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 Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Indeed, we do a lot of interesting things that are unfolding today. So Joe Biden expected to sign an immigration executive order that could effectively end asylum as we know it, So we'll talk about that, both the policy and the politics surrounding it. Meanwhile, his son is in court today facing gun charges. Obviously extraordinary development there, so we'll take you inside the courtroom. Roaring Kitty is back, but many
on Wall Street not very happy about it. And there are also was a whole stock market meltdown situation yesterday.
A lot going on there.
To get into Fauci was grilled yesterday. We've got a great guest on to breakdown some of the highlights and low lights there. The FBI actually doing something good for a change rating a corporate landlord over a major price fixing scandal. This is something we've been covering for a while. You guys probably remember this algorithmic price fixing situation, so
this is related to that. We also have the very latest on that Biden sees fire proposal and indications of who exactly may be standing in the way of ending that war and.
Returning the hostages.
We also have Ben Smith on he's launching a new podcast focused on the media. We're going to talk to him about that and also about the vake Ramswami taking a significant stake in BuzzFeed, where Ben used to work.
So lots to get into today.
Yes, that's right, As Crystal said, Now, before we get to that, we just have almost everybody has actually made it across the local so thank you to all of our premium subscribers. We have a couple of stragglers who are out there who have been asking why they're spot playlist hasn't updated. It sounds like you haven't created your locals accounts, so just go ahead and email support at
Locals dot com to get yourself squared away. As we said previously, we have a link to the Spotify show in the email of every show, as well as all of the other places that you're able to access the premium show. Everything is additive, folks, so don't worry about that. We will get you squared away. Just support at locals dot com and you can sign up to become a premium subscriber at Breakingpoints dot com.
So we really appreciate you.
As Crystal said, though some major news, President Biden expected this morning to sign an executive order on immigration. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. The Wall Street Journal broke the news just yesterday, so going to go ahead and read some of the details. The details are pretty interesting. The executive order quote would ban migrants you cross the Southern border illegally from claiming asylum.
It is a last resort effort to quell voter discontent with his handling of immigration ahead of the presidential election. So the details of the plan itself are expected to close the southern border after twenty five hundred migrants have crossed per day. This is similar to some of the policies that were proposed in the previous bipartisan immigration bill
that we'll all recall that fell apart. Now, the interesting part here is some of both the politics and the policy immigration remains at the top of the polls for voter concern in some of the latest gallop in Pew research, which we'll get to in a little bit, and it also validates our Actually, I'm curious what you think, Cristel, there were a ton there was a ton of criticism at the time. A lot of Republicans said, we don't need to sign this bill because the president can just
do it unilaterally. President Biden said no, I can't do it unilaterally, and now effectively validating that concern and saying no, no, no, I can do it unilaterally. So anyway, there's at the very least he certainly undercut many of the things that he said in the past. I don't think there's any mistaking that this is very obviously a poeolitical move and not in response to any sort of policy change or
you know, some well considered process. There also, of course, comes on the heels of this new presidential election in Mexico.
Ryan Grimm, by the way, we'll be.
Doing a lot of segments about that, but I want to get your reaction specifically to that part because that does seem to be the most controversial part of.
This decision here.
Yeah, on those pieces, you and I definitely agree. It is a decision that comes directly out of political calculation and also, I would say political cowardice. It is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny, and you can only imagine, you know, not only is he a hypocrite, because five seconds ago he was saying he can't do this on his own, and then he's like, by the way, I'm going to do this on my own, to which you know, there actually was some truth to what he was saying before.
Because on a practical level, they don't have the money to implement this executive order. So I'm opposed to it on moral grounds. But even if you support it, it's not like they're going to magically be able to snow their fingers and have enough enforcement capability and enough deportation capability to be able to actually implement the executive order. So on practical grounds, it fails, in my opinion, on
moral grounds, it fails. On legal grounds. Trump tried to do something very similar and it was struck down in the courts. You know, in that article from the Wall Street Journal, they even indicate Biden's own aids no, that it is likely illegal and unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.
But they're doing it as a political ploy anyway. And as we've discussed before, and I think you agree with me, I think it's a political failure as well, because if your goal is to win over people whose number one issue is I want more hardline immigration policy, like you're never going to convince them that you're going to be more cruel and heartless and aggressive and hawkish towards the border.
Than Donald Trump. And we'll show this later.
I've mentioned the study a few times, but they did a bunch of research on there. Joe Biden is far from the first sort of like center left the liberal politician to try to make similar hardline immigration moves. And there was a comprehensive study done of similar moves that were done by European leaders, and they found that they didn't win over any of the immigration hardliners, and they demoralize their own base.
So, you know, I think it's foolish.
You can only imagine the freak out from Democrats it would be occurring right now. If it was Donald Trump implementing this order, I think it's illegal. I don't even think they can implement it. So to me, it's just a mess all the way around.
Yeh, you're very right.
It is very unlikely to survive legal scrutiny. President Trump tried this several times.
When he was in office.
This is part of the issue with a much of our immigration law. I mean, I do support the ideas in principle. I've long think our asylum system is incredibly stupid and that most of these people are just economic vibrants in particular.
But as you said, this is a political move.
I mean, the truth is is that if you really believed in the so called cap and why have you been doing it for three years straight? And there's some eight million people who have come here illegally and just in the under the Biden administration. That's not my numbers, that's according to the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security.
In terms of what that looks like with a multi year backlog, in terms of any of these people ever even possibly getting to asylum court, and what the hell that deportation process even looks like if that were to ever occur. Now to reference the polls that you talked about, let's put this up there on the screen, because this
is the actual reason that this is all happening. The New York Times did a comprehensive review of all of the polling around immigration, and it shows that the current system is deeply unsustainable to a previous status quo where Americans both broadly support and comprehensive immigration reform and positive net migration with a largely upward trend direction. What they find, though,
actually is quote. More recent surveys have found that the number of people who believe immigration is generally beneficial to the country's culture and economic growth has eroded from the recent high. A small but growing minority of Americans are increasingly learned about its impact on drugs, crime, taxes, and
national identity. For example, on April thirtieth, they found that for the third straight month, most American site immigration is the most important problem facing the United States, and that is the longest stretch that the issue is top of the survey in twenty four years of Gallop history. Next, if we look actually, a Pew study in February found that seventy percent of Republicans described the challenges of the southern border as a crisis, with just twenty two percent
of Democrats. Another poll found last year that seventy three percent of Republicans want immigration to be decreased, So that is a supermajority of the Republican party. But largely things are trending in a very different direction from where they were previously. Now that's not to say, though, that some
of the status quo does not remain for years. A plurality of American voters still say that they want a compromise with lawmakers and equal priority to providing legal pathways to citizenship for undocumented or they say, on documented immigrants for the country, as well as border security and strong law enforcement measures. There is, you know, kind of a general consensus about what some sort of grand bargain would look like, but of course nobody really trusts each other.
The Democrats largely want comprehensive immigration reform first, maybe some border security later. The Republicans are like, no, we want the border security, the deportation of the security now, and then maybe comprehensive immigration reform later. That's largely been the major sticking point also about who gets comprehensive immigration reform who qualifies, whether it's previous people were here.
We could go on this all day.
What we can, at the very least say is the hypocrisy of the Biden administration being flagged, Crystal, as you referenced by a lot of leftists.
Let's put this up there.
After years of decrying Trump era immigration policy, Biden is actually exploiting the same section of US Code two one two F that Trump used for the so called Muslim ban and now to do the Hispanic migrant ban. The order will announce we will use these section two one two F of the Immigration Nationality Act to dramatically limit the migrantability to seek asylum at the other and border
once encounters reached a new threshold. Administrations have discussed four thousand border crossings over the course of a week as the metric, and given just the numbers, I believe the validated numbers from the Department of Homeland Security just a couple of days ago was over five thousand, not in a week, in a single day, then that would obviously result in an immediate closure.
So there's quite a bit.
Of crow that's happening, I think for the Biden administration here, Crystal, as you said, because they decried this as like a crime against humanity, and they exploited it, and they've raised all this money and you know, drug their foot. They reversed everything they possibly could. There's a new Time magazine piece out just this morning where President Biden says one of his only mistakes on immigration is that he didn't rescind or that he didn't implement more humanitarian measures enough
earlier when he was in office. And then at the very same time, I mean, he's basically recopying Trump administration policy on top of also actually funding more border Okay, he won't call it a wall, but border security that happens to translate to a wall along the border. So there's just a lot of double speak that's happening right now.
Yeah, when it was Trump, this was fascism, and now Biden's like, I can do fascism too. I mean, you remember he even went to the borders. It was like, hey, Trump, let's like work together. How about we do your fascist border policy that five seconds ago I was decrying, And now here he is using the very same tactics, which
again have already been deemed illegal. I mean, asylum policy is written into American law and international law, and so to just sort of like end it with an executive order very unlikely to survive legal scrup They know that this is purely a political move, a foolish one at that, and exposes them as complete and utter hypocrites.
I mean to go back to the polling.
There is no doubt about it that immigration has risen as a concern for American voters. And you and I don't even disagree that the current asylum process is broken, largely because what happens is you have people who have realized that you know, they can come across the border, they can claim asylum, and because the court system is so backlogged that it will likely be years before those claims are adjudicated. And you know what, the American people
understand that too. That's why part of the polling that you reference there SORR, we have sixty percent, including forty percent of Republicans, who say, Hey, one thing that's like obvious that we should do here is increase the number of immigration judges and staff members so that process can
work more effectively. You also have fifty six percent of Americans who actually think we need more legal pathways to citizenship, which I agree with because part of how you end up with a chaotic situation at the border and so many people coming over illegally is when there are effectively no legal pathways to citizenship. So there is well, Americans are mixed on immigration, their views are complicated, their views are ever changing. There is somewhat of a consensus out
there in the public. But I wouldn't even say the problem between Democrats and Republicans is ideological. The problem, on a lot of levels is political Democrats. This last quote unquote bipartisan bill that was offered did not have any comprehensive immigration reform in it. It was all on the enforcement side, and Republicans wanted to keep it as an election issue, and Trump urged them to keep as an election issue. So you know, it was blocked. I'm glad
it's blocked because I didn't support it. I think there should be more pathways decisienship. I think there should be an increase in legal immigration. You and I obviously starkly disagree on that. But on the politics of this, it's
just a foolish move. It's an illegal move, it's an impractical move, it's not going to be effectively implemented, and it's also you know, as a leftist, I always note the fact that he's so the the Democrats and Biden in particular, so quick to completely turn on a dime and completely shift policy when the pressure is from the right, but when it's from the left, like as in you know, unconditional support for Israel, he will never ever, ever change.
And I think it's both comes from an ideological place, like Joe Biden is, you know, a conservative Democrat. You can look at his history throughout his many many years in Washington and you see that. And it's also just this instinct within the Democratic Party that came up in the Clinton era of like always and forever, the right political move is to punch left. The right political move is to move to the right, move to the center.
That's always their instinct, no matter what. And so that's how you end up with a situation where you remember they were on the debate stage, like speaking their high school Spanish and competing to say who could be more humane towards immigrants, And now you know, the minute that there's a little bit of political pressure, he just lips on a dime and is like, I'll be just like Donald Trump, don't worry about it, guys.
Okay, as you said, we have multiple multi hour debates about immigration that I.
Think people can go and watch.
Now at this point, we're just going to quibble a little bit there about fascism, Crystal, because I don't think it's fascist to enforce the laws or to be concerned about the borders around the country. Okay, Well, that's again in terms of quote unquote the law and how it's
interpreted and enforced. Is now no president has actually enforced quote unquote immigration law in the last forty five years, which whatever we can get to a very broader discussion about that, and also about the merits of so called legal immigration, especially the illegal immigration that is a part
of this. I do think you can we can all very least admit here that the politics of this for President Biden have been bad from day one, the images from the southern border and in evidence that even this move now has come so far late for him. Let's put this on the screen because I found this fascinating. Even amidst his attempt to try and appear tough on the border, all of the swing state Democrats who are in tight races denied his request to appear next to
him for this event. So I'm going to read everybody a list here. Senator John Tester, Tammy Baldwin, Jackie Rosen, and Bob Casey, all seeking reelection in battles ground states, will not attend because crystal of scheduling conflicts. You know,
the calendar is a real bitch, isn't it. It's like who He's got to meet with Bob Casey and all these other people, even though they are in town, just so everybody understands they're here in Washington, They've got to meet with the Parkinson's delegation of Montana or some other fly in delegation from elsewhere, and they don't have time.
I'm sorry for the President of the United States. That demonstrates to you too how toxic he actually is now, I think, both on this issue, but more so how they are all running far ahead of him.
Let's not forget.
I mean, for example, in the state of Nevada, Jackie Rosen has got some eighteen point swing between Donald Trump and between her support in the state. John Tester and Bob Casey are both running way ahead of Joe Biden, who I think by a margin at least in the state of Pennsylvania by seven or eight points. Tester, I mean, Tester is always an interesting case, but he remains at the very least a lot more popular than he is.
So in every single case of the swing state Democrat, you have them absolutely shunning Joe Biden and rhetorically are likely going to be hitting him on this issue on the campaign trail like Mark Kelly did back in the midterm election. So there's a lot of lessons here, I think you know, on the Biden issue. But what we can see is that this is a last gasp at trying to hold on to the election, and at this point, I think the sun belt is gone for Joe Biden.
His best best case is to stop the bleeding amongst the white boomers in the blue walls, so called old Blue Wall states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And what he's trying to do here is hold on to just another couple of percent that could possibly win in the White House and the absolute edge of the margin, because that's really the only way I think you can rationalize what's happening here.
Yeah, it would be convenient for me to try to make the point that I think these Senate Democrats realize that embracing Trump immigration policy is bad politics. But I think you're right that it's just about they see that Joe Biden is the toxic figure and they don't want to be at a photo op with him for this or any other issue. I don't think it's like a principal stand in favor of the previous positions that they stake down in favor of a humane immigration policy. But
just I've mentioned the study a bunch of times. I just want to put it up so people can see this research that was done in Europe. We can put this up on the screen. They looked at eight different European countries, and again they showed no evidence that shifting to the right on immigration helped these sort of center left figures, because immigration hardliners were already in whatever the right wing party was in those states, just like your
immigration hardliners are already in the Republican Party. The Democrats have a variety of coalitional issues at this point, and certainly they're not only those issues are not only coming from the left, but one of their coalitional issues is among progressives and young people and voters of color.
And this does nothing to.
Make those voters feel more affection for Joe Biden, So you know, on net, I don't think it helps him. It probably doesn't hurt him either, But I don't think that this is like the political magic trick that they seem to think it is, so much so that they're willing to even though they know that it's going to be struck down and is illegal, willing to go forward with it nonetheless. And the other thing I would say is there is a risk because part of successful campaigning
is defining the issue landscape on which you're running. So the more that the political conversation is about abortion, the worst landscape that is for Republicans. And it really doesn't matter what Donald Trump says, or what issue position he puts it out, or if he was in office, what executive order he's signed. That's just a bad landscape for Republicans.
The more Democrats are talking about the need for an addition a more restrictive immigration policy than where they're talking about immigration in general, the worst putting they are on for this election. So to the extent that this signing this executive order and doing this whole big push focuses the conversation on what is probably Joe Biden's worst issue set. I do think it is deallyterious to him politically sort of, no matter what the policy ultimately is.
I agree absolutely Israel. Israel and immigration are as too worse. I think immigration might be slightly worse, but Israel is also up there. The Hunter Biden trial began yesterday. We have some video here that we can show everybody. This show's Hunter and his wife Melissa, arriving at the federal courthouse for the criminal firearm charges. Everyone will recall this trial was never actually supposed to happen because the prosecutors and Hunter had a sweetheart deal worked out which would
vote him any charges. It would have helped him move past the two million dollars or so that he owed to the irs.
We had the irs whistleblowers and all of that come out.
But the judge actually ended up throwing that out at the court, saying that this is just simply an unacceptable deal and he'd never seen anything like it before. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. All of the jury members were actually chosen yesterday. A great headline here from the Wall Street Journal Hunter Biden's trial, crack Cocaine a cult Cobra Revolver and an alleged lie. So as they write here in what really could be
a movie. In October twenty eighteen, on the Friday evening, Hunter Biden rolled up in a black Cadillac to star question Shoot and Survival supply in Delaware City. A salesman standing in the video didn't recognize him and would later recall declining a tip from the younger Biden as he
purchased a thirty eight caliber Cult Revolver. There is no mistaking though, when he appeared in federal court on his charging stemming from that twenty eighteen purpose, where files and videos from the Hunter Biden laptop, which now have been validated and cited by the FBI and the Department of Justice,
showed that he was using drugs at that time. Anybody who's bought a gun, including myself, understands that whenever you do so, you have to sign an attest that you are not under the influence of drugs and alcohol and you're not currently using those things or sorry, specifically with illegal drugs. And so you could see here that the charge, the gun charge in particular, on this trial, it's almost mystifying Crystal why he did not end up pleading guilty
because it is so patently obvious as to that. It is so patently obvious that he did lie on this gun. Now, this is separate, as I said previously, from the tax charges, which will begin a little bit later. I think that
is currently delayed to early September. But they are literally going to use the younger Biden's own words against him, Crystal, including in his memoir twenty twenty one called Beautiful Things, where he openly writes about quote, smoking drugs and making arrangements to buy drugs at the exact time that he was buying the gun. So he's on tape using drugs at the time of the gun purchase in his own memoir admidst using drugs at that time, and then yet
is pleading not guilty here in the trial. So it would take, I think a miracle to see him get off in this particular case.
I want to know where my principled Second Amendment defenders are who think this is an outrageous abusive of pastually that there shouldn't be these restrictions put on gun lawful gun owners.
I will speak for them.
I will speak for them, which is as you say, as us Second Amendment. People will always say, we all need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and so this is what that looks like.
Yeah, drug out there.
You want to get rid of the laws that are on the books too, you have to do it.
Oh yeah, okay, so want that listen. Putting that aside, why does this matter? There's a few things that are relevant here. Number one, it is an extraordinary situation where this is Biden's own Justice department prosecuting his own son. So that is kind of a remarkable situation. None of this has anything to do you know, the allegations here a guns Hunter have nothing to do with Joe Biden. There's no you know, h the business dealings and whatever
aren't tied up in this. It's just literally, we think that you bought a gun while you were using drugs, which, you know, if Hunter was telling the truth when he was writing his memoir, certainly appears to be the case.
But could it be politically embarrassing for Joe Biden because whatever testimony comes out, you know about Hunter and his lifestyle and any potential entanglements with his father, Yes, potentially, you know, on the politics of it, people been knowing that Hunter is kind of a hot mess for a while.
And I don't think that that is Joe Biden's biggest problem.
I don't even think it's in the top one hundred list of Joe Biden's biggest problems at this point in terms of his reelect.
Oh absolutely, I didn't say necessarily. But you know, as you said, there are going to be some embarrassing things. For example, prosecutors planned to show videos and photographs of Biden's smoking crack that were backed up to his apple iCloud account and the now infamous laptop. Jill Biden was actually spotted leaving the trial yesterday at the time that some of these videos were playing. Let's Gohea and put this up there on the screen. This is from Kyle Griffin.
This is a statement of President Biden at the beginning of the trial. He says, I am the President, but I am also a dad. Jill and I love our son. We are so proud of the man he is today. Hunter's resilience in the face of adversity and strength he has brought to his recovery are inspiring to us. A lot of families have loved ones who overcome addiction and
know what we mean. As president, I don't and won't comment on the pending federal cases, but as a dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect for his strength. Our family has been through a lot together, and Jill and I are going to continue to be there for Hunter and our family with
our love and our support. So I will say, you know, politically, that is one of the ways that Biden has always been able to head this off is with kind of his radical empathy I guess towards his son, which you know, a lot of people who have family members who are drug addicts can probably sympathize with.
Where a lot of people.
See the hypocrisy is that, look, he has gotten away with so much simply because he is the president's son, perhaps no more so than the tax case where you literally had a Biden mega donor pay his entire tax bill of two million dollars, you know, with presumably nothing you know, really exchange, just so that he could avoid felony charges and try and plead down The case ended up not working, but the insight both into the amount of mine he's been able to profit off of his
father's name is just outrageous. And we're not even talking about, you know, some of the China stuff and all that, which I certainly think is a problem for him. But the legalized corruption, you know, that has been displayed by Hunter throughout really his entire life is one which again I don't think it's in the top hundred problems for
him per se. But the more that the public is reminded or sees that it will take a little bit away from President Biden and kind of the way that people think about what used to be one of his strongest assets, which was empathy talking about the loss of his son and family the whole, like cares about people like you. That was something that always related back to his experiences with his children.
And so could you know, bring this to light in the same way.
I mean, I'm not comparing necessarily too, but the Trump guilty verdict did genuinely bring in a lot of eyeballs and public consciousness around this. Will a Hunter guilty verdict do the same? No, not claiming that at all, but it will create problems at the very least, like it will put it on the front pages and on television screens for others whenever they see perhaps some of the details here.
Yeah, I mean it's a traudury situation, right, and you know, to the extent there's a claiming of a moral high ground.
Perhaps there's an issue for him there. I don't know.
On the other hand, I do think Republicans run the risk of, as they often do, overplaying their hand. We saw this directly with Trump and the way he talked about Hunter. And then immediately this was back in the debates, you know, last time they ran against each other. Immediately Joe Biden goes to like, you know, trying to display empathy not only for his son, but connecting to the millions of parents out there who have you know, a child or a loved one who is also struggling with addiction.
So there there is a danger there. And Republicans, you know, are little tone deaf when it comes to this. They're you know, they're a little obsessed with like again, the Hunter Biden stories that most of the public, it really hasn't rated for them as one of their top concerns with Joe Biden. Obviously, their whole like in p effort to go after Joe Biden hasn't really gone anywhere. And you know, it has been such a sort of failure that even right wing media is like, come on, guys,
what's going on here? Why is there no there there? Why aren't we seeing these smoking guns that you keep promising. So I don't know if I had to say, I think it's kind of inconsequential for the election, but you never know what can come out of it, and it's certainly an uncomfortable situation for Joe Biden.
All right, let's move on to the stock situation. Though there was absolutely insane day yesterday on Wall Street. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. The New York Stock Exchange had to fix an issue that showed ninety nine percent drops and triggered trading halt on
forty different stocks, including Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. So there are a lot of memes that dropped about this one about how Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett really were wrong all along showing a ninety nine percent the stock of the company. The disruption quote was resolved after forty five minutes, which is a pretty long time there in the life
cycle of the New York Stocky Strange. The New York Stocky Shans is going to have to cancel all bad trades as a result of that, and also.
Reviewing quote erroneous halts.
So anytime something like this happens, it should really freak us out because obviously the integrity of our markets is one of the things that we like to tout all across the world, and a single glitch of forty five minutes can drop the value ninety nine percent of some of the world's most valuable companies. Yeah, that should freak you out as to how brittle the system actually is.
At the same time, and part of the reason that we want to put all this stuff together there is the same like David and Goliath thing that is currently happening with Keith Gil aka Roaring Kitty on game Stop. So Keith gil as we've covered before, returned previously both to Twitter, tweeting out memes showing and rallying the game Stop stock. Well, recently he returned to Reddit actually and revealed a multi million dollar position in game Stop. Let's
put this up there on the screen. You can see here a screenshot from Keith Kill's trading account from e Trade. Keep in mind e Trade, we're going to come back to that one, but a significant position there of some one hundred million dollars or.
So if executed well.
This has now spawned a major conversation on CNBC and elsewhere amongst the Wall Street elites who are like, hey, should this be allowed? Should it really be allowed that mister Gill can simply just post and then invite this major rally into GameStop stock. Here, for example, is a former SEC chairman who questions whether this is something that we should tolerate in our markets.
Let's take a listen.
It's not insider trading. That's that's that's clear less. He and he's trading on his own information. That's why it's not insider trading. But is this Is this something that we should be tolerating in our markets? You know, whether it's legal or I don't think so. And that's why I say, why does it?
You know? What does that mean?
To tell it to the idea?
I would think as you look at this more in the context of market manipulation, right, and the question is are you allowed to manipulate the market?
People, by the way, publish.
Things all the time and they say, hey, I like this stock, and they, you know, hope that other folks follow them. Is that market manipulation generally not?
Maybe?
Maybe maybe not.
So what is the distinction in your mind as somebody who ran this department and who's looking at and cares about the integrity of these markets.
That's why that's why I'm saying, Okay, we can we can discuss what are exactly the facts and circumstances around the publication of this tweet and the like.
But in the meantime, if you care.
About the markets and you care about investing, come on this program right, tell people, Tell people why you did this.
From your lips Chrystal to the SEC chairman.
It's not market manipulation when you appear on CNBC, like let's say a guy named Bill Ackman, and you say terror is coming and it's going to be horror and there's going to be a huge crash, and then there's a huge market crash, and then it comes out a little bit later that actually you had bought a huge portion at the bottom that you helped spark and you made a multi billion dollar profit. You see, that's actually not market manipulation.
That's normal.
It's also normal when hedgstund managers and others pump their bullshit SPACs and investments on Twitter inviting other users and fans to buy something that is not market manipulation at all because they're managers. Whereas this guy is just some rando who happened to get very lucky on GameStop and invite you know, like a social movement of retail traders. When he does it, then now it needs to be investigated.
I mean, this is this is complete bullshit. It's like I thought political elites were bad, but these wall stream people this is a whole other level.
Well, they're the same. I mean, they're a pull in the strings. So yeah, the political behavior is downstream of what these assholes think. Listen, if if this was a person who had a genuine concern across the board about market manipulation, and if there was a consistent principle being held here, then you know you could hear him out. Okay, yeah, he's got listen. Roaring Kitty isn't a small fish anymore. Right, he's got one is one hundred and forty million dollars
stake or I mean he's got a huge steak. Now he's got a whole lot of money. You could have a debate about, all right, should this be allowed but you can't take these people seriously when you know, when it's their buddies on Wall Street, when it's Bill Ackman, when it's test funders and whoever who do it. And that's perfectly fine as long as they have their little invite ticket to the green room at CNBC, which is
like the cool kids club for Wall Street. You know, as long as they have that, then it's perfectly fine. It's only when it's an all insider who's benefiting from this mass grassroots meme stock movement, then we really need to drop the hammer. Then we need to look into it because he isn't officially sanctioned in the club and isn't cheating in the ways that we feel comfortable with.
So that's why you just have to laugh.
And you know the comment about he could come on CNBC, that really gives away the whole game, because if you aren't in the elite circle that's going to get invited into the green room on CNBC, then you're not allowed to cheat.
Only that's only rigging the game.
That's only for us, right, that's all I'm telling you what the upset is about.
Yeah, they're like, no, no, no, you can't do this. Man, you have to be on CNBC to pump your own book. Didn't you know that?
And look, I mean we're not exaggerating here. This is a real problem. Now, let's put B five up on the screen. This is from the Wall Street Journal. E Trade, which is currently backstopped by Morgan Stanley, is considering kicking off Keith Gill from the platform. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, that Keith revealed his position some one hundred and forty million dollars at least the current value of what he currently has from an each trade account
that he had just simply screenshot it. He wasn't marketing each trade, he wasn't using each trade. He wasn't even necessarily like doing anything except what any of us.
Might do with our normal brokerage account.
They are now considering literally kicking him off of the platform, despite the fact that he has not violated any securities laws. They say that he has quote discussed concerns about possible manipulation in game stop and would effectively take away his ability as a customer to trade on the platform. Their debate includes action whether his actions have amounted to manipulation, and whether or not the firm is not willing to risk drawing the attention of his meme army by removing him.
So of course they should worry about that because a lot of retail traders might ditch e trade, you know, if that were to happen. But I mean, the reason why this is so shocking to me is that this is a Morgan. This is Morgan STANMP, this is a Wall Street institution. Think about how many filthy deals and trades that these people facilitate every single day in terms of settling. But when Keith Gill screenshots his brokerage account of his position in game, stop, Now they are concerned
about market manipulation. As you said, when you audit all Bloomberg terminal messages and you start going after the fund managers on CNBC and after the people on Twitter who have literally pumped up stocks and SPACs that have lost over ninety percent of their value, resulting in massive loss to their customers, then maybe I will listen about, you know, restoring integrity to our markets, to our brokerage accounts and everything else. But this is just a straight up rigged game.
And what's crazy is that they're just doing it again. You know, dumb money recently came out reminding everybody of the insanity of that entire situation. But you literally watch these trading platforms lock the ability to buy a certain stock. They could tell us all about their liquity or liquidity problems all they want, but you know, if you're a major trader who probably uses Morgan Stanley to settle many of your trades, you're not going to have or have
that problem. If you're a hedge fund manager, It's just like whenever you try and play even remotely by any set of the rules that they do every single day, then now they call you a market manipulator and they'll literally shut down your ability to make any money.
I think it's totally insane.
Yeah, it does really harken back to when they stopped on Robinhood. They blocked the ability of people to continue buying the stock because they didn't like what was going on and there were financial entanglements there, et cetera. They deny it, et cetera, et cetera, but we all saw what.
Was going on, and it has that same vibe.
There is just a revulsion at the idea that this game could be played by anyone that isn't in their particular cocktail circuit. And yeah, I mean it's it's revealing, isn't it. It's really revealing the way this all happens. Market manipulation, like stock buy back our market manipulation that should be illegal. But I don't see any of these people getting upset and like go into Congress. Hey, we got to crack down. We got to ban these stock
buybacks again. So spare me your oh the sanctity of the market moralizing, because we see how full of shit you ultimately are when it comes to you and your buddies and the people in your friend group that profit off of rigging the market, market manipulation, et cetera.
Yeah exactly.
I mean they write their own rules and then they claim that you know, if you if you try and play by them, if you actually try and emulate the exact same thing, then they either try to criminalize you or basically block you from the ability to trade. So this is like top tales old as time in terms of institutional corruption. And it's one of the ways that he really took I think he showed like to the wool out of everybody's eyes the first time around, but for them to just do it again I mean, it.
Just shows again how how powerful they really are.
They don't even care if they're caught openly manipulating things out in the open. As long as they're the only ones they get to do it, then that's it.
All right.
We've got a great guest standing by Emily Copp to talk about that Fauci testimony. Let's get to it. Joining us now is Emily Kopp. She's a reporter at US Right to Know. Returning to the program, Emily, it's so good to see you again. Thank you for joining us.
Great to be here.
Absolutely so.
You were in the room yesterday with doctor Fauci while he's being grilled before Congress. There are some stunning moments, I guess, to say the least, we pulled one of them here to get your reaction.
Let's take a listen.
Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory?
Not on my part?
Really?
Really?
Wow?
Well, I think I think most of the country will find that find that amazing, I said eleven seconds, but.
Look at the facts. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process.
All right, I you back, you did not suppress the LAB leak theory. Yet in the past you have said, quote, it is a distortion of reality. Unquote, you've said, quote I've heard these conspiracy conspiracy theories, and like all conspiracy theories, they're just conspiracy theories. That's what you told the American people. And so would you like to clarify what science were you following?
Denvers?
Yeah?
No, I Actually I've also been very very clear and said multiple times that I don't think the concept of there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory. What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that particular subject, like it was a lab leak, and I was parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak.
Thank you.
That's the conspiracciate that all right?
So, Emily, you are, in my opinion, the pre eminent reporter on the lab leak situation. So what do we make about the veracity of doctor Fauci's claims there?
Yeah, I mean to hear Fauci tell it, he had nothing to do with the fact that the lableek theory was maligned as a conspiracy theory for years and to be Frank continues to be maligned as a conspiracy theory by the hardcore Democratic partisans.
In my Twitter mentions, yes, that's right.
It just belies belief, and you can see it in the responses from the members of Congress there Fauji is
the most influential scientists in America. And the idea that scientists who raised an alarm about the potential for a lab accident in Wuhan and who raised concerns about the papers in favor of zoonosis the wet market theory could have been maligned for years, and that this narrative could have persisted, that the zunosis theory was sacrosanct and not to be questioned, could have persisted if the most influential scientists in America had truly an open mind for years, is just really absurd.
And so let's actually take a step back, because one of the best work that you have done is the Foyer and revelation a lot of these documents and the internal discussion. So definitively, how can we prove that doctor Fauji is saying is blatantly not true?
Take us through the paper trail that you've been able to discover.
Sure, yeah.
I think at this point I've written like thirty thousand words is based on documents foyd by me, by another independent journalist, Jimmy Tobias, and through subpoenad records that the committee obtained showing emails and slack messages that show that the authors of that paper were saying very different things publicly and privately at the same time.
And I actually mapped those statements over time.
And there was no willingness by Fauci to consider that his participation in this paper and its prompting and in reading drafts, basically reading over the shoulders of these virologists who were writing about the possibility of a lab leakue early in the pandemic, there was no willingness on his part to consider that his influence, his power as the head of NIAID, which oversees billions of dollars in research grants, was inappropriate in itself, even if he didn't directly edit the paper.
I think if you know, as the virologists who wrote that.
Paper knew that NIAID Fauci's institute had funded gain of function research in Wuhan, and you know he was reading over your shoulder, you have an enormous incentive to only accumulate evidence in one direction, and that is what is borne out by the foud emails, by the slack messages
that were subpoenaed by the Congressional committee. And the virologists even described one of the core concepts of their paper as crap, and it was in fact ghost written by one of the most infamous gain of function virologists of all time, Ron Fuchier, who they internally described as unbelievably conflicted. So they put out this paper, put their names on it, not really believing in one of its core concepts, and
that happened after they participated in a teleconference with Fauci. This, I mean, giant in science and someone who never saw their funding. Wow, how do they make their livelihood?
Yeah, it's so stunning.
In One of the things that you've always done a great job of is that doctor Fauci and a lot of the scientific community and the media now at this point would rather call this a conspiracy theory and effectively cover up their own complicity in this question than actually answer to the one million or so people who in this country who died you know from this is or at least you know, whatever you can describe the debts
in whatever you want. At the very least, we know it was what a couple hundred thousand and the very minimum of people who died from this disease, and from your reporting, as we know from last time around, it is almost certainly a lab leak. And yet you know, we see all of this effort in Congress to change,
for example, the definition of gain of function research. So could you describe a little bit that does because Fauci, in the estimation of a lot of scientists, has committed perjury by trying to change the definition of gain of function research. Did he stick to that in his testimony when you were there, and what is exactly his excuse?
He did double down on the false claim that ANIAID did not fund gain a function research in Wuhan. But I actually want to address your first point very briefly. I think the main takeaway from the hearing yesterday should have been that Fauci oversaw probably the most catastrophic.
Policy failure in modern history.
Which is the exportation of high risk virology to an adversarial country, a secretive country that did not have adequate protections against airborne viruses. But the main takeaway that I had sitting in that hearing room yesterday is that no bureaucrats should be the head of a federal agency overseeing billions of dollars for decades upon decades upon decades like Fauchi has, because his influence in Congress and the press and the scientific community really comes across because he keeps
making these false statements with apparently no consequences. And so as you were saying, I believe committed perjury by continually conflating gain of function research and this other term called enhanced pandemic potential pathogen.
So in order to conceal the fact that he lied to.
Congress and his exchanges with Senator Ran Paul in twenty twenty one when he said his institute never funded gain of function research in Wuhan, he said, well, that's the general understanding, and my more technical, sophisticated understanding as a
scientist is enhanced pandemic potential pathogens. So gain of function research refers to enhancing any pathogen in the lab, and enhanced pandemic potential pathogen refers to enhancing a virus that is already very dangerous, very deadly, and transmissible got it and the gain of function research that was occurring in Wuhan certainly meets that first definition. There was no general understanding of gain of function research when those exchanges with Senator Paul happened.
No one had ever heard of.
It, So the idea of that Fauci is now retrospectively applying this term that did not exist at the time the experiments were proved. It's like he thinks that he can bend space and time through his power as the former head of NIAID, which I think is sort of perverse because at the same time, he's not taking accountability for those projects having been approved despite his signature.
Being on them.
So on the one hand, he thinks he can redefine regulatory frameworks single handedly in order to cover up his perjury, but also take no accountability for what happened in Wuhan, and that's just inexcusable.
Yeah, you're right, because, as you said, it was probably one of the single greatest policy failures ever in modern history. To take your example of why beer crash didn't be their power. Ever, what do we all remember about j Edgar Hoover and about people who amass vast power in the federal bureaucracy with unaccountabilities, they commit atrocities, and then it's only after they're gone some thirty forty years later they we're gonna be like, oh yeah, that was.
A real problem.
By the way, the last time that we checked in it was basically a case closed. You know, we were checking in the zoonosis theory. There was they moved completely away from bats and now we were onto panglins. So I wanted to check in again. I think it's been like six seven months or whatever since we last spoke. Where are we currently now in terms of the zoonosis theory? What are they still grasping at or do they not even try now at this point to justify it.
I think to.
Some degree the attitude in the press and the scientific community is case closed, but in the other direction that the wet market theory is infallible, and in fact, that's been there the approach since February twenty twenty, before we had much information at all, with the publication of proximal origin, that paper I was referring to earlier. There have been criticisms of the two landmark papers and science that were championed by The New York Times as I'm sort of
a case close for the natural origin theory. There have been critiques of that by people who are experts in spatial statistics that the idea that early case is cluster around the wet market is based on that analysis. We already kind of knew that the data was compromised because there was an early focus on the wet market that could have biased the data, and because there's so much censorship in China around that early pandemic period, So we already knew.
That the data was pretty sketchy.
But recently papers have come out in Peer review journal suggesting that the analysis applied to those data were also sketchy.
Wow, that's amazing. So it's even more bunk than which you originally started out. Where can people find and support your work, Emily?
You can find us at us Right to Know, or you can follow me on Twitter Emlia Coop.
All right, we will have links down the description. As I said, the pre eminent reporter on this subject. In my opinion, she should have won on a Palitzer prize, but you know, it's the country that we live in.
So Emily, thank you so much for joining us.
Thanks so much,