Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. Ryan, we have you sitting in for Crystal. Thank you very much for joining us, sir.
It's my pleasure to be here. I would never miss a Bro show.
Yes, the Bro shows. The people are loving the broch got.
We got some very very ambitious crossovers. Some are saying the most ambitious crossovers in the history of the Breaking Points universe happening this week. Why are these crossovers happening? Well, our very own Crystal Ball. I wanted to say congratulations to her. She had a beautiful wedding on Saturday to Kyle Kolinsky, and we put together a little photo collage we can exclusively share here. It's kind of like People magazine, let's go ahead and put these up the screen, gentlemen.
These were curated by Crystal herself everybody, so don't worry. I did check with the bride before we were able to share these.
Just absolutely stunning.
Having the paparazzi out there paying off.
Paparazzi aka me and our camera guys that we had up there. I personally my favorite part, aside from the dress, of course, ladies, you guys can go that, it was the flowers. Crystal from people who don't know, is obsessed with flowers and that was one of those things that it was just like icing on the cake.
At the wedding. Kyle also looked great.
I personally, personally just my opinion, I like the hair better this.
Way was all but all about the flowers too.
She's very discerning too, so whenever she throws out a compliment, it's like, really right, Oh, that's like flowers.
Are right now.
My fiance is like, hey, now we need to have nice flowers. I'm like, yeah, hold on second, we'll talk about it anyway.
So we just wanted to say from from our from our whole team over here at breaking points, from behind the scenes, and in front of the camera. How much we are so happy we are for Crystal and she's gonna have a great honeymoon. Kyle should be back in the chair next week. We love her and we miss her very much. I already do, to be honest.
So it was. It was a beautiful ceremony.
Also, shout out to mary Anne Williams and I will say this, the best vows at a wedding ceremony I have ever heard, the absolute best.
Yeah. Anyway, Yeah, she's quite the MC.
She's very much so, so I'm taking notes. Everybody else should as well. Mary Anne told me that apparently her vows are available in one of her books, So this is not.
This is me saying it. Go check them out. I'm serious.
If you have a wedding ceremony or whatever coming up, very much worth possibly incorporating. Anyways, once again, everybody leave a comment, Premium describers and everybody congratulate, congratulations very much to Crystal. We will miss her very much dearly. Okay, let's go ahead and get to the show. We got a lot of fun stuff. First of all, I may an unexpected cameo in the Trump deposition, so we'll.
Break that down for you to start that off.
Biden also stunning a new poll coming out which is honestly humiliating for him, showing him losing to Trump. Of course, we wanted to talk a little bit about that terrible situation that happened on the New York City subway which resulted in the death of homeless man. It's ignited quite a bit of discourse across the Internet about whether it was justified or whether it was.
A lynching in cold blood.
And actually, I think Ryan and I are going to try and get to a place where we're going to get past much of the cultural war and actually get to what the pros quote unquote solutions are outside of discourse about crime and all that, and be like, Okay, well we all agree I got to do something about this, right, but like, what is it and what can be done?
How we balance liberty.
I think you guys will enjoy it because it's going to be a more nuanced discussion you're going to hear anywhere else. Developments with the Hunter Biden investigation and his own problems and fights with the White House, and then finally Tucker Carlson indicating he may want to declare war on Fox News. I also do I want to say before we start the show, just thank you all so
much for the premium subscribers who've been signing up. It just helps us so tremendously as we're building out this new studio, not only with the lights up, but with so much more the graphic design. It's really going to be a brand new package. And as I've said before, you know, this is just stage one. We're watching the failures of BuzzFeed and Vice Ryan, and one of the big mistakes they made is they got way too big, too fast, and we are very much committed.
You know, even with Counterpoints.
It was like, okay, we've got breaking points down, now let's do counterpoints. We're going to refine that, right, and then the two of the four of us, like we're all working together, we've got our.
Partners and all that. Then we're going to the studio model.
And again, all of this is completely financed out of our budget. We're not borrowing any money, and we are very cognizant that it's your hard earned money that is helping us out. So if you are able to Breakingpoints dot Coms become a premium members.
Monthly, yearly in lifetime.
I will only just say from a cash flow perspective, it very much helps the yearly and the lifetime at this time as the bills are showing out. So enough of that, let's start with the that position. Ryan, you actually helped to curate this one a little bit. For those who don't know, I interviewed Trump back in twenty nineteen, and during that interview we talked about a lot of subjects Iran, you know, Iran and the Iran deal. There was the Vatican. There was a lot of stuff that
was going on there. The very last question though, Sarah Sanders came to me because that day e Gene Carrol, who you might know, famous actress, had accused Donald Trump of rape. And as right it before I'm about to walk into the Oval, me and this guy Jordan Fabian used to work with the Hill. She's like, hey, let's let's just stay away from that, and Jordan and I looked at each other we were like, yeah, totally, We're like, we're totally.
Not going to ask about that. And then so what we did is a drive to ask.
Yeah.
Obviously, well we were like, uh huh, absolutely, let's just go on in there. We'll see right, And of course, so tried and true reporter tactic, as you know, Ryan, is you say what is most likely to be the most incendiary part very last, because if they kick you out, then you've already asked everything else.
Yes, say you want.
So we can notice that his team's kind of wrapping us up and they want this all us to come to an end. I looked at Jordan and we're like, yeah, let's go. So we ask him about the Egene Carroll thing, and we were the first, of course to get his response iconic now, in which he said, quote, she's not my type. And that's actually the very first thing that he said. He said, first of all, she's not I
will personally never forget that moment. It was absolutely surreal to see him sitting behind the resolute desk and saying that. Now though Egen Carroll's actually suing him in a civil court and actually got a deposition, much of it being funded by the billionaire Reed Hoffman. We'll talk about that
a little bit later. During Ryan's monologue. However, my Name made a cameo in that which then led to an iconic moment where Trump appears not to recognize his own ex wife Marla Maple and mistakes her for Egen Carrol after saying she's not my type. So we put together a little package for you.
Let's take a listen.
You have in front of you, sir, a document five page documents. The first page says an in bold type exclusive Trump vehemently denies Egan Carrol allegation, says she's not my type. It's from a publication Knows the Hill. It stated June twenty fourth, twenty nineteen, and it's attributed to the gentleman Jordan Fabian and or maybe not be gentlemen. It's attributed to two people, Jordan Fabian and Cigar and gente is.
Yes, okay, so maybe not the gentleman.
I guess that's so good.
So whether I'm a gentleman or not is up for breaking points to decide. What do you make of that?
Before we get to the Marlon Maples thing.
Yeah, well, my favorite thing about journalism really is these accidental stumblings into history that we end up making because you look back in your life and like, these things probably would have unfolded if I was never born.
But on the other hand, yeah, I played a role in this, yes thing.
It's very small.
If I don't ask him about this, he doesn't make this absurd claim, although maybe he makes it eventually at a rally or probably I think I think he ended up later did but then it winds up in a deposition, and then it winds up and I was like, sorry, you're a man of history, because we got to play this next clip because this is what it leads to, which is just incredible to roll this second one.
I don't even know who the woman. Let's see, I don't know who. It's Marla.
You said, Marl's in this photo.
That's Marla. Yeah, that's that's my wife.
Which woman are you pointing to?
Other?
Now here person?
Carroll point and the person the woman on the right is your then wife.
I don't know this was the picture. I assume that's John Johnson. Is that because it's very blurry.
So he confuses Marla Maples with his sorry Egen Carroll, the woman who was accusing him of rape, and who with his ex Wifela Maples, after saying quote, she's not my type anyway.
I've never seen anybody's credibility undermine more thoroughly than that.
It's very, very hard to get caught in.
A not my type sign of lie until you then say, oh, yeah, that's that's my wife.
But then he's like, it's very blurry. So there are several options. A. Possibly she is his type. Look as the accusation itself, who the hell knows, having like nineteen eighty whatever. As I said, being funded by the billionaire reied Hoffman. Trump is actually not even mounting in defense. He's basically like, this entire thing at BS and I'm not going to participate in this.
He was forced and eventually to testify.
From my perspective, as far as allegations go, like she told a decent number of people at the time, her story sounds credible.
His story keeps falling apart and.
Being like every time he claim makes a claim I've never even been to bergor or whatever, it's like that falls apart.
Oh, that's fair from me.
But trying to litigate a me too thing from the nineteen eighties whatever.
Okay, let's put that aside.
The irony here obviously, of course, it's actually pretty extraordinary to get a former president to be to post. Part of why I suspect reed Hoffman the billionaire funded the case in the first place. Second, though, just leading to this very amusing interaction. So I think we have possible explanations. A. Possibly she is his type.
That's one. Two though, is that might be a little bit of a Biden moment. That might be a little old man moment.
There confusing his ex wife from the nineteen eighties with this other woman.
You know, that's like a classic one.
We haven't seen as many you know, Biden moments from Trump, of course, but who knows. You know, he is seventy eight years old, so he's not that far away from Joe Biden.
That's true.
It is wild that the seventy eight year old man gets to go into the race as the spring chicken.
Yes, absolutely, yeah, the oldest Trump would be the one of the oldest men all I believe. I guess he'd be type with Biden. I should he hold the Oval Office? Just an amusing aside there to see my own personal role in all of this. I will never forget that moment, he said, not because he did it in the most trumpy and fashion like, leaned back in his chair right behind the desk, put up the hands and he was like, not my tie, it's burned into my memud.
Did it feel like he had that ready or like, no, it was totally spontaneous.
It was totally spontaneous because also I could tell that despite the fact.
That Sarah Sanders had told us that she didn't want us to ask it, he was begging you want, Yeah, he won. I think he had it ready. I think he had it ready in his head. You can just tell it was one of those things he was flipping through channels that morning. He said, huh, she's not even my type. But that was like the first thing that came to his head, and that's what he decided to
go with. And yet despite that, as despite that, that is the person who was running against Joe Biden should be easy, right, and yet it doesn't appear all that easy. Let's go ahead and put this pole up there on the screen. Okay, so what do we see here? Well, things are rah not so good here, Ryan, What do you think who do you think did a better job of handling the economy? Donald Trump when he was president
or Joe Biden during his presidency So far? Trump fifty four percent, Biden thirty six percent, neither seven percent not in a opinion three percent. The reason why this is so important, Ryan, is that all throughout the twenty twenty election, every single time that we heard, oh, Trump doesn't have a chance. Trump doesn't have a chance. He's losing head
to head Biden, losing head to head Biden. The Trump campaign and several other polar polling people who got it more right than they were always said, But look at the economy number, and all the way up until the day of the twenty twenty election, Donald Trump led Joe Biden on the economy, and that economic figure ended up being a far better predictor of the twenty twenty outcome
in the race, specifically in the battleground states. Now, of course, Biden won a very narrow victory, only thirty thousand votes across three different states. But the more important thing is that not only is this Biden v. Trump in terms of economic numbers, his Biden's numbers are actually lower in battleground states places like Pennsylvania, in Arizona, in Michigan for example, Wisconsin, across the industrial Midwest, making it much more of a jump ball than people are willing to realize.
And I think he has to be the least popular incumbent president going into reelection that has unified party support and the belief among party leaders that he's going to.
Win smart like you've never had that combination before.
Normally, it's like Jimmy Carter unpopular president. A lot of people are nervous that he's going to lose to whoever Republicans put up in nineteen eighty and you even get Ted Kennedy running a primary against him to have a LBJ in nineteen.
Absolutely sixty eight, sixty eight. He is deeply.
Unpopular and the party leader's like, you know what, he might lose and that opens up possibility. But now party leaders just believe that he's going to win, and they don't care what poll numbers, they don't care what the American people say about whether or not they're going to vote for Joe Biden.
They just are heading the sand confident.
You know what, Biden's got this and therefore there can be no challenge to him. We can't think about any other alternative process here. We can't gently nudge him aside. There's not even the remotest kind of talk of that. It's a really striking moment, and maybe it has to do with the hyperpolarization that we're now in, which we were not in in nineteen sixty eight and nineteen eighty.
Those are times where lots of people are switching parties from every four year Richard Nixon launching the EPA, stuff like that. And so because everybody's so polarized, it's like, well, I'm a Democrat, this is our guy, and that's it and that's it done.
Conversation's over.
When we'll talk about Simone Sanders, that's space most response.
And unfortunately, though, is that this is still manifesting and deep unease for a lot of Americans. This one also, you can't just put this stuff in a bottle, put this up there on the screen. You know, right now, sixty three percent of people say that Biden does not have the mental sharpness to serve effectively as president. And that just shows you, do you even Trump? Donald Trump
is at fifty four percent majority of Americans. You know, many new people don't even like Trump, but they're like, yeah, he's got the mental acuity and he's more.
Sharp enough to serve.
Well for Biden, it's only thirty two percent. I mean, when you've only got a third of the country that thinks that you are sharp enough to be president, now listen, I mean I think that people probably felt that way at least in some part in twenty twenty. But I think that the important thing is that the only forty three percent of Americans felt that way about Joe Biden in twenty twenty, fifty four percent a year ago, and
now up to sixty three percent. So it doesn't take a genius to see here that we're going exponential in the amount of the American people that think that he's way too old to be president or at the very least doesn't have the mental acuity to serve. And again, you know, only exposure is going to make that worse. One of the reasons that number has gotten up is because in twenty twenty he didn't do anything. All of his old man moments during the pandemic were confined to
the basement. Well now it's like you can try Ryan hide in the White House, but it's inevitable you're going to talk. And he has all kinds of crazy dad moments like or not even dad, like great granddad moments like every other day, which are bad for him.
Yes, and there's some of them I can't even watch, just just for the.
Especially like oh.
So yeah, I mean the idea that only fifty four percent of people think Trump has a mental acuity is staggering, and then to see that he's beating Biden in electing slide on that end, we had.
A year and a half left to go.
Good point.
And the problem for Biden here is that everyone in the world has experience with people in their eighties and nineties, and we all know that some of them are extraordinarily crisp, and you would trust them with surgery even right. We also know that some of them not so much. And we also know that you can you can decline quickly. And this is not something that anybody had to go to college for or you know, be able to read scientific papers. It's just from her own experience of life.
It's very human. Yeah.
I mean just the other day, I was walking my dog and this woman was crossing the street and this very elderly woman just wasn't paying attention and came inches away from hitting this woman and she started crying. I could see her like holding her hand, and I was just like, look, this is really sad. She just realized in that moment. It's like, lady, you are way too old to drive. I'm sorry. Like, it's just not like you came inches away from taking another person's life.
And we all know the story of the person.
Who refuses to stop driving because they don't realize it when you're in the car and you're like, are ringing me okay here, like this is not so great, you know, and it's uncomfortable, Like I get it, and you know what the solution is.
I honestly have no idea.
Maybe mandatory testing over the age of seventy five, just throwing that out there. Let's put this up there on the screen, though, which is that this is manifesting politically because right now in the general election matchup, Trump has the edge.
This is it. Right now?
Thirty six percent say, thirty six percent say they're definitely voting for Trump, nine percent say they're going to vote Republican. On top of that, eighteen percent are undecided. And then only thirty eight percent of people say that they are definitely voting for Joe Biden or the Democrats. I mean, this has Trump up on Joe Biden in a head to head pole Now, listen, is that the major predictor?
No?
What did we all learn in twenty twenty two? Polls are totally wrong? They're wrong in the wrong in the other direction. Twenty twenty, they were wrong in the Trump direction. Here is my personal bias, as everybody knows here with polling.
I think that.
When Trump is off the ballot, polling somehow seems to normalize back to the twenty twelve world, like where polls.
Were actually pretty accurate.
If anything, they underestimated Obama, you know, they were there. But when Trump is on the ballot, he seems to have some sort of magical effect where you kind of just have to ply a price in like R plus five or something like that whenever I'm looking. So anyway, my point is that when I look at something like that, I'm like, actually, think Trump is probably even more head now. You though, as I just said, you can make the opposite case, like what are you talking about?
Soccer? Stop?
The steel just got crushed all across the country. Roe Versus way historically unpopular. You know, these idiots can't even win a referendum in Kansas. You know, it's like, oh, how do you think that's going to work out? So I'm not really sure where I fall, but I just think, like I see signs of peril. I'm the fundamentals is not good for Joe Biden.
Yeah, and a lot of progressives looked at this poll and whenever and whenever either side gets a bad poll, they lift the hood up and they become polling excep.
Yes, it was overweighted in this one particular.
Like you young people in the old Yeah, on this one. The thing that they were dunking on the poll for was being of all adults rather than either registered voters or likely voters. But there's cross tabs inside it that are for registered voters, and it's not much better for Biden in there, like by a hair, it's slightly better. And they pulled over a thousand adults, so you're going to have a sample size of plenty.
Of registered voter.
So you know the fact that the kind of first justification or defense of the poll from progressives kind of fell apart as soon as you kind of looked closer to the poll.
Now, like you said, it's just one poll.
Nobody should change their mind about an election that's eighteen months away based on one poll. But nobody should think that this is going to be the slam dunk that
it's going to be. I think the reason that Democrats have that confidence that I was talking about earlier is that basically every time Biden's been on the ballot since twenty sixteen, sorry, Trump has been on the ballot since twenty sixteen, he's gotten hammered twenty eighteen, twenty twenty, and then again in twenty twenty two when they were able to kind of nationalize the election around Trump by rating mar A Lago and getting him in as like the boogeyman.
That would get Democrats out of the vote.
So that's three elections in a row where Democrats have felt like Trump was on the ballot and they were able to bring out enough turn out and beat him, so that they really are thinking, like, that's that's we're going to be again.
Listen, it's a good case. It's certainly possible.
The whole point is is like possibility does not equal eventuality. And you know, it's like, and the probability is so high or of Trump being able to win that you really just need to make you need to make your peace with that and then try and fight a contested election.
Put the next one that is up there on the screen. This is just the general right up.
Really, what they say is just that Biden faces broad negative ratings at the start of the campaign. Now all of this can be solved. Don't get us wrong. There are lots of things could happen. Eighteen months from now. The war in Ukraine could be over. You know, gas prices could be back at like two point fifty. I think people are going to be being like COVID. Who the economy could? You know? The Fed seems to be pausing. Maybe the economy will get back. Who knows the other
Here's the other option. The war in Ukraine is a horrific disaster. It's finally spiking gas back up to five. There's a recession because we have more supply. Both of those cases are easy ones where you could see things changing completely. So this is in no way saying that this is going to predict the results. It's only that he faces a real problem, and if I were him, I would be doing everything possible to try and work myself out of this problem. But that's the one thing
I know also that Joe Biden refuses to do. It barely works, It works for four hours a day.
Yeah, your gas price point is key because who controls gas prices and put in an MBS, Yeah, and so MBS every single time he's been asked by Trump has done what is beneficial to Trump? So expect gas prices I think next summer to go back up to four dollars a gallon, with MBS restricting.
It so that he can get Bien now there.
It's amazing that they have this incredible economy right now, lowesst unemployment rate in like fifty years, lowest black unemployment rate in history, down to three point four percent for the overall uneployed rate, where wages rising at four point four percent, while inflation is cooling. Yet if you talk to a lot of voters, I'll say, what has Biden done for me? And I think it goes back to
his failure to increase the minimum wage. That's not just beneficial to millions of people around the country, but it would be a symbol that he could point to, like what did I do?
I raised the minimum wage? And they fought you on that, and they.
Had a chance to do that, they had a chance to put it in the American Rescue Plan, but oh gee, the parliamentarian got to respect the parliamentarian.
And so because of that he can say.
Okay, unemployments down. But then people say, okay, well, unemployments down. How much credit do you get for that? And also inflation is up, so I'm not so excited about the jobs market because I'm still nervous about inflation.
If he had something to.
Point to, like I raised the wage, I agree with you, that would be just a knockout blog.
Right instead of well, I'm going to make sure that they don't take control so that they might not pass this unpopular thing on abortion.
Although listen, it has worked, as we.
Have found out for a Democratic of gubernatorial candidates like Greshen, Whitmer and others.
You can do a terrible job, you can still get re elected.
So you know, it's like, don't put that outside of very very easy.
Now let's go to the next one.
Here, just a mask off moment on MSNBC, which I just love, you know, in terms of the whole Biden propaganda nature of this, not only do they hire the express secretary, now they have the first started by hiring Kamala's ex operative Simone Sanders. She goes on Morning Joe's MSNBC and says, definitively, there will not be a single Democratic debate.
Let's take a listen to what she said.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. Doing well, he's at nineteen percent, hasn't really gotten that much out there. I mean, it's and I'm starting to hear more and more talk about him. Are we going to actually have a challenge here?
I'm trying not to laugh. Yet they're not willing to. Can can I sep you first sight?
Do you know how many people said the same thing about Donald Trump in twenty fifteen?
Yes, the same exactly, Yeah, because.
There was going to be a Republican primary. But I really think that the meeting of Democrats is I like to call them and some of my progressive friends who would like to live in a fantasy land, they need to come back to reality.
And the reality is this.
The sitting president of the United States of America is a Democrat, a Democrat that would like to run for re elections, so much so that he has declared a re election campaign. In that case, the Democratic National Committee will not facilitate the primary process. There will be no debate stage for Bobby Kennedy, Marian Williams, or anyone else.
We're going to have another joining in an empty chair in the debate, right.
There will be no debating debate.
The Democratic National Committee administers the debates, and they're not going to set up a primary process for debates too, for someone to challenge the head of the Democratic Party.
As you point out, and I have as well. I literally have the RFK book right behind me. It's not like there wasn't precedent for this in history. RFK says, we need to save the Democratic Party from LBJ Vietnam. The country is a disaster. Richard Nixon is going to win if I don't do this comes in. You know, obviously it was tragically his life was cut short. Who knows how that happened. That's a question another day.
Thank you. We will ask you to believe, we will ask honestly.
He's raising some good questions anyway, So we put that to the side. Then we have literally the primary process facilitated as I understand it, Ryan by the DNC in nineteen eighty whenever Ted Kennedy decided to challenge Jimmy Carter. And as I've pointed out here before on the show, I'm curious what your read on it is.
I think Carter was a doomed candidate no matter what that said.
I think he probably did a better job in the nineteen eighty presidential election against Reagan because he had to challenge and defend his beliefs against Ted Kennedy by definitively winning the primary, he maintains that it made him weaker. I think he was weak no matter what going into that election, but Ted Kennedy's challenge towards him made him affirmatively have to make the case to his base and to Americans about why he should keep the standard bearer of his party.
So what's your take.
I think there's two separate questions when it comes to Kennedy's influence on Carter's re election. One is the actual primary itself, and then second is Kennedy's role after the primary in the general election. And I think you're right that Carter was made stronger by by that challenge, by having to rise to the occasion there and.
Make the case for himself.
But then Kennedy by kind of basically not endorsing him and not bringing his coalition in behind him, he's very sort of endorsed him, but like cold, he gave that sty dramatic and he gave this like tear jerking speech at the convention where it's like the the you know, the you know this guy killed all the puppies, but the dream will never die, Like, so vote for the dream killer, yes, because one day in the future the
dream will rise again. It was like a brutal like you couldn't watch Kennedy's acceptance speech and come away if you're a Kennedy's supporter anything but hating Jimmy.
Carter, Like how could you kill this wonderful man in his movement?
So if he had, and this is you'll hear the exact same thing from Hillary Clinton that it wasn't necessarily the Bernie Sanders primary.
It was the fact that instead.
Of dropping out in March April May like he did when he endorsed Biden, he didn't drop out until the convention and very you know, they will say he like only luke warmly endorsed. I think that part is BS, but you do. I think Bernie has internalized that. And if you watch how he comported himself in twenty twenty ye, soon as he dropped out, instantly was like, I'm supporting Joe Biden.
And he writes in his book that he didn't want to be.
Blamed and we didn't want to do anything that could be interpreted as undermining Biden. So if you have a primary that then results in the parties coming together, then I think it is beneficial to the party. But if you have a primary where the winner is kind of a jerk to the loser and the loser is like, well, then screw you, then it does I think hobble you going into the general election.
That's my take on it.
I think that's fair, But there's no evidence that you know, Bobby Kennedy or Mary Anne would even do that.
By the way, even if they did, I mean they don't.
You don't owe it to anyone, right, it's like to endorse them they ultimately to be fair.
Also to Kennedy, it's not like Carter was all that nice to.
Him, Yes, exactly.
It was a huge prick exactly.
And egos get so deeply involved this, Like Carter needed to Carter didn't do what he needed to do to pull Kennedy in. Everybody's got responsibilities and duties and obligations and nobody met them.
Yeah, And if anyone's interested, I read Jonathan Alter's biography of Jimmy Carter is actually fascinating.
It's called his very best. Highly recommend it.
Yeah, not usually a figure you would spend eight hundred pages on, but you learn a lot about the guy our only engineering president, which you know is actually kind of revealing if you asked me. Let's go to the next one here. Very interesting what happened with the Proud Boys.
You wanted to make sure that we got into the verdict that came down, which genuinely is historic, as we had laid out here previously, both on the Oath Keepers and on the Proud Boys, who were charged with seditious conspiracy. Seditious conspiracy is a very very difficult charge to prove. The last time that the FBI had brought that case in it's like a domestic terrorism incident in the two thousands,
they actually lost quite handily. So Chrystal and I were very skeptical that the jury was going to be able to find these claims credible. Ultimately, though the FBI and the DOJ, the Biden Justice Department prevailed in this case. I think it's worth spending a little bit of time on one happened there. So let's gohead and put this up there on the screen. This is the release from
the Department of Justice. They say that during the district returned guilty verdicts multiple felonies against five members of the Proud Boys, finding four of the defendants guilty of seditious conspiracy for their actions before and during the breach of the US Capitol on January sixth. Here was the case, basically that the DOJ laid out. The defendants plotted to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power to prevent members of Congress and the federal law enforcement officers
to help protect them from discharge their duties. One of them in Rico Tario, Or of Miami, the former chairman of the Proud Boys.
They list the rest of.
The defendants were guilty then of seditious conspiracy and the obstruct conspiracy to obstruct in official proceeding. Now, I think it's interesting, Ryan, and I know that you have some background on this about the way that the seditious conspiracy charge was proven. A lot of it rests on text messages that were actually sent by Tario to the rest of the Proud Boys about what they were entering in Now around the jury and the way that they arrived
at this. There was actually a fascinating interview with the jury members in vice and one of them flagged to me, now I'm not questioning the jury.
I'm literally just using their own.
Words about how they ended up at this charge to put us up there on the screen, they say, what evidence convinced you that the Proud Boys had entered into conspicuous and seditious conspiracy. Here is exactly what they said verbatim. It was all the all the chats, parlor telegram, not
just the chats but also the private text. I think what it boiled down to what they had to say prior to jan six, and the fact that they had something wanted to do something in secret, and that's why the government couldn't present too much evidence that they had already deleted because it was unrecoverable.
So they didn't definitely want people to know.
They didn't want everybody to know the plan the Proud Boys because then I guess it would have gotten out, and they didn't want it to get out.
What did you make of this? Ryan?
A lot of people who are civil libertarians and picked up on this to say, well, you're basically saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Donald Rumse quote see what I'm going for there, and convicted them on statistics conspiracy based on this that they were
trying to cover it up. Obviously, it doesn't make it look good, but it also isn't necessarily the direct evidence, at least in the way that many civil libertarians are looking at it for why this should have been charged. Once again, the jury can do what it likes, and it didn't reach this decision. We're just here talking about it. It's a deeply, deeply disturbing rationale. Yeah, to say that, well, if.
You were trying to maintain your privacy, that there must be some reason like that.
Is that.
That's why I was worried about it.
It's so antithetical to American values. But I think what you also saw later in that interview is this clash of two American values. One was the sanctity of the free elections and the peaceful transfer of power. And she says in that interview, we wanted to send a message that this is not okay, that if you do this, you'll be punished, to that nobody in the future ever
does that. And they were willing to bend that fundamental kind of bedrock American principle that the government has to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt and that juries in the past have been have been proud to say, we're conflicted about say this not guilty verdict, But it is the responsibility of us as citizens to force the government to bring forward evidence even if we feel like in our guts the person is guilty, they
didn't make they didn't make the case, and so therefore we're going to rule this person not guilty because that's how our American system of criminal justice works. And here they kind of, according to her, are discarding that and saying, well, they probably did it. And the fact that they deleted all these messages suggests to us very strongly.
That they did it.
And it's more important for us to air on the side of punishing them so that nobody tries to bust up an election again.
And I don't want people to accuse us of cherry piking this interview. She literally said this. They said, did it matter that there were significant amounts of messages deleted quote, It showed an absence of evidence of standing down. No one says, no, don't do this, We're not going to do this. There was none of that, and that was probably because they never said it. The things that were affirming that were going to be violent. They just kind
of let it happen. They point to one of the defendants was actually acquitted on conspiracy and they ask for the difference, and they say, well, he wasn't in leadership and he only joined the Proud Boys in November or December of twenty twenty, so we didn't have a whole lot time pre January sixth. They have different tiers that they were talking about. We actually deadlocked on one of the defendants at first got through that and said not guilty.
Another factor was that he wasn't the brightest bulb on the porch. It may not have been bright enough to really know about the plan. So I said, well, poor guy, he should have listened to his father in law who told him don't go. Pretty much everybody should listened to their father in law or anybody else had told them not to go. Because now these guys are facing some serious, serious jail time, and let's go ahead and put this
up there on the screen. The Associated Press actually did a decent explainer here, and again I want to just reiterate why are we spending time on the conspiracy charge? This is one of the rarest charges and very very tough ones for governments to be able to prove. I mean, historically, most juries have rejected it in the past when the US government brought this, even in cases of major domestic terrorism.
So just keep that in mind.
And the reason why is it was intended for basically extremists and others like in the post Civil War era. I mean, you can imagine the context of what happened. What they associated press and all of that point out is that this post Civil War war law was to arrest Southerners who were still fighting the US government, very
rare in modern American history. What they basically said is that they had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was a conspiracy not just to storm the Capitol, but explicitly to block the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. Now, as I've pointed out prere previously, outside of the recent January sixth cases, the previous ones that were brought in government did and all came to
aquittical acquittals. That was in twenty twelve in against that so called like Hate group because they said that prosecutors relied at that time specifically only on hateful diet tribes against the First Amendment and didn't actually prove, as required by the law, that they ever had detailed plans for rebellions.
And so the reason why we're spending time on the detailed plans is that the detailed plans and their government's ability to prove those detailed plans are at the heart of a successful conspiracious conspiracy charge under the statute into the US federal law.
Yeah, and so often when you're debating the questions of these of these political crimes, there is a crime that underlies it where you don't even need this extra political crime in there. So in other words, like did a bunch of these guys Notreo because he was already underarrest, but.
Well and maybe maybe a FED yeah not maybe it genuinely was a federal informat, which is kind of wild because he still got convicted.
And anyway, right, what's the point of having all these performance you can't stop this.
What's the point of being a FED if the FEDS is still going to charge?
There is also that Yeah, uh so these guys did sack the capital, and they did do so with the intents of blocking this transfer of power, like blocking this proceeding.
So you've got you've.
Got them on that charge serpiracy to obstruct, charge.
Him with that and lock him up for that, Like, great, if you're going to then you know, pile on.
The extra political charges.
I feel like you really do need to have the evidence to back that up. And if they deleted it before you could get it, then you know that's too bad for the prosecutors. So there, and this is it's so often the case that you already have like the law in place that you need, but it's that people
just want more. And so like I forget where I was reading this, but after John Brown rated Harper's ferry, yes, that's right, Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Senator Lincoln Douglas debates who said we need tougher laws, So you don't need tougher laws.
He killed people.
You've got him like he led an insurrection. Now to me, good for him, and he's a hero.
Well, the reason Stephen Douglass and all of them did that is because Brown became a political symbol of rebellion across the world. He like ignited the flame and all that, and not only across the world, but obviously in the North. Prior to that, the idea of armed rebellion or slavery was basically unthinkable, and it also spawned. It was like the it's kind of like people who pray for disaster.
The Southerners, they're called fire eaders at the time, people who wanted to break away from the Union.
They were like, Brown was.
Everything they could have imagined in their wildest dreams about what the North really wanted.
To do to them. Yea.
And even Lincoln was like, look, we hanged the guy, Yeah we can. He has some court with it. We could hang him ten times, right, and they wouldn't be satisfied. So Douglas is like, well, how about more laws, and you can. It's the exact same political system, like that's what happened to that you'd have people just proposing new laws because hanging him once, you know, isn't enough to satisfy that the table news punts of the time.
The reason why this is an important point is you can't fix what happened on January sixth in the law. It's not a law question, it's a political question. It's a question of political legitimacy. Of Biden, of Trump, of Trump questioning the democratic process, of the democratic will of the people and who they elect, and whether Republicans still choose him as a leader, even post that these are all cultural political questions that can only be resolved through
the democratic process. You cannot legal your way out of John Brown of January.
I'm not comparing the two. They are not in any way somewhere.
But what I'm saying is just that these big, you know, events like this are not matters of we need new laws to make sure this doesn't happen. By the way, they did have new laws through the dread Scott decision and all of that, or you know, and all of the eventual political compromises that were made through law to try and prevent the Civil War, and it didn't work because it was.
Not a question of law. It was a question of human.
Dignity, of power, of slavery, and all of that that eventually resulted in, you know, a clash of wills and of arms that had to be where one side had to be subjugated.
I hope we don't come to that. I pray that we don't.
But the point is that we can only solve this through means, you know, way way above the law, at least just in my opinion.
Right, And it's not as if John Brown. If Stephen Douglas had written the Sedition Act before that would be like, well, then I'm not going to go.
For Harper's Ferriss. That's the thing too about Brown.
Brown actually rejected all the compromises you know that I'm talking about. He thought that they were whims and that they, you know, weren't you're.
Against there's no I mean, it's kind.
Of like that Luis c. K joke.
He's like, yeah, the abortion protesters, they think there's murder going on in there.
He's like, what would you do if?
And I was like, you know, I think that actually coded for liberals. The way that many pro life people who I've met as well, the way they think about this is it's always just important to get in the mind of somebody that you don't understand as to why this matters now seditious conspiracy versus just the obstructing a government. Preceding that a lot of the other Jan sixers have been convicted on. Let's put this up there on the screen. The leader of the Oath Keepers is now facing possibly
twenty five years in federal prison. Stuart Rhodes was convicted already of seditious conspiracy, where they were I think more easily able to prove the detailed plot, although even there again, you know, it all comes back to whether it was a genuine plot to actually stop the transfer of power versus a riot, which is basically what the defense said
there at trial they painted him as a terrorist. Now they are saying, quote that a harsh sentence is critical to deter political violence, and they said that what Rhodes beliefs has done. They wrote that Rhodes believes he has done nothing wrong and still presents a threat to American democracy and to American lives should he not receive the twenty five year sentence. So that's why again it's important,
is because you know sitious conspiracy. You I mean, theoretically you could spend your life in prison after being convicted of this charge.
Right, and in the old days you behave you would yeah, like you've come for the king.
Its justice for that you come for the.
King and you miss yes.
So you know, a lot of me has not a lot of sympathy because of that rationale that everybody knows that if you come for the king and you miss or what are your best nonsense? And they missed yes, So you know they aft around, and this is the fining, this is the finding out period.
Usually it's just me quoting Omar from the wire here. So it's good to have another wire guy here.
There you go.
Yeah, and so, but these extremely long sentences, I think we don't we don't realize how kind of out of the kind of civilized world we've gotten. Up until the early part of the twentieth century, it was extremely rare for people to get even ten year sentences. Now, some of that was because you were much more likely to get capital punishment for murder and then everything else underneath
that shorter sentences. You probably know this when when Stalin moved from kind of typical ten year they call it tenors ten year sentences to twenty five year sentences.
The entire globe was.
Shocked, like, you're giving twenty five year sentences out like this is Barbara.
That was during the purges in the nineteen right.
Yeah, so this is not that long ago that the entire world considered twenty five year sentences to be completely barbed.
The expectancy what lower that's true.
Those life sentences, Yeah, especially in the Rush at the time. But now they're dropping twenty five year sentences all over the place. So and a lot of people did a lot less than him, serving more time.
Yeah, that actually very true anyway, So keep that in mind as we're thinking about this. There's always what we always try to do here is bring you know, this isn't there's no defense of the crowd was to be saying the same thing or whatever if it was some like the you know what was a good example is the weathermen. You know, the weathermen bombers.
They don't need twenty five years.
You guys want to know why the weathermen didn't didn't ever serve even though they literally bombed the Capitol. I think people forget that, you know why, because the FBI was illegally spying on them, and we easily could have convicted every single one of them for life, for even for murder. In some cases, some of them were convicted, but they weren't because j Edgar Hoover and others violated their civil liberties. And the determination was made because their
civil liberties were violated. Even though these people genuinely did commit acts of domestic terrorism and wanted a violent insurrection against the US government, that's still the principle had to hold within US law. That civil liberties and violations by the state shall not trump the ability to go after them.
Same with Elsberg. They would have gotten him right.
The only reason he got off is because the Nickson administration spied on him.
Yeah, which is incredible.
So always keep that in mind whenever we're thinking about these things. Okay, let's go to the next one. Just such a tragic event happening on the New York City subway.
Lots of discourse around this.
Jordan Neely, he was a Michael Jackson impersonator at one time. There was an altercation on the subway. Now we don't know a lot of the details. There's conflicting things that are coming from the witnesses. What we do know is this mister Neely was very terribly mentally disturbed. He was a mentally ill person who was on the New York City Subway who at some point lost his composure while he was there, either asking for money or violently threatening passengers.
That's what some people are saying. Other people are saying he didn't violently threaten. Eventually he was restrained by a man named Daniel Penny, who was on the New York City Subway. Penny maintains that he was protecting himself and others whenever he put miss Neely into a chokehold. Eventually he was held nearly not only by Daniel Penny, but by two other bystanders who were there as Neely was trying to free himself after fifteen minutes of being held
there and they were trying to alert police officers. He eventually died as a result, probably from restriction of his airway. So, anyway, lots of discourse around self defense, should these mentally people even be there? How exactly should we deal with this in the future, And the overwhelming consensus I think Ryan from a lot of outside of the self defense is like, okay, I think we can all agree it is menacing to have like mentally ill vagrance like all over cities. Then
the question comes, it's dangerous. There's a woman here in Washington, d C. I forget her name, who was stabbed to death randomly. This is fairly or sorry has become fairly noticeable basically.
Across all urban areas.
I've traveled basically all across the country in the last couple of years, and I've noticed from lot I mean, I was still never forget personally skid Row skid rows who were probably the worst thing I have ever seen.
I've been to.
I have seen people missing limbs in Cambodia, street slums in Bombay, and I'm telling you, I really think skid row might be one of the most one of the saddest things I've ever seen, like a genuine human tragedy. But skid Row Los Angeles, San Francisco, of course is famous, but they're not the only ones. You know, go on down by the lake in Austin home there were homeless encampus, at least there for a time. Here in Washington. I'm
sure you and I have noticed this. I've noticed it basically everywhere.
So this is.
Becoming a metropolitan problem generally for America. Whenever it comes to the question of mental health, the idea comes of we need more mental health resources. And the presumption for mister Neely was that there were no mental health resources. But here is the crazy part, and this is why I think it's a discourse breaker. He was well known to New York City home advocate authorities. Put this up
there on the screen. Not only had he been arrested over forty times and released, but outreach actually outreach workers in New York City said he was on the Top fifty list, which is a roster maintained by the city of homeless people who were living on the streets, whom officials consider most urgently in the need of assistance and
of treatment. And the reason why I think this is a discourse breaker is that not only was he on the top fifty I guess worst you know, homeless people list or whatever for New York City, he was taken to hospitals numerous times, both voluntarily and involuntarily. So then the question comes to this, you have a person who's been arrested forty times or so, well known to police. Now we can agree, you know, it's inhumane to throw mentally ill people in prison where they're obviously not going
to be rehabilitated. So then it comes to the question of, well, how do mental health authorities rehabilitate or even frankly, just deal with people who are this mentally ill. But we have to balance that with civil liberties, with the fact
is Neally is an American citizen. I've talked a lot here about part of my objection to some red flag laws is, you know, basically it's like a quasi depriving you of your constitutional right through a legalistic process where you haven't actually done anything.
You haven't actually committed a crime yet, and even when.
You do commit crimes like we have, you know, sentences laid out and all of that for a reason.
So I don't really know what to make of this.
Ryan.
It is clear here that mental he had mental health resources, and everyone's like, oh, we do need mental health. Look, I mean, if you're on a list and you've been arrested world the forty time, the city knows who you are, but they even involuntarily had committed him. And then it's a question of like, well, should we have post like lifetime involuntary commitment. That's the system we moved away from in the nineteen eighties, you know, specifically to balance civil
liberty concerns but also funding. And there's a lot of questions about that. So I don't know what to make of this. I'm curious.
And then the question is he's like what does the commitment look like? Because the Times writes about how nearly most of his arrests were the nuisance things that are like associated with homelessness.
You're anything in public jumping.
The style which we've all seen if you have ever been in yours.
But then there was one maybe a year or two ago or so, where he punched a woman in the face broker nose, caused a lot of damage to her, was arrested, charged with a felony for this, and as they worked out a plea deal where he would agree to commit himself basically take his medication, enter into this particular program trying to get his life back on track. The judges, he and the judge and the prosecutor and defense turning, everybody works this out and he only lasted
a few days and he kind of slips out. So then the question is what do you have to do when it comes to security at these mental healthes just because if you are and then are you in prison? Because like a hospital setting is not a prison. Yet he's he's committed to go to this setting. He needs, you know, he needs it. He understands in his kind of lucid moments that he needs it. Uh, and it is preferable to the alternative, which is the conviction for the felony and getting sent away to prison.
That's that doesn't help anybody.
Uh.
But then but then he just walks out and then police encountered him multiple times. After the Times article is really worth reading, I wrote, people.
Realise this is again we are not trying to get into like.
Oh, should should you defend people?
When you're should you even be in.
The situation where like, hey, everyone agrees we should have more resources, How do we balance resources with civil liberty concerns?
I have no answer. I actually don't have an answer. I don't know what it is. I could only look at this one and be like, wow, what a tragedy.
Man and one Yeah, there were multiple failures where officers were called because he was at one time he's peeing in the Coney Island end of the subway, another time he was doing something else that brought cops out. And none of those times were they able to link the fact that he had this warrant.
Out right well to the fact and ID, yeah, it's right, but they also know who he is like at this point, right.
But it is interesting when you think about this top fifty list because as.
We know that in every universe, a very.
Small number of people are responsible for a huge amount of things. That's actually comments on a YouTube page or whether you know exactly yeah.
It reminded me of shoplifters in New York. I gotta find this. Yes, a tiny number of shoplifters commit thousands of New York City steff So nearly one third of all shoplifting arrests in the city last year involved just three hundred and twenty seven people. That I think genuinely is a question of just lock them up, because I don't think that those people are Maybe they are mentally I don't know, maybe they have some like shoplifting disease,
but that possibly could come to prosecutorial discretion. I'm curious what you think, I know, your criminal justice reform advocate, how do you deal with something like this?
So there was a rise in this idea of swift and certain punishment along with the criminal justice reform movement that I think is still getting implemented in some places, but it lost a little favor in the kind of face of the rise of abolition, which runs counter to it.
But basically, what swift and certain means is that too often people who are in the criminal justice system don't have any certainty about what their punishment is going to be, and they wait forever to find out what it's going to be And so if you get caught shoplifting, you may get no penalty at all. It might take five years for them to run you through the system, or you might wind up getting some weird judge.
It gives you, like, you.
Know, three years if you're over like a felonious like level of theft. And they say, what that does to people is that they then they just take their chances, yes, because I know the gamble at that point is to not worry about the consequences. What swift and certain means is that if you commit the crime, or you violate probation or parole, the punishment is going to be like immediate, like you're doing a weekend. You're going and it's always
going to happen. You don't have like there's no question about it. And so as you're thinking through your decision matrix that is in your mind, but it also then is much shorter, like the idea is like you're only going to do a weekend, And the idea is that people don't want to go to prison period. Now, some people who are so far gone, like nearly who were like in the throes of a mental health crisis, like
I don't care if they send me to rikers. I don't like, I'm so miserable, so like out of it at this.
Point those there.
I think we deinstitutionalize our mental health a response in over the last like twenty years, and I think the pendulum swung so far that now there is really a gap. Like if you have ever tried to get somebody into treatment, what you'll find calling around is there just aren't beds.
Yeah, this is this is the one where I have Again, I don't know how to solve it because you're pointing out a very important point about beds in hospital capacity. Because we have an insane healthcare system, mental health beds are very limited.
Do you want to know why.
There's no profit? There ain't no profit in mental health, so we have.
They're uninsured people.
For the most part, we had tons of ICUs because we can print money off people with ICU who are in the or like critical health or kidney disease, whatever, heart disease, any of that. Those are very very profitable industries, but there's basically no money recurring revenue, especially in mentally ills. So when the de institutionalization movement happened, we basically kicked it to a private quasi public private healthcare system which
increased funding cuts. Obamacare has a role in this as well. Even though people have coverage, the vast majority of people who need them don't have coverage. And then it comes a question of like Medicaid reimbursement, which the rate is very low, so a lot of doctors don't want to be involved, so it gets kicked to this basically catch and release type program for a lot of mentally ill homeless people.
And yeah, I mean, I don't know.
I mean, I think about the institutionalization movement, and on the one hand, obviously it had some benefits, like you know, people like Neely and all of those. It would be institutionalized, it would be health cared for by the state. Basically the public menace would be would be balanced with him hopefully getting the best care possible in someone like with that condition.
On the other hand, how many.
Stories you read from the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties of there like this woman.
Wants a job, We got an institutionalizer, and you're like, wait, what what's happening here?
You know, so she's got new fangled ideas about voting this These are real stories. I'm not joking about the way that the institutionalization was actually weaponized as a tool of political repression, so that actually I'm trying to think. It's like Sherman, we were just talking about the Civil War.
William To comes to Sherman. They're like, he's lost his mind because the thought that the They're like, he's gone mad because he was like, no, this war is not going to be swift, It'll actually be very long and terrible. He literally thought he'd lost his mind as a result of that.
He's like, oh, make sure it's terrible.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So the point is is that I don't know, you know, I don't know how you bounce those two things.
I'm thinking though.
Looking at this is probably got to get back to some level of institutionalization. I mean, I'm really at a point now where I've been taking the Schellenberger pill for people who and you don't like Shellenberger, but I do.
I read.
I think San Francisco, Sicico is the best possible policy solution yet that I have seen around this entire thing, which is we should acknowledge a couple of things.
We have a mental health crisis.
We have a mental health crisis, which is compounded by drug use, specifically fentanyl, which is leading to mass death amongst a lot of people. The answer, in my opinion, is that over criminalization clearly is not working.
It's just not the answer.
Also, though it is deeply inhumane to let people just get shoot up on the streets and two are raping and killing each other as a reference in skid Row, the answer has to be some level of effectively involuntary commitment. We're like, look, we're not going to lock you up, but you are going to rehab and you're going there for a long time, and you it's basically the Portugal model of drugs are not legal, but try shooting up in a park and Lisbon.
It's not going to happen.
The cops are going to be like, all right, you're going to prison or you're going to rehab.
You have no choice, and we have to. The way I've heard it described.
Is you need paternalistic paternalistic libertarianism here where it's like you are free to do what you want within the bounds of not being a public menace. But once you cross that threshold, there are swift and clear consequences.
As you were saying, yeah, because you also have to realize that the people who are in those crisis situations are not They're not happy, they're not living meaningful. Oh god, nowt White Underbelloid channel. It's dangerous right to them, it's dangerous to others. Very and so yeah, I do think you like portrait. I think Portugal is a really interesting model.
You know, to think about that, if you've gotten to a place where you're regularly basically out in out in public, you probably have gone too far.
Oh yeah, and are not in a place that is making you contented either.
No, yeah, I mean, I mean that that was really the saddest part. I recommend it. Just reference it. The soft White Underbelly channel. Mark Leida has done a fantastic job of I watched that and I was like, yeah, this is not really like I'm like, to the extent this is a mental health problem, like these people are just drug addicts. Like, and I'm not saying that in
a derogatory where I'm like, these people are hardcore drug addicts. Well, to which the more fascinating thing actually was listening to interviews of people who are diagnosed mentally ill and who talk about how the drugs make it ten times worse. I listened to a guy with schizophrenia and he's like, yeah,
whenever I'm not on drugs, i'm schizophrenia. It's like more the hallucinations and the vivid like ideas in your head are not as dangerous where he's like when you pair it with speed, He's like, it makes it literally made me commit murder or not murder, like an assault. And I was like, wow, Like, you know, the compounding nature of these two things is actually probably what produces the most dangerous people you know in society.
And people in those situations.
I'll say, it's not as if I can decide tomorrow.
Yeah, that's right.
Let's say you could kick your habit and determine that you are going to turn yourself around, get a job, and get housing. It's not you can't get a job because of the record that you've racked up over the years and housing. People with jobs are having a hard time getting housing.
So unless we.
Create an actual pathway for people.
Out of that situation that is credible to them, and because right now there isn't one, like you can't lie to them and claim that there's some way to turn this around.
Then to them, the rational.
Thing is just to be stay in this cul de sack of misery.
Look, I mean many of them.
Yeah, like you said, unfortunately are making the rational choice if you do want to support your drug addiction. It's just you know, turned downtown Los Angeles not only into a hell hole. And I don't mean it again in terms of like, well, you know, just get rid of all of them. I'm like watching this, I don't know that one really scarred me. I'll tell you I've seen some bad stuff, and that one that is still one of the worst things I've ever seen. Let's talk a
little bit about Hunter Biden. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Prosecutors are currently near a charging decision in the Hunter Biden case. Now I find this a little bit of a ridiculous leak, Ryan, because it's like prosecutors are nearing making a decision.
It's like, well, make the decision.
What's the decision, because the decision is the one that matters.
Okay.
What has happened is that there was a pivotal meeting between the prosecutors and Hunter Biden's lawyers toward the end of an investigation. Now people might forget what is the end of this investigation, We've heard a lot here about a hunter Biden and President Biden. All of it comes back to back taxes which he was not allegedly not
paying and a gun charge. Now, according to the people who are familiar with the matter, this has been a basically years long investigation that was mounted by the Biden Department of Justice. This is actually in the hands of the US Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, which is a little bit of a conflict of interest because the Biden's
basically run the state of Delaware. And the question is is like, is he going to you know, view this case under the letter of the law, which I mean it's it's very basic, like what came out from the laptop and from what came out from the laptop is very clear. He won hundred percent lied on his application for around in terms of crime background.
Check forget laptop.
His own memoir, Yeah, exactly, like right, the application for the weapon says, are you currently basically abusing drugs?
And he literally we can prove be on a shadow of doubt because there's video he was used for when he filled it out, Very possible and I'm not you know again, I have deep sympathy for him, as we were just talking about with the Jordan Neely situation for people who find themselves in the midst of that level of addiction. But dude, you did lie, and you did illegally purchase a firearm.
There is just no there's.
No amazing getting around.
An amazing thing to watch the right rally around charges of illegal purchase of a firearm.
You'd be surprised.
Actually, a lot of the biggest gun people are advocates of strict laws that are already on the books for people who are like, we just need to enforce current existing law, and a lot of us would be safeer around guns, at least from my bros in the two A community. The question though, around the taxes is actually probably one of the more interesting ones, because the tax crimes here relate to unpaid alleged unpaid back taxes around quote overseas business ties and consulting work.
I also don't think Hunter, or many.
US citizens i've met abroad, realized that if you are a US citizen, no matter how much money you make, Uncle Sam is going to get their cut, and that includes fifty thousand dollars a month or possibly eighty thousand dollars a month, payments from Ukrainian energy companies or Chinese industrial state companies, or your stakes in Chinese investment firms which you were sitting on the board of and receiving said capital gains.
Routes, jewelry watching.
Jewelry laptops.
Yeah, exactly, Like, just because somebody gives you something in kind doesn't mean that you don't have to pay a tax on it. And that is something he may be finding here out the hard way, because, as we've already showed, he already has his allies point out though, that he had to pay the back taxes.
So he by.
Paying the two million dollars in unpaid back taxes, he's acknowledging I did not pay my taxes. Here is another crazy part that I think lot not a lot of other people are focusing on. Hunter did not pay this two million back taxes with his own money, but he did his friend paid his back taxes.
A quote Hollywood.
Lawyer and novelist who befriended him in twenty nineteen.
So you meet a guy and a year later.
He pays two million dollars in back I got you, And you don't think that that is a massive conflict of interest. You think he'd be paying your back taxes if you were not the president's son, If Brian, if you and I did what this man did were locked up.
It's not in a question. Irs already came to your door. It's over. Your house is gone. Like nobody.
I have great friends, none of them have two million dollars. He's gonna be able to pay my back taxes.
I would never even put myself in this situation.
But this is one of those where it just seems so clear that if he does not get charged, he's getting protected.
By it in defense of Weiss, the attorney and his conflicts of interests. Guy, so there's a Trump holdover. But you're right that Delaware. But then then again, what do you what are you going to do? Like it's it's Delaware.
This is literally if anyone's ever been to Delaware, it's basically a highway. No offense Delaware and defense intended. Sorry, yeh, offense, okay, all right, offensere Delaware. All right, My my future in laws went to the University of Delaware. It's complicated anyway, there is a The only thing of note, in my opinion, is the massive rest stop, which says the Biden.
The Amtrak Ye Biden station.
Yeah, and they want like five dollars per square mile for.
You to drive through their state.
There you go, that's true, so they can have no money on the holes.
Yeah, it's pretty well.
Anyway, let's go to the next part here, because Hunter Biden's defense legal defense is actually putting Biden in a little bit of a hard place.
To put this up there from Axios.
They say that aids with President Biden are actually clashing with Hunter Biden's teams over his dealing with legal battles because Hunter is moving towards creating a legal defense fund and hiring ethics advisors. Now, high level Democrats are really worried about the idea of the president's son soliciting money to pay for his legal troubles. This is another thing that I keep coming back to. This guy printed millions of dollars off of his dad's name for thirty years in public.
Where did all of the money go? It's the big guy had to take a sea. It's like, where is all of the money did you?
How do you spend millions of dollars on crack? I mean, is it anything possible? Millions, millions dollars on crack.
If you're in Vegas, you.
Can okay, you can plunge that one hundred thousands.
I would believe millions, like millions of dollars like millions of dollars on crack, and European.
Prostitutes like you're getting bottle service. Maybe're right.
Obviously I'm a member of the uninitiated. So from what we can see here is that they are very worried that he will be publicly raising money from who knows, maybe people like sketchy Hollywood lawyers who have to have two million dollars around paying his legal funds. Basically, what it has come to is that Hunter is still very upset that he has become a household name. He doesn't believe he's being fairly treated, when in reality it's well beyond fairness.
You'd be locked up.
He would have a twenty you'd have a three strike minimum if he wasn't the kid of literally any other the president of the United States and a former very powerful senator. What it basically comes back to is that he is in a real ethics bind because he reportedly has quote millions of dollars remaining in legal debt that remain on his books, so he would have to use and solicit donations, probably from Biden allies to be able to pay for all of this. So I just think
it's a it's a nightmare scenario for President Biden. And also, you know, the headline is not going to look so great for him. We are nearing the period where they probably.
Do have to charge him if they are going to charge it either way or not charged, like even not like not charging is a damaging headline for Biden in the same way that Hillary getting not charged right before the election was was actually turned out to be damaging for her. The attorney that he's talking to that has the Biden camp annoyed, Abby loll So, I'm sure you
know he was. He represented the Kushner's. He's kind of a brass knuckles kind of guy, and the Biden team is like, let's let's keep this out of the headlines and keep this chill.
So who are you thinking about using is like Abby loll Or, Like, They're like, no, we can't deal with this, Are you kidding me?
So it was reported that he recently met with Anita Dunn and the other members of the team to try to get on the same page about Abby, Abby, can you please not humiliate us? He's going what she's going to do like that? That's like his interest is in defending his client, not in you know, the president of the United States.
It's a big political complication and headache for all of them. Let's go to the next part here, which I wanted to spend some time on because I know quite a few of you are interested. There has been a new allegation from House Republicans and the Senate.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Who are subpoenaing the FBI for alleged Biden w records. Now, the White House has gone ahead and denounced this as any window, but the subpoena itself is kind of interesting. They are saying that Christopher Ray, the FBI Director, is asking to be provided for records that relate to President
Biden and his family. They say that there has been a new surface allegation based on an unnamed whistleblower made to Congress, specifically alleging that the Bureau has a document which describes a criminal scheme involving President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions, in other words, pay for play Biden was vice president
and relates includes a quote precise description of it. This seeks all the forms, companying, attachments and documents that are around this investigation. The lawmakers quote use the term alleged throughout the opening paragraph, saying that they're not saying this is necessarily true, just that there is a credible whistleblower disclosure around this. The FBI has not yet responded for comment.
Likely they're going to say it's an ongoing investigation. We don't release documents or whatever related to this investigation, which could eventually lead to the release of the or possible exposure of the whistleblower, which in my opinion would be great. But the Biden White House is calling it innuendo. What do you make of this, Ryan, what do you think?
Fascinating stuff? They should I think they should release the document, because.
Yeah, we've got to. Typically the FBI.
Would say, well, look, we're not releasing all of our kind of case material from every investigation that we're doing. Yeah, well, not every case material. Investigation involves the President of the United States. And so even if you felt, as the FBI that you didn't have enough to go forward with charges around this claim that somebody got forward.
You didn't find them credible or whatever.
At this point, it's up to the American people to make that decision on a political basis rather than rather than as a criminal basis. So it's kind of let us see what this evidence is, who presented this evidence, unless it's some like source that is going to get capped or something.
It's interesting. I'm actually speaking with Glenn Greenwall tomorrow.
I had talked to him quite a bit about Anthrax and the anthracs investigation, and I am starting to learn that so much of our current problems media, you know, terrorism, FBI lawlessness, a lot of it stems back to that investigation, because this is what reminded me of it where and the FBI is like, well, we don't release stuff, and it's like, well, after their prime suspect died, they basically were like, yeah, he did it, and.
They declassified all.
So it didn't prove it at all beyond a shadow of a doubt. And you're like, well, hold on, like you just released all. You never charged this man. He never even had due process. He ended up killing himself, according to his wife, because the FBI was hounding again no defense of doctor Ivans, only saying like his guilt is definitely not an open and shut thing that the
way that the FBI would have us believe. And it really revealed to me that there's tactics of smearing people, going after people, all these Hoover esque type things that were said to be abolished by the Church Committee. They kind of go to the very root of really original nine to eleven period where that's when a lot of that stuff began and now manifests itself today.
It's fascinating you bring that up because at the intercept, we're working on an investigation of that.
Very really, Oh, I can't wait.
I even go further than you. Yeah, I don't think there's any credible at evidence to say you think I visit it was either.
Yeah.
And also looking back, that moment also produced all of the biodefense and bio warfare that led to Ladlely fund him over over the next twenty years.
That's actually moment in history. That's why I was interested in it.
Was that the anthrax literally the anthrax attack facillit.
I did a whole monologue on this, people want to go watch.
It was the gateway drug to forty billion dollars ago bio defense, which is what loosened the regulations around gain of function research, which is what gave Fauci a slush fund, which.
Is how the money ends up with the Wuhan Lab in the first place, which is how COVID gets leaked.
And they haven't even figured out who did it.
Yeah, well, I mean they might have, but we should talk more offline about this. I'm still very into anthrax. I might do an entire monologue. We have a future guest actually coming on the show who's going to talk about a possible anthrax leak from twenty nineteen that the government covered up, So always keep that in mind. Okay, let's go ahead to the media block. Here Tucker Carlson, interesting release from Axios. Let's go and put this up
there on the screen. They say, quote scoop, Tucker Carlson is ready to torch Fox News. That includes the very first quote from Tucker Carlson's lawyer. He says, the idea that anyone is going to silence Tucker and prevent him from speaking to his audience is beyond preposterous. Much of this comes to affect actively a contract dispute. Now, at this point where Carlson's contract runs, according to insiders, up until twenty twenty five, the issue is is that they
are still paying his contract. It's called what is a pay for not play or pay to not play I guess where, Because they are still fulfilling the legal terms of his contract by paying him his salary and not having him on the air. He's kind of in some sort of programmatic lockup. Now, what happens in January twenty for twenty five? Oh right, it's after the twenty twenty
four election. So there is a lot of speculation that Box is actually dragging out any legal negotiation with Tucker and his team because they believe that they might benefit from silencing him, from keeping any future voice of his or project of his to go up, so that they have time to rebuild the millions of people that.
They have lost in his time slot.
Remember this, they have the worst ratings since pre nine eleven in Fox primetime right now. It's a horrific nightmare content place that is happening over there. Some of this also was leaked to The New York Times. Clearly there's a lot of back and forth going on behind the scenes between Tucker and his team. Put it up there on the screen. It says Tucker Carlson wants to return
to TV before twenty twenty five, will Fox let him? Basically, the speculation is this, either Fox will just drag it out and say no, we're not going to negotiate with you all we have you completely within the terms of the contract, or we may.
Just not pay you.
He might have to forfeit all of his salary, not have some sort of exit package the way that Megan Kelly had.
There's been a lot of.
Crazy disclosures happening from behind the scenes of these videos. We've covered some of them. I know you guys have as well. His text messages. I mean, Fox claims they're not leaking it, but is so? I mean, come on, yeah, he's gonna leak as it at first, Just how would they have access to them?
They don't have the they don't have and they also don't have the redactive texts.
The band video.
It only exists in one place people, the Fox servers. It doesn't take a genius.
To figure this out.
I love that it's a media matter, right.
Yeah, of course they gave it to medium as genius I mean, in many ways that their allies because they're like, oh, well, we would never do it, and then they send some sort of like cease and desist letter to cover up their tracks. It's just laughable. It's obviously you we all know what you're doing.
I don't know. I mean, I don't know why they think it's working.
If anything, the Right is only coalescing even more around Tucker and they don't think that Fox is legit.
They don't understand their audience if they think that that's gonna hurt Tucker exactly with that audience.
Yeah, it's just so foolish just to even think about. But I think it comes back to the fact is legally it is a bind, you know, because they do have him within the terms of the contract, and they basically have to acquiesce to letting him go and to do his own thing. We have seen people who are on his side, people like Megan Kelly, actually come out and go after Fox and has actually been telling Tucker
to take them to court. She says Tucker should walk away and forfeit the pay lets take Fox take him to court over the sole issue of silencing him for the rest of the election season. The man they fired and smeared relentlessly while he stayed silent. See how they're dwindling. Audience repays them for that. So that would of course be like trial a century right if Tucker Fox takes Tucker to court explicitly to keep him within the terms of the contract. But at the very least, you know,
big time media battle gearing up here. Also, can I just say this, non competes are bs and they should be illegal. Crystal nine had on real problem. Yeah, I'm one hundred percent behind it. Crystaline can't talk too much about it. Had a real issue with non competes. I had a breaking points on all that. That caused us a hell of a lot of stress. And it's not even just about us.
We're fine. There are a lot of people out there.
You know, we've spoken previously about like grocery store chains. We're like, yeah, if you bag for us, you can't go back for somebody. It's like excreme legal principle. John had him, Jimmy Johnson, That's exactly where that's what I was thinking of.
It's screw you.
You do not dictate where I work elsewhere you pay me to perform a service, and that's it. Everything else beyond that is a matter of my individual liberty.
So it really bothers me.
The amazing if work was like I will take this job, yeah, but you cannot hire another work exactly perfect?
Yeah, maybe like that insane? Yeh, that's not how this works.
Like, oh, okay, cool, then I'm not signing a nun either.
We're not talking about the welfare of twenty five million dollars salary cable news pundits.
Okay, we are talking specifically.
About why legally this is an idiotic framework to conduct yourself.
Is there a deal to be made where Tucker agrees to not disparage Fox and they let him out?
Like, how do you how do you see this ending?
Don't I don't know if he would do it. I mean, here's the thing.
They have so unceremoniously fired him and treated him. I mean, they didn't even give a chance right for amicable, for anything amicable.
Two days after he's gone, they're leaking his.
Tax messages and they're linking his text messages and leaking videos of him behind the scenes to like they're kind of the ones who shot first. I mean first they fired him, and then second immediately they're cheap prs. A woman named Arena Brigenti, who used to be very powerful in the tabloid days, but in the age of the Internet now looks like a clown.
Yes, that's what I said, Irena.
And what it is is that she thinks she's like this behind the scenes mastermind who determines Fox. It's very like Roger Ailes in terms of we wheeld power. But what they don't understand is you're not the only place to go anymore. Nobody cares at this point whether they get to go on cable television or not. I know a lot of young people who are coming up in the media industry.
Not one of them still cares about going on cable. Whenever we were coming up, Ryan, he was the only way. It was the only opportunity that we had.
But the moment the Internet happened, I jumped ship. I can tell you that in terms of my opportunity to you. So did a lot of people like.
Yeah, no, I remember getting a couple of angry calls back in the day from Arena Bte. She's a real screamer. Yeah that's kind of weird. Yes, what are you looking at today?
Twenty twenty three is a really interesting time to be alive. If you want back fifty years ago and you asked Americans what it would be like, they would probably light up with wonder. They would have visions of the future and technological progress man could hardly imagine. Just think about back to the future too in nineteen eighty five. They believe twenty fifteen would be a land of different dress of hoverboards, of technology which would radically transform the American
way of life. The real answer was far more depressing. Twenty fifteen really wasn't all.
That different from nineteen eighty five.
The cars were more fuel efficient, we had the Internet, and our economy became one hundred times more financialized. Wages were mostly flat, most people's work schedules were exactly the same. But more importantly, the pace of technological progress did not catch up in the way that we envisioned. In the words of venture capitalist Peter Thiel, we were promised flying cars.
All we got was one hundred and forty care The characters though, being a reference to Twitter, which I guess today if you pay for Twitter Blue it's unlimited.
But you get my point. This has been my.
View of the world now for quite some time, and it's why I was not surprised at all with a recent poll that took some neoliberals.
By great surprise.
More Americans today say that life for people like them is worse today than it was fifty years ago, some fifty eight percent in twenty twenty three versus just forty two percent in July of twenty twenty one. This crosses party lines and now maintains a sizable majority of Americans.
You dig deeper and you actually see more signs of rod As Pew notes, quote, sizable majorities of US adults say in twenty fifty over twenty five years away, the US economy will be weaker of the United States will be less important in the world, political divisions will be wider, and there will be a large gap between rich and poor. As for how people think things are going, quote, Americans negative views of the nation's future are influenced by their
bleak assessments of current conditions. Only nineteen percent say they are satisfied with the things are going. Eighty percent are dissatisfied. Ratings of the economy remain largely negative, and increasing share of public expects economic conditions to worsen over the next year.
This is bleak stuff, but it bears investigation.
If most people think the country isn't doing well, who actually thinks that it is. The answer won't surprise you. The only people who believe the country is doing well and will continue doing well are those above the age of sixty five, especially Boomer Democrats. Now you might ask why would boomers have such confidence in the US and the current system. It's easy to have that confidence when you have a paid four house that you got for cheap retirement savings, which boomed over the course.
Of your life.
If you're my age at thirty one, good luck starting at the same place as the boomers. You rightfully should have zero confidence that you will likely get to where they are, or even the same with the same amount of work, or possibly even more. That's the fundamental divide. It's one that the people who need to internalize, who run this country to propagandize you. They're going to throw many things at you which are technically not wrong, like,
for example, but life expectancy is so much better. Yeah, true, a couple of years more, and yet in recent years we have seen the worst decline in life expectancy in the US since World War One, many of those deaths having nothing to do with COVID. They'll say, yes, but GDP growth is better than ever again technically true, and yet wages have grown only by seventeen percent while productivity
has grown at sixty two. In other words, real wage increases have not captured the actual economic gains of the economy and fall far short of the previous wage and productivity growth from the pre nineteen seventies era. They want you to believe that because TVs are cheaper and you have a smartphone in your pocket that you are so much better off, or that because you will technically live two years longer than that's everything. Yet medical costs have
gone up thousands of percent since that time. Don't think that life extension is free, is it? If anything, you will die a few years later, but much much unhealthier today than you would have been in nineteen seventy three. And it brings me back to one of my favorite graphics of all time from the website WQF happened in nineteen seventy one.
Here's nineteen seventy one.
Cost of living a brand new house in nineteen seventy one was two point five times average income. Today, the average price in the US. Home price in the US is five times the average income. A new car in nineteen seventy one was one third the average income.
Today, a new.
Car price is about fifty six percent of the average income. Average rent in the United States in nineteen seventy one was one hundred and fifty bucks adjusted for inflation. That's around eleven hundred dollars today. Today, the average rent for an apartment is seventeen hundred dollars. Harvard tuition in nineteen seventy one, adjusted for inflation was about nineteen thousand dollars in today's money in nineteen seventy one. Of course, Harved
tuition today is fifty four thousand dollars. Since Harvard is an outlier, Consider yearly tuition for college. In nineteen seventy one, for a public university it was thirty two one hundred dollars in today's money. Yearly tuition Today, average public university tuition is twenty five thousand dollars.
Should I go on, don't let people gaslight you? Sure?
Fifty years ago you wouldn't have a cell phone or an LCDTV. On average, life was not all that bad. Just ask the silent generation.
And the boomers. It worked out great for them.
The point is it's not working out that well for us. So don't blame us for saying that things are not going to be great in the future and that we would live rather live in the past. Our futures were mortgage squandered in the name of globalization and sold under false pretenses to the American people. And this will be the defining issue of our time. If not at the top, If this is not at the top of mind for every single politician today, they don't belong in their jobs at all.
And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Ryan, let me take a look at it.
So, when it comes to Democratic Party polics, big money made a huge comeback in twenty twenty two, more than matching the surge and small dollar contributions that had been kicked off by the Bernie Sanders campaign back in twenty fifteen, and that threatened to reshape the party.
Now, one of the.
Leaders of the big money counter revolution is not a household name. He's a tech executive named Dmitri Melhorn, whose largest source of power comes from his connection to his college classmate Reid Hoffman, the billionaire founder of LinkedIn, who, as Saire was mentioned earlier on the show, financed the Egen Carol lawsuit and otherwise is spent tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars on Democratic Party politics
and going after Trump. But Dmitri, as Democratic insiders all call him using only his first name, has been good at organizing other like minded mega donors as well, which means that he can now move tens of millions of dollars with the flick of a wrist. He has directed much of that money in alliance with the group Democratic Majority for Israel, targeting progressive Democrats in primaries, burying them
under an avalanche of super PACs spending. So I interviewed him from my podcast Deconstructed, which came out this weekend, and he laid out his explanation for why it is that he's been so heavily invested in undermining the left. And I asked him if he was going to continue that crusade in twenty twenty four, and his answer, I think was revealing.
Take a list to this.
How are you thinking about twenty twenty four democratic primaries, do you guys feel like, and I've written about this before, but mainstream Democrats, the group that you mentioned, plus Democratic Majority for Israel, which works very closely with mainstream Democrats, really kind of transformed what was possible for think progressive left wing candidates in Democratic primaries in.
The last cycle.
I'm curious if you think you have essentially tamed the left to the point where you're kind of moving on from Democratic primaries, or are you guys gearing up for another another test in twenty twenty four that if you see progressive candidates that you think are two progressive popping up, that the super PACs are going to come out guns blazing on him.
I think we're okay. Now, if you run a no labels centrist like a Joe Mansion in every state, you will split the anti Trump coalition and therefore Trump will win. That's the risk, and I think it's a huge risk. It is one of the way, one of the top five ways that Trump could get reelected is if Nancy Jacobson and Mark Penn and Joe Lieberman continue in this path and put this bout line in every state when
they launched this effort, this absurd, venal effort. One of the things that they one of the things that they did in their video promotion is they talked about how bad the two parties were, and the visual images they included were Donald Trump on the right and AOC on the left, And so they're ignoring the existence of Biden. Now, I don't think it works. I actually think No Labels has a real risk of collapsing in this effort, and
I hope that they do. And I think that in general, the you know, if you listen to the way Bernie Sanders is talking about endorsing Joe Biden, I think I am quite confident right now that the actual extremes of the left are pretty severely marginalized. That's that's in general at the margins. It's a little bit like, for example, when and a judge gave a ruling that was really unhelpful. This is the judge with the abortion pill, and AOC comes out and says, we should just ignore the ruling.
Like AOC is signing with jd Vance. You know, the two of them are both like, yeah, rulings that we don't like, we shouldn't, we shouldn't do, and it makes it hard to build a coalition of donors around the rule of law. But in terms of general voters, I don't think it's a problem anymore, and I don't think we need to do more to fight back against it at the moment.
Well, they're good good news and bad news for the left.
They won't get bombed by a superpacks, but that's because they've been thoroughly beaten down to the crowd. Yes, there you go, congratulations. So two things to talk about here.
Let's do the left first, and if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. Thank you so much for watching everybody. We had a fantastic time here bro Show. Ryan will be back on Thursday. As I said, we have a very ambitious crossover which I'll leave to be a surprise for tomorrow's show, which I think everybody is
really going to enjoy. But with all of that, thank you so much to the Breaking Points premium subscribers who've been signing up helping us out build here the new show.
With all of that, we will see you all tomorrow.
Let's see you guys, soon