nightmare.

You know, during all this, during the transition from communism to free market capitalism, they're basically got gangster oligarchs running their country. What are they going to do if we expand an Ato into Estonia and Finland. Fast forward twenty two years and you find out so that's one of those where look, this is irrevocable. You can't take it back. It's not a temporary action. I can tell you right now.

There were only like four people in nineteen ninety eight, whenever all of this was being considered in the US public sphere, that were like, hey, you may want to think twice about this. One of them was George Kennon, the guy who warned and built the post world Cold War order and they literally the father of a containment strategy, and he said, there may come a time when Moscow feels, you know, like they have been encircled, and that they may retaliate out as a result of that. This is

not a justification. It's only to say Russia is going to exist. You know, unless you are the most online NAPO person in the world, Russia is not just going to die anytime soon, and so you should assume it'll probably be around in some form in the next twenty five years. You should also assume that Putin is not just the expression of like who he is, but is expressing a longstanding tradition. Frankly in terms of how Russian

leaders view their security situation. So even if he is dead twenty five years from now, where is the guarantee that the future leader will have learned anything or isn't even more hawkish and warlike than Vladimir Putin? Right? Are you setting the table for a future piece or are you setting the table for what the next conflict is going to look like? And very much my fear with the further expansion of NATO as that we are just

setting ourselves up for further conflict in the future. Absolutely, let's talk a little bit about what we just learned. In terms of twenty twenty four politics, everybody is sending in their big fundraising numbers for the first quarter. Nikki Hayley is bragging about the number that she was able to post. Let's go and put this up on the screen. Apparently she announced she raised more than eleven million dollars

in the six weeks since she announced. This person indicates that for comparison, the Trump campaign says he raised upwards of ten million just since the news of his formal indictment broke on Thursday, So it does take a little bit of the windown of the sales, but Nevertheless, eleven million dollars is a significant sum. I crunch the numbers. Her average donation is something like one hundred and fifty

six dollars. A person comes from seventy thousand donations, and a number of them, she says, are two hundred dollars or less. So they're very excited about this. But you know, Sagom and I look at it. I mean, first of all, I don't know that I ever doubted Nikki Haley would have big money behind her. That's her whole reason for existing.

That's the only reason why she's in the political landscape at all, is because she is sort of like you know, Kamala Harris figure that the donor class loves, even as there's very little public appetite for her. That's number one and number two. At the presidential level, money becomes so much less relevant when you have Donald Trump in the race and he literally gets millions tens of millions of

dollars in free airtime and publicity every single day. Yeah, I mean, if you think about it this way too, Like you know, Trump was outspent almost ten to one in the twenty sixteen campaign, and he won. He actually reasspending parity or ish in twenty twenty and he lost. So it's not like money actually matters all that much, you know, And also at this level to Trump and presidential level. When it comes to Trump in the presidential level, I just don't think money is the big deciding factor here.

I think it's cope basically on everyone's part. Now, it certainly, obviously it does matter, but to what level. Nobody can really tell you that. And just by and large, like insurgent campaigns have won before, you know very well, money campaigns have lost. If anything, there's a lot of good evidence on the Trump side that anytime he's hamstrung by a real professional organization, it actually doesn't work out as well for him, and that he's better in a freer

and a loose environment. And you know, Jeb Bush had one hundred million dollars, Like, how did that work? Came in fifth place? So like there's also no evidence that Visa v. Trump, that running all these negative ads and trying to work against him, even with all the money in the world, is going to do a damn thing. So you know, Okay, congratulations Nikki Haley. I guess you know you can you can buy more than Scott Walker. Remember that. I mean the guy had thirty forty million

dollars in the bank. Yeah, didn't do anything. I mean the problem of for Nicki Haley is the same problem that Hillary Clinton had, which is, you can have all the money in the world, but if you're selling a product that nobody wants, doesn't really make a big difference. We also got some numbers from Ron DeSantis' affiliated super pack. Let's put this up on the screen there. His pack

is called Never Back Down. And the committee raised thirty million dollars in fundraising since the super pac launched back on March ninth, so you know, basically in a month's time. They said the money was raised rather than transferred from other committees, and half of the contributions came from donors outside of Florida. So also certainly plenty of money behind the Rohn DeSantis hope, right, Yeah, I mean thirty million dollars.

Once again, it sounds like a lot of money if that's actually only one third of what Jeb Bush had raised whenever before he eventually even declared in it. And where is the evidence that money is what's where's the evidence that what can money buy you? Nay id in advertising. Is that really DeSantis' problem here, or is it that people like Trump more than him or may not even like him in the GOP primary, that they feel that Trump is under threat and they need to stand with

him over this. No money in the world is going to fix it. And as you just said, Trump probably just got a billion dollars in free media just in the last week from the coverage that he received in terms of his arrest. You can outspend that. Theres are you can't compete with the amount of you know, unpaid media that Trump is able to garner just every single day because obviously the more that the liberal networks hate him,

the better it is for him. And Fox News, which really was trying to turn the page on Trump and really do their Ronda sand As that boosting, you know, they're backed into a corner where they can't help but go all in on Trump coverage as well, because, as I think was revealed in the dominion lawsuit, like they just don't have control over their audience to force something different on them. They have to go with the flow of where the Republican base is at right now. And again,

even as you know, these are impressive fundraising numbers. It's not like Trump isn't also raising a lot of money. Let's put this up on the screen. Apparently he has raked in ten million dollars from supporters since a Manhattan grand jury indicted him. They collected roughly two million on Tuesday alone, as Trump was being arraigned in a New

York courtroom. And as part of that fundraising campaign, they actually are selling a T shirt with a fake Trump mugshot on it to show you how much they see the indictment here and you know, potential ones in the future as a boon for him, at least in the Republican primary. I think it's a different story in the general election. I always want to say that, but pretty clear in the Republican primary, his polling numbers have just

shot through the roof. He now is the clearly dominant figure in terms of Republican voters, in terms of media coverage, like, good luck with all of your millions other contenders getting any oxygen and airtime in this race at this point. Yeah, I think it's fascinating, you know, just continuingly breaking it down and just looking at the way that Trump is able to dominate all of this like ten million dollars in a single week. Is again, it's not about the money.

It's just about the expression of love and of loyalty that he is willing to garner from millions of small dollar donors that just don't exist for any other Republican candidate. And that's just something that he will always be able to tap over and over and over again, and none of these other yeah, actually have. It's a huge strategic advantage on his behalf. And also, I mean he's been building these lists for a lot of years now. Now I do think they have gone back to the well

of these lists. I mean, he is very abusive in terms of the amount of fundraising emails that he sends out, and it has really taken away. Other Republican candidates in setate primaries and whatever have really complained about the way that the whole Republican base is like tapped out because the Trump operation is just constantly like clawing whatever scraps

of dollars they can from this fundraising base. But you know, nevertheless, he has certainly built an extensive list, He certainly has a really dedicated, enthusiastic following, and you know, the more that they see him as being under threat, the more that they are likely to give. The more the media covers him, the more Democrats salivate about what they think is great for them and Donald Trump being potential next Republican nominee once again, and you know, just full service

economy there for everybody fault. Yeah, absolutely, all right, couple of media stories that we could not resist. All right, you're gonna enjoy this one. So Elon Musk has been in full troll mode recently, taking away in your time's blue check mark, which is legitimately funny. And now another move which I also think is legitimately funny. Let's go and put this up on the screen. He marked NPR as US state affiliated media on Twitter. You know, same

designation that like RT or whatever would ultimately get. And so obviously there was a lot of debate about this and a lot of hand ringing among liberals in particular. How dare you now? Just like I looked at the numbers, NPR does receive a significant portion, I think like ten percent. Hold on, I've got it. So this is where it's in dispute, and that's actually wanted to spend some time off.

So they claim that they only get one percent or so of their operating budget from the federal government, or at the very least in taxpayer dollars. However, in several of their communications they actually say that they would be it would be impossible for them to actually it would be impossible for them to operate without federal funding. So

the true figure is actually very unclear. But in their marketing dollars, from what they have put out at least so far, they make it clear that federal appropriations, at least in some cases, are basically the only reason that they are allowed to exist on top of their overall donors. So Michael Tracy has been digging into this a lot, and so I have one of the things that he

pulled up here. I mean, first of all, yes, in their communications, they said federal funding is essential to public radio service in the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including and PR. And then they offered a breakdown of where their funding comes from. The plurality. Forty three percent, according to their communication, comes from individuals, eight percent comes from federal appropriation, and

five percent comes from federal, state and local governments. So you're talking about thirteen percent there nothing coming from government entities. And look, by the way, I don't like I'm actually fine with the government like supporting nonprofit radio, PBS whatever.

I don't have an issue with it. But there has always been a level of not even arbitrariness, but clear bias in how news outlets are labeled, whether they are dismissed as state propaganda or not, based on the relationship to like is it an Allied Nations state propaganda network, is it a US state propaganda network, or is it a you know, official US bad guy States state propaganda network.

And that's just not just on Twitter. That's on all kinds of places, like things like Voice of America, which are truly your like the BBC right, which are truly I mean Voice of America is directly like American US government propaganda, and that doesn't get the label on certain platforms where of course, you know, RT which also you know, deserves the label and people should be aware of the biases inherent there consistently does so I'm not saying Elon

is being even handed here, of course he's not. He's being completely biased as well. And my bigger issue I have complicated feelings about this because in some ways, I'm like, maybe our lives would all be better if Twitter just did like die and go away. So I can't even

say like I'm fully mourning it. But the one silver lining to me is that his totally random, capricious, troll like behavior really demonstrates the total arbitrariness with which all of these platforms are really run and how much they are just subject to the whims of whoever happens to

be in control. And I don't think it's a bad thing that that is exposed, So I see it as sort of silver lining, even as I find most of his decision making a Twitter to be a total disaster, and the platform is already snificantly degraded and way less useful and way less of a decent user experience than it used to be, and it already wasn't great. Yeah, I think you're absolutely correct, And nothing would convince you that NPR is not state media than the White House

Press Secretary coming to their defense. Yeah. So social media companies make their own independent decisions about content rules, so I won't comment on Twitter's rules, But what I will say more broadly, I'll say there's no doubt of the independence of NPR's journalists and has been. If you've ever been on the receiving end of their questions, that you know this, You know that they have their independence and journalism. NPR journalists work digitally to hold public officials accountable and

inform the American people. The hard hitting independence nature of their coverage speaks for itself. Why does she have a prepared statement defending NPR is not state media whend she's the government propagandist. That's nuts. That actually convinces you the opposite. NPR's managing editor also put out a very upset statement that's put this up there on the screen. We were very disturbed to see last night. Twitter has labeled NPR state media. Description that per our guidelines, does not apply

to NPR. NPR and member stations are supported by millions of listeners who depend on us for independent, fact chase journalism that we provide. NPR stands for freedom of speech and holding the powerful accountable. It is unacceptable for Twitter to label us this way. A vibrant, figorous free press is essential to the health of our democracy. But some of us didn't yet. Forget about a tweet sent in October of twenty twenty let's go ahead and put this

up there on the screen. From the NPR public editor, Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the New York Post Hunter Biden story? Read more in this newsletter, here's the quote. We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories. We don't want to waste the listeners and readers' time on stories that

are just pure distractions. So how can the Biden administration claim with a straight face that they have faced tough questions from NPR when they were the most forward and out there really in leading the campaign to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story. Like your joke, you're not actually independent, you are one hundred percent actually state affiliated media with an obvious bias. And as you said, Crystal, you know what, it's just a joke that we all pretend that VOA,

Radio Free Europe and BBC also aren't. Yeah, they are good, you know, put I guess just put the labels on all of them. Yeah, just be consistent. I mean again, this isn't consistent. The problem for NPR is actually not that they receive funding from the government, because it's not like their ideological disposition changed during the Trump years when

they were getting funding from the Trump administration. Right, their issue is the same issue that CNN has that MSNBC has, which is the sort of ideological capture really by their audience base where they rather than really doing independent fact finding or really surfacing stories that are stories in their own words, they're serving their audience, which is overwhelmingly like affluent, liberal, educated liberals, and so they are putting out the content

through the ideological lens that serves that audience base. Same thing New York Times is doing, same thing, CNN is doing, same thing MSNBC is doing. So yes, they get funding from the government, but the real issue with them in terms of any you know, their reporting failures in particular on the Hunter Biden issue, is more about sort of ideological audience capture and playing to what where they see their primary revenue coming from their you know, ideologically not

diverse base. That's where I think they get into trouble in the same way as many other news organizations. I think you're correct. The entire thing just reveals like how much of a farce really that they handle themselves. And yeah, look, the freak out is delicious, It's enjoyable and to the extent that I'm enjoying the chaos, even though my own personal Twitter experience has become far worse. This is definitely

why Yeah, for sure. Speaking of other liberal media outlets with issues we have covered here, you know Don Lemon's comments about you know, when women are in their prime and the obvious hatred that his female co hosts have for him on their new failing morning show. Variety has a new in depth report about a long track record of alleged behavior from mister Lemon within the network that has been really, according to their reporting, again quite outrageous.

I mean some of the cat shit it's psychotic. That he is used to bully and intimidate his colleagues across the board is quite disturbing. Let's go on and put this up on the screen. Daily Beast had a write up of the reporting that again originated in a Variety. The headline here is Don Lemon's history of alleged misogyny and diva like behavior detailed in a new report. I

will give you some of the low lights here. One in particular is he was upset that one of his colleagues I think got sent to a rock had like some you know plum prominent position. This was back a while, It was like two thousand and eight. He got a burner phone and started sending this colleague these threatening messages through the burner phone, things like now you've crossed the line and you're going to pay for it. CNN did an internal human resources investigation and they traced those texts

back to Don Lemon. Now, in any sane workplace, that sort of like truly psychotic behavior would certainly get you fired. But not for Don Lemon. He was pulled from his co anchor duties with this female. He was just moved to the weekends, so push to the weekends. Demoted, but

not removed from the organization. They also say that those who worked with him say he was a quote shameless name dropper, left behind hints that he socialized with important people, like a handwritten note from Stedman Graham that he had taped on his computer. Some were also unnerved by his talk of previous lawsuits, believing it signaled he was litigious.

He frequently let drop that he successfully sued Tower Records as well as the Chicago PD for racial profiling and didn't need to worry about money thanks to the settlements called one of his producers fat to her face. He mocked Nancy Grace on air. He apparently was particularly prickly about any other host getting prominent, any sort of prominent hosting gigs with regard to issues like black American focused issues.

So Solo Dad O'Brien landed the gig of hosting CNN's Black in America docu series and ring an editorial call attended by roughly thirty staffers, he suggested O'Brien was not actually black, according to two witnesses, who found the characterization wildly offensive. He made some nasty comments about Si Cub having like mommy brain on air. It just goes on and on with this type of bullying, gross behavior, and you know, and some of it certainly verges on, like

you know, sexual harassment. Now, Don Lemon is a gay man, so this really isn't about sex in any way. It's just about power with these sorts of comments and behavior from these individuals who think they are above it all and won't face any consequences, which by the way, he has not. They do this sort of stuff just to prove to you that they can and that they can get away with it, and that you're smaller than them and you just have to take whatever they're going to

dish out. And that, to me is the pattern of behavior. Well, that really shows us. That's what they did. I mean, they elevated him over and over again. He's only been promoted and maybe made one of the major force faces

in the network. And to your point about the whole power dynamic, they literally had a rule that you're not allowed to date anybody in the office, and he started dating one of his producers who was twenty years his junior, literally showing up at the office and riding to the car in the same time just to show everyone that he's like, the rules don't apply to me. He would flaunt it in front of everyone. The text though, that's got to be one of the craziest things I've ever heard, right,

like you go and you buy. This was also fifteen years ago, so remember guys, like, it's not like that easy to just go get There were no apps at that time that you could just download a number or whatever for a fake day. You had to go to a store on phone. You had to go to like a seven to eleven. You had to buy a burner

phone that like drug dealers use. You had to get a card, you had to set this thing up, you had to put her phone number in, and then you had to text from that phone to that person that is strown cold crazy like what is going And then they do an investigation apparently so dumb that he's able to trace it back to him too, the only guy who've ever had a burner phone. Fair dumb they and they're like, yeah, it was you, and then they don't do a damn thing about it. This moves of the weekends.

It's totally crazy, like the way that he behaves. As you said, he's obvious like one of the most narcissistic individuals on all of television. And it's an indictment for all of the preening and you know liberal me too covers that they claim to stand for over there. This guy obviously should have been fired over fifteen sixteen years. Think of how demoralizing this far. Yeah, oh it must

be tough one. I can't imagine everyone who has to come in contact, right And by the way, whenever you see these sort of stories uppear, which clearly they add a number of sources for and tons of stories going back years, it is once again a sign that everyone who has to work with you hates your guts and they are looking for any chance that they have to

try to stick the knife in. I was reminded of the shitty men and media list, of course was like slanderous and you know, and recently actually they just had to settle that case, right, Yeah, But the reason it took off is because there are a lot of truth to the number of I wouldn't say just shitty men, but shitty people in media who rise to the top not because they're talented, not because it's some like meritocracy or whatever, but because of the gross tactics, psychopathic behavior,

bullying power games that they are willing to play and know how to play. That's how a lot of these people rise to the top. And that was what really came out for me from reading this piece. And you know, by the way, I know some people at CNN and who confirmed much of this, you know to me privately that oh yeah, this is exactly how he's known as this bullying, abrasive diva who you know thinks that he's completely untouchable and has been right about that. By the way, Yeah, no,

I mean, look, it's crazy. I feel bad for anybody who has to work with him, although I don't have too much simply because they actually signed up for it and everybody knows that he's a monster, low level like producers, they shut to get their foot in the door, and they're subjected to this like psychode. That must be really tough working with somebody like that. I genuinely can't imagine. So thoughts and prayers for anybody who has to come into contact with Indeed, Crystal, what do you take a

look at? Well? On January sixth, a Proud Boy member named Erin pushed his way towards the Capitol, reaching a barricade and holding it open for other rioters to more easily enter the building. At some point, however, he paused and sent the following message to his FBI handler quote barriers down at Capitol Building. Crowd surged forward about to reach the building. Now Proud Boys did not do it

nor inspire now. Erin is one of quite a number of FBI informants who we now know we're working inside the right wing groups that have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with those January six attacks. The FBI had men inside the Proud Boys and inside the oath keepers. The founder of the Proud Voice himself had been a

FED informant. So if the FBI had paid informants with a front row seat to January sixth, plotting, how the hell did law enforcement fail so dramatically on that day, caught seemingly with their pants down as a bunch of Mega and q Andon nut jobs storm the Capitol. Now, right wing commentators have suggested this wasn't actually a failure, but rather a plot by the deep state to make Trump supporters look bad. The new evidence that has emerged as part of the Proud Boys Proud Boy's trial reveals

a much simpler explanation. Law enforcement failed to disrupt the attack or secure the capital due to run of the mill human failings of incompetence and ideological blindness, fueled by a Trump administration that was obsessed with Antifa and other left wing groups. Now, Aaron and every other FBI informant associated with the Proud Boys, and there were a lot of them, tell basically the same story. The FEDS had actually no interest in the Proud Boys, only in their

left wing nemesis and Tifa. Courting the Washington Post quote, the evidence shown in court indicates that many of the FBI sources inside the Proud Boys were asked only about their ideological opponents on the left, even as that right wing group was implicated in threats and violce at protests across the United States. Aaron himself testified that before January six, the FBI never asked him to look for information about

the Proud Boys. When he informed his handler he was going to DC for the protest, he was asked only to try to see if I could locate someone in DC that had nothing to do with the Proud Boys, he testified. So, even as he is telling the FEDS he's going to DC for January six protests, his FED handlers are not remotely curious about what the Proud Boys

might be planning there. It appears the FEDS didn't ask any of their Proud Boys informants for Proud Boys Info founder in Rique Tario was a FED informant on a healthcare fraud case a while back, and continue to engage

the agency in the years to come. Another defendant, Joseph Biggs, admitted he had also been an FBI informant providing information on quote Antifa networks, another right wing activist Jenny Lynn Salinus was revealed to be a government informant just before taking the stand to defend Proud Boys founder in rikue Tario. She was so cozy with the group that she was providing extensive advice for Proudboys members legal defense, unbeknownst to

her FBI handlers. Similar to the others, Szalinas reportedly swore under oath that she was only providing info to the government on Antifa and the border, not on the members of the violent group that she was apparently deeply enmeshed with. As the judge explained quote, she wasn't tasked with reporting on Proud Boys. Her contacts with the defense camp are

easily explained by her sympathy for the defendants. Another FED informant was actually at a heavily screwtinized parking lot meeting between Prodboy's leader Tarrio and Oath Keeper's leader Stuart Rhodes on the day before January sixth, So the FEDS literally had a guy at what they contend was a key meaning the day before the attacks. Still nothing, no action. Now that particular informant was able to avoid testifying because

of fears of incriminating himself. The whole situation was really summed up quite well by yet another Proud Boy informant who said that quote they didn't want to know about the Proud Boys, they wanted to know about Antifa. With regards to January six he indicated that the FEDS were radio silent, apart from asking in advance whether he was

going and afterwards whether he committed any crimes. This fits with the picture of law enforcement failure that has emerged since January sixth, because while the FBI may not have been getting tips when there are Proud Boy sources who were only focused on a mostly fictional Antifa, they were getting hundreds of other tips from a variety of sources

around the country. Among those many tips was actually an Oathkeeper member who was so alarmed by the group's increasingly violent rhetoric he secretly recorded a meeting provided to the FBI. Once again, FBI took no action on this or any other tip until after the fact, failing to disrupt the activities in advance, failing alongside every other law enforcement agency to provide adequate security on the day of the attacks.

Their own ideological biases, combined with the Trump administration's obsession with the Antifa blinded them to the possibility of violence

that was literally right in front of them. So if they weren't disrupting actual plots being hashed red under their noses with help from their own informants, what were they actually Doingjournalist Trevor Aronson of The Alphabet Boys podcast provides one answer here, they were apparently using criminals to infiltrate Black Lives Matter protests and an attempt to entrap protest leaders, follment violence and so dissent in those groups. The Gretchen

Whitmer kidnapping plot mess provides another answer. They were also apparently helping to hatch high profile plots that they could then swoop in and pretend to disrupt in a way that would be advantageous for a lot of law enforcement careers. Because it's so high profile, it's a lot of work, I guess, to invent kidnapping plots and entrap protesters with low level gun charges. I suppose there just wasn't any time leftover to notice and deal with any actual threats.

This whole rotten system has got to be reformed, root and branch. The failures, the blind spots the lawlessness, innocence are entrapped, criminals are paid, fake plots are invented, real plots are ignored. Instead, I guess they'll just get another budget increase to spy more, fail more, and fund even more criminals. It is unreal when you every time, and if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com. All right, sorry,

were you looking at it? Well? The story of American internal migration patterns after World War II has actually been pretty basic. We used to be a rural country, especially before the Great Depression. Industrialization, the loss of family farming, the call to arms for World War Two, the development of full blown market economy pushed us away from all of that. Americans moved only two direction, towards the rural areas, and they fulfilled the dreams of our forefathers by going west.

Concentration was everything. Black Americans were haunted by the legacy of Jim Crow and the promise of industrialization up north, moved in great numbers from nineteen ten to nineteen seventy. It was actually called the Great Migration at the time. Remains one of the most significant internal migration patterns in American history. After that, though, the trends basically normalized. White and Black Americans were concentrated around cities, be it in

the Northeast, the Midwest, or the West. The city was the nexus of capital, of offices, and of leisure activity. Internal migration patterns suggested Americans were moving towards cities to either live within them or live near them in a suburb or an exurb. The trend almost never reversed and was bolstered by the housing boom floated by cheap credit

up until two thousand and eight. Even with the wipeout of American household wealth in two thousand and eight, the trend didn't really reverse, and if anything, before the pandemic, city life remained a major attraction for dynamism, job opportunity, and quality of life for the upwardly mobile. But then the pandemic struck, something absolutely crazy happened. People said, you know what, I think, I'm going to buck nearly a century of American internal migration history and move the other way.

The Census Bureau is out with some stunning new data highlighting two straight years of massive change in American migration. Trends in twenty nineteen. Before the pandemic, smaller counties with fewer than thirty thousand people actually lost population. However, during the peak of the pandemic between twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, it flipped entirely. The least populous counties actually gained people for the first time in a long time.

While this trends slowed, that life into rural areas is still going up today with internal migration flows going positive. Even more interesting, the largest counties with populations of one million or more. We're losing people through domestic migration before the pandemic at a slow rate, but the outflow exploded post pandemic. This is the major story that so many people are missing right now. The South is booming in a reversal of nearly one hundred years of history. Take

a look at the map in front of you. The burnt orange areas of the map are those which saw the highest levels of domestic migration in the last year. What emerges is not just Texas and Florida, which are certainly doing well, but a huge concentration in the suburban American South. Zoom out of the South and you also see a major outflow from California all across Idaho, Arizona, Colorado,

and even midwestern concentration places like Arkansas and Missouri. Take states out of it, though, and you look at it in terms of urban, suburban, and exurban, it's even more interesting. Across the entire country. People are leaving the urban core for the suburbs. Even in Florida, which is doing very well, Miami Dade County is actually losing residents who are moving to more affordable parts of the state. Look at Texas,

same story. People left the urban core of Houston and of Dallas for the suburban areas, and the northeast trends actually are exactly the same. People are abandoning in droves New York City, Washington, d C, Boston, not just to move to other states, but to move to other areas nearby Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Portland, same case nationwide trend. It's accelerating year after year, and it shows no signs of stopping. It will change the face of America and of our

culture as we know it. Our pop culture and news still exists in a nineteen eighties mindset where New York City, Boston, Washington, d C, Los Angeles and San Francisco ruled the world, and for a long time they were the engines of economic growth, of power, and the tastes of upper middle class professionals. Still they reflect that. But compare it though, to today places where actual am Americans are moving, It

couldn't be more different. The top ten metro areas which gained population twenty twenty twenty twenty two are as follows Dallas, Texas, Houston, Texas, Phoenix, Arizona, Austin, Texas, Atlanta, Georgia, Tampa, Florida, Charlotte, North Carolina, San Antonio, Texas, Orlando, Florida, and Raleigh, North Carolina. You notice a trend there. We are becoming more and more spread out as a country and actually less geographically concentrated.

The availability of high speed internet across the United States a few years ago from now, with technology like Starlink, will only further change everything. The once forgotten places of America, which haven't seen population growth since the mid eighteen thirties, will significantly change in their ability to attract residents. Just think how many massive changes that's going to bring. Georgia already is no longer a red state, It's purple Texas too,

seems to be moving in the purple ish direction. Population growth in Arizona and outflows from the Midwest are changing the makeups of political parties. They are changing the way our literal economy functions. The ground is shifting beneath our feet. Now. You can try to fight it, but I don't really think you can. We're in it now and we should embrace it. My major hope and takeaway is this, the center of gravity of culture is just being uprooted right now.

It's upwardly mobile people who are moving with their feet. But what makes me really what we really need to do is to make this available to everyone. Choosing a new place to live if you want to is the ultimate expression of the American character and claiming the bounty of beautiful land that we've been blessed with, shaking up the established institutions to create a new order. That's what

the benefit is. The added also, though, is that new order with the existing centers of pop culture and power will significantly diminish, and like in the older great migrations, you get to claim a new destiny. I think it's fascinating looking at and if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue become a premium subscriber today at

Breakingpoints dot com. As you know if you watched our live stream on Tuesday night, there is a new mayor who has been elected in Chicago and quite an interesting race. So we wanted to get someone who was local, who could really break down the unique dynamics here. So we're excited to be joined by Frank Calabresi. He is a local Chicago political consultant. Great to have you, Frank. Good

to see you man, Thanks for having me. Yeah. So, the general dynamics of this race, as I understand them, as you have Paul Vallas, who was backed by the police union and really ran on this like you know,

law and order, tough on crime type of posture. And then you had Brandon Johnson, who was a middle school teacher and a labor activist, who was backed by a coalition of lefties backed by Bernie Sanders, and he ends up actually prevailing, which is a break from some of the dynamics we've seen in other cities, in particular New York with the election of Mayor Eric Adams. So just give people a sort of general sense of the race and how Johnson was able to be successful here as

a more left wing candidate. So I would compare this race more of the Los Angeles what happened in Los Angeles, and you had a wealthy white man who was a former Republican, and then we had more of a mainstream Democrat Karen Bass and Karen Bass one. So the Johnson campaign they tried to cast Paul Vallas as essentially a Republican. He was supported by Republican donors, he appeared a lot

on conservative talk radio. And what the results were is that the more wealthy areas of Chicago, the more socially conserved areas of Chicago, a lot of police and firefighters lived, they voted for Paul Vallas and big numbers. But then a lot of the minority areas in Chicago, and the more of the liberal activist areas of Chicago, kind of our local version of Williamsburg, you know, Logan Square and Rogers Park, they voted for Brandon Johnson in really big numbers,

and Brandon Johnson one got it. So, Frank, a lot of people are interpreting this nationally about crime and all it can you what are the actual issues that were before people in Chicago. What was Johnson talking about? What was Valas talking about? Wasn't all about crime? Teachers break it all down for us. So so crime, according to all the polls, was the number one issue. However, it kind of meant different things for different people. So Brandon Johnson,

he's a counting commissioner. He was supporting defunding the police as accounting commissioner. When he ran for mayor, he changed his tone. He said he will not defund the police. And I think this election came down to just dynamics of you know, who do you trust more to handle the crime issue. So Paul Valles he kind of ran as a lock him up, throwing away the key type of tough on crime. And then you know, Brandon Johnson ran as more of a holistic kind of you know,

your progressive approach to treat crime. You know, look at the root cause of crime. So both campaigns ran on crime, but the more mainstream democratic, progressive version of that, which is kind of a more holistic approach to crime that one in the day with City Chicago voters. Let's take a listen to you a little bit of Brandon Johnson. I believe this is part of his victory speech just so folks can get a bit of a sense of him.

Let's take a listen to that. Make no mistake about it, Chicago is a union town by investing in what actually works to prevent crime, and that means youth employment, mental health centers, ensuring that law enforcement has the resources to solve and prevent crime. A city that actually respects the workers who keep it running and supports the entrepreneurs that

keep it growing. A city where trains run on time and where no one is too poor to live in one of the richest cities in one of the wealthiest nations, have the richest time in the history of the world. A city where public schools have the resources to meet the needs of every child across this city. Now, in other words, tonight is the beginning of a Chicago that

truly invests in all of its people. So Frankie can really hear the way that he framed his public safety messaging, and it is sounding some sort of classic progressive themes. I know that the numbers I saw, he won something like eighty percent of the black vote in the city. Working class black voters are actually an area where progressives have sometimes struggled. Do you see his messaging as being

key to putting together this winning coalition. Is this something that you think progressives could look to replicate in other cities or are there unique dynamics here in Chicago which really just have to do with the particulars of these communities and this particular political race. Yeah, I think you have to look at Chicago again. It's two person race,

right and Paul Vallas. Again it's a majority minority city to very liberal city Chicago is, and Paul Vallas he had a like a high floor and a low ceiling. You know, he he essentially was branded as a Republican, and you know, he he had trouble on hitting fifty percent. It's really crazy because all the polls was having him like a forty eight percent, and that's probably where he's going to finish. He was not able to grow his coalition.

So I'm not too sure that you know, a progressive in the brand of Brandon Johnson could win in New York per se, which historically you know, vote for more modern type of mayors. You know, people like Bloomberg and now you know Eric Adams. So yeah, so I think you have to look at Chicago. You have to look at both the candidates and how Paul Vallas was was kind of a flawed candidate for a big liberal city. Yeah, another question I had for you, Frank, is did abortion

politics play here at all? They were obviously quite significant in a Wisconsin state Supreme Court race that we covered here at breaking points too. It was really, you know, potentially the determinative factor in the more liberal candidate just absolutely romping in that race. But I had read that Vallas had made some previous comments that were oppositional to abortion, and that Brandon Johnson also used those against him. Do you think that abortion politics played in this at all?

Wasn't a significant factor, even as we understand, crime was kind of the main focus. So when it comes to Chicago politics, you look at local aldermen, you know, the city council members, we call them aldermen here. They really run on kind of bread and butter type issues, and they run on crime, they run on quality of life. You know, they've run on taking the trash out. When people vote for mayor and local officials, I really don't think they vote on abortion politics or more national politics.

You know, abortion was talked about in this campaign. But it wasn't really highlighted like you see in the Wisconsins Supreme Court race. We're obviously the Supreme Court Wisconsin. They're going to be dealing with abortion directly. In Chicago, you know, abortion, you know, it's it's going to be as safe and accessible, you know, at least in my lifetime, because it's a

very liberal city. So it wasn't as talked about as much. Yeah. Yeah, perhaps just used is a way again to sort of paint him as like, this guy's not really one of us, he's really a Republican. Frank, tell people where people where folks can find you on Twitter, because that's where we found you and found your analysis really useful. Oh thanks a lot. Yeah, so it's just my name. It's at Frank Calbary's. I do a lot of politics in Chicago, and you know, I wasn't I work for the government now,

so I wasn't on the side. So the media they used me a lot kind of for my analysis, and it was a lot of fun. I was, you know, I got to be on TV a lot, nicely graduated locally in Chicago, but it was a lot. Now we're bringing out your national making me a national taking a national Frank, great to have you. Thanks so much for taking the time. Thanks man, great, Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Yeah, pleasure you. Thank you guys so much

for watching. Really appreciate it. The shout out to all the premium subscribers watching our show on Spotify, you guys are loving it and also still you know, the existing show on YouTube. Everybody, thank you also for supporting our show enabling our live stream that we had. It was a great time. We've still got a great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow to bring everybody up to date on

the news for Friday. So you basically had something every single day this week, which I think is really cool here for breaking points. We appreciate everybody who enables our work and we will see you all next week. Love y'all have a great weekend.