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 Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have Crystal.
Indeed, we do very busy day today here in the studio. We actually have two guests in town from Australia to Australian members of Parliament who are here to advocate for the release of Julian Asance.
We're going to talk to them.
We also have a presidential candidate coming in studio, Willhard going to talk to him about how he sees the race and the dominance of Trump within the Republican Party and within the Republican primary. Certainly, we also have big news about Ukraine. Updates on Zelenski's visit here. We've got updates on that UAWS strike that we want to bring
to you. We also have some really interesting data about the way special elections have been going across the country, really painting a very different picture than the polls are painting.
So we'll dig into that.
Sager is looking at a January sixth conviction and I am looking at Ben Shapiro's commentary on the UAW strike. So a lot to get to this morning. Very exciting show, that's right.
We wanted to thank everybody again for people who've been signing up premium subscribers. We've got an awesome interview that Jordan Cheriton did with Sean Fain, the head of the UAW, about the strike, as well as some footage that he's been able to get from the strike itself. We're partnering with Jordan on that. Your hard earned money is helping
support some of this on the ground journalism. We're very proud to be able to bring that type of interview, that coverage again that we've been doing, and so this is an important part of our show and what you are signing up for, so Breakingpoints dot Com if you are able to it really helps us to be able to support partners creators like that and to be able
to keep bring this to a wide audience. We're really proud of the fact that some of our UADW coverage and more has gotten more ratings, you know, than any other subject that we have done, which is why we get up in the morning this.
Yeah, we do a show.
Yeah, we're really excited to get to partner with Status KUP on that. And by the way, guys, give them some love to sign up and become members for them as well, because they do a lot of great on the gross reporting. Ye, and I mean they broke a lot of news this trip, both in talking to the workers.
We've got some video for you that's exclusive for us about how they feel about this whole Trump coming into town and Joe Biden's speech and whether he's going to go to the picket line and that interview with Sean Fain where he also broke some news. So thank you guys so much for supporting us and making all of that happen.
Absolutely. Okay, let's get to Ukraine. So President Zelenski, the schedule changed up a little bit. He is coming to town here today on Thursday's going to be meeting with the full Senate and with the House as the actual Ukraine funding is on the knife edge as well as a complete government shutdown. But some of Zelenski's comments are certainly getting that, not only at the United Nations but in Poland. We're going to dig into all of that.
By coming to the US, he's inadvertently ignited multiple diplomatic crises, the first at the UN calling for the removal of Russia from the UN Permanent Security Council and for a policy of denuclearization against the state.
Let's take a lesson.
Ukraine gave up its third largist nuclear arsenal. The world then decided Russia should become a keeper of such power.
Yes, history shows it was Russia who.
Disserved nuclear disarmament the most back in nineteen nineties, and Russia disserves it now.
Terrorists have no.
Right to hold nuclear weapons.
No right, no right to hold nuclear weapons.
So that is the policy that we've pursued against North Korea now for for forty some odd years.
Ask somebody how it's worked out for them. But really what that.
Is is that is an explicit call for regime change, and that is the question of or is that what we support now?
I mean is that with the end goal of this.
War is is to complete not only a regime change in Russia, but to subjugate Russia in order to take away their nuclear weapon status. I mean, this was not even crystal the dream of the most cold war hawks in the nineteen nineties. Like even then, it was understood by the Clinton administration, by the Bush administration. Other it's like, listen, we have to make sure that we're not creating a situation.
We're like occupying the country, taking nukes away, taking any ability for them to have any sort of sovereignty or national pride. And he's effectively advocating for that at the United Nations. And that's why it is a stunning comment. He also, funnily enough, wants to swap Russia in Germany
for permanent UN Security Council status. For those who don't know, the UN Security Council was created after the World War Two with the victors of World War Two, and the idea being that you know, these have a permanent objection the ability to veto at the UNSC. Of course, you know, there's lots of questions about whether that should stand or not. It's not like it particularly matters because the UN has
all that much power. But I thought that the most significant call that he made there was for outright regime change in Russia as apparently one of the Ukrainian and goals.
And you know, in a way I appreciate that.
It's like, yeah, you should, we should know exactly what they are working towards or what they want. And the question is to the United States, is Biden support the same that is.
At the beginning of the war, some people were out in the administration, we're outright saying it now. We haven't heard that directly for a long time. It's hard to conclude that there's any other goal, though, when you see
the nature of our escalating level of support. Certainly, I don't know if they are so fanciful to imagine at this point that I think there was some wish casting at the beginning that Putin's regime might just collapse right without doing a whole lot, that they could easily weaken it, that it would fall apart, that they could, you know, prop up whoever they hoped would be the successor, which we have always said, you know, careful what you wish for, because can it may seem like it can't get worse
than Putin, but trust me, one hundred percent could get worse than Putin. So we always were, you know, concerned about what could happen in the event that that was even a possibility, but it seems very unlikely at this point. I mean, there have been protests in favor of peace and against the war in Russia. Those have basically all fizzled out. You haven't seen a mass public revolt there.
You know, you had this one weird sort of semi coup attempt that obviously has been dealt with and neutralized to put it, to put it kindly, at this point, so there's no sign that the regime is like in imminent danger of collapse. So perhaps they don't delude themselves into thinking that anymore. But it does beg the question, like, okay,
what is the endgame? And I would like to see more direct commentary from our own president because, as you said, you know, Zelenski certainly willing to put it out there. The other thing, listen, I would love to see worldwide global nuclear disarmament. I am not so foolish as to think that we are on the brink of that happening, and I certainly don't support, you know, any sort of one sided direction and he also seems to indicate that like, oh, actually, Ukraine should.
Have kept the news. Oh right, Russia should have gotten read way better. Yeah, exactly.
Okay.
So at the same time, President Zelenski here, he's got his hat out. He's coming to Washington today asking for twenty five billion more from the United States.
And as part of that, he's been giving a lot of interviews.
I've been keeping my eye very closely for the case that he's making two American lawmakers, and in the latest one, let's put this up there. During a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, he says, quote, we are on the finishing line.
I'm sure of that now.
I really zeroed in on this because this is just a completely dishonest way of asking us for more money.
Crystal.
They need to be much more frank and honest about where the war is. Just to give everybody an idea, I always talk about the map. Let's actually look at it. Let's put this up there here on the screen. This is from the counter offensive. Now, what you can see in red is held by Russia. That's approximately twenty percent
of all of Ukraine. What you can see in blue are the Ukrainian counter offensive gains now that black rectangle for those who are watching in the left side of the screen, crystal, that was the goal of the counter offensive, to go all the way from where that tiny little shaded area of blue is to the Sea of Azov, and to split the Russian defensives and to make a breakthrough against the entire defensive line. As you can see
quite clearly from that billions of dollars of weapons. Who knows untold hundreds of thousands wounded or dead, has got us the colored in blue shade line that is, by any military definition, the starting line of said counter offensive. It is not even be close to the finishing line. If they were, you know, even halfway through, I guess you could, you know, exaggerate and.
Say that's the case.
I also think it fits with a It fits with something that happened yesterday. There was an all Senate briefing by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff, the Intelligence community and others, and Senator Josh Holly, who tended that briefing, had this to say, this happened late last night, so we don't have the element quote. So if there is a path to victory in Ukraine, I did not hear it today. I heard there was going to be no
end to funding requests. This latest request for what it is, twenty four billion is not the end.
Quote.
They made that very clear. It is not close to the end.
I would say we were basically told buckle up and get out your checkbook. So US policymakers have made the case to Congress. They are not saying what's Lenski saying. They're like, no, no, no, this is gonna be the first many this is just the first quarter. We're not don't forget that. Whenever the Biden administration requested that another twenty four billion, they said, this is just one of quarterly
requests that will be forthcoming. So if we are to then annualize that, we are talking about about one hundred billion per year. One hundred billion, again, is the same amount that we took twenty years to disperse to the entire Afghan national security forces through our entire time in Afghanistan.
It's an extraordinary amount of money. And then relative to the gains that the Ukrainians are making, you cannot, by any means say that this twenty four billion or whatever is going to make let's say, like a difference beyond marginal in what the gains are they're being set and behind closed.
Doors, that's what they're admitting. That's what they're admitting to our lawmakers.
These wars take on in a sort of endless circular logic where, you know, the idea before the counter offensive was, Okay, we're gonna you know, we're gonna fund them, we're gonna equip them, they're gonna have this counter offensive and then maybe we can get to the table and they'll be
in a stronger negotiating position. Now the logic is, since the counter offensive didn't go well, well, we've got to you know, we've got to keep funding them so they can try again and get a stronger position before they get to the negotiating table. It's doesn't matter what really happens on the battlefield, there's always a logic in favor of continuing the conflict.
And we've seen a.
Number of you know, media sort of planted reports that have helped to attempt to see the ground and to plant the seeds of this is just going to go.
On and on and on.
So at the same time, you know, put this next piece.
Up on the street screen for the Wall Street Journal.
They have a good report here about how Zelenski's trip to Washington this time has a much different tone and character than the trip last time, which you know, he spoke to a joint session of Congress and it was very sort of there was a lot of grandiosity around it.
It was very assertive.
This time he's going to be meeting privately behind closed doors with lawmakers, including they say, some Republicans who want a grillam over a slow moving counter offensive and Ukraine's use of American assistants. This comes, of course at a time right now when Republicans, the Republicans are looking to shut down the government. They can't come to an agreement within their own caucus about what they want funding levels to be, and part of the disagreements revolve around aid
to Ukraine. Now there's a lot of reporting about how much the tenor and the tone is shifted in Washington. I would just say, like keep in mind that in terms of elite elected politicians on the Republican side, you still have an overwhelming majority in favor of continuing aid to Ukraine.
In the Republican caucus.
You maybe have a third of the House Republican caucus that is at least in favor of reducing aid or not going forward with aid at all. So even within the Republican caucus in the House, you only have about a third that objects to continuing the direction that we have been going. So I do think some of you know, the journalists, some of the writing coming out of DC about this big split and how some of the Ukrainian aid is really in danger, and you know it's on.
The precipice, et cetera, et cetera.
I think it's a little bit overstated, just given the numbers that are still overwhelmingly in favor of continuing.
A to Ukraine. Yes, you're right.
I spoke with some my Capitol Hill sources, and effectively what they're saying is like, look, we're going to fight as hard as we can. These are the people who are against adding aid. But here's the truth. It's a number one establishment priority and they're like, they will move heaven and earth to get this money through Congress. Now, I will say there, I would put it at a ten percent chance that it doesn't pass. Only for this reason.
McCarthy has got an issue. They're facing a potential government shutdown, so to havet that shutdown, he probably has to work with Democrats. Well, if the Democrats work with him, they're likely to mandate or want Ukraine Aid as part of that. Well, that would give them the political power to some of the Matt Gates Republicans and the Freedom Caucus to call the motion to vacate on the Speaker and to replace him speakership so he could put his own political future ahead of that.
There's another option that happens.
They reach some sort of cr deal continuing resolution where they do fund the government, they leave Ukraine Aid out of that, and it passes potentially at some later date. But then the question is is that could the House and this contingent actually move forward to try and remove set aid. Then they could also pass this continuing resolution.
The Senate could vote it down and say no, we're not going to fund the government at all unless you put in said Ukraine Aid, and like a late night you know, vote that actually adds it on at the very last minute. My point is that there is a little bit of uncertainty, and there was also some inkling
of this just this morning that happened. Multiple GOP lawmakers, both Senators and House of Representatives, sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, where they rejected the request four for twenty four billion and asked specifically about what the actual endgame is by the Biden administration, saying we will not vote for this until we receive a real strategic plan from the administration about this aid about in the future, Senator Ran Paul vowing to hold up
any procedural event that leads to more voting for Ukraine.
So, as you said, ninety percent chance, I think it.
Will pass absolutely ninety percent, but there's a lot of chaos, so you never know.
The other thing that, just to clarify, I said the government is going to shut down. I mean I think there's very little, very little chance that it's not going to There was a reporting Litico Playbook, which is, you know, the insider rag whatever about how Democrats are not even planning a contingency for it to not shut down, Like there is no game plan in place from either side
to avoid a government shutdown. At this point, Republicans in the House Caucus they thought maybe they had this deal between the House Freedom Caucus and the what is their mainstream Republicans is that what they call themselves anyway, the more moderate caucus within the Republican grouping, and that whole thing completely fell apart. So and that had you know, that was separate and apart from Ukraine funding, that was just on you know, the other budget spending levels that
completely fell apart. So even within the House Republican Conference, they can't agree on a continuing resolution to pass.
And that's before you even start talking.
About the Democrats in the Senate or the Republicans even in the Senate. That's before you start talking about the White House. So it's very hard to see how they
avoid a government shutdown at this point. And it's also very hard to see how McCarthy does anything at any point even after the governments shut down without working with Democrats, which is why I think it's very unlikely that you don't end up with this next trunch of eight Ukraine, because if he's having to work with Democrats anyway, you know, he and by the way, two thirds majority of his
caucus overwhelmingly are in favor of continuing Ukraine aids. So some I don't know how this has all got to work out specifically, but it seems like they're probably going to have to make some kind of a deal with the Democrats after the government has already shut down and after some pain has already been exacted on you know, not just the federal government, but the American people. So
we'll see how this all plays out. But I just you know, I wouldn't get people's I don't want you guys to get your hopes up that there's going to be some real significant change here in the direction, because in terms of the elected officials here in Washington, they're still overwhelmingly in support on both sides of the aisle of continuing the present direction.
At the same time, there is a humorous incident in which a Ukrainian minister, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, is an American transgender woman, Sarah Ashton Garillo, who has been making incendiary videos now basically since the beginning of the war that have been going very viral. Now recently, one of these videos that she had put out effectively advocated for assassination of anybody who goes against any of the Ukraine consensus, not just in Ukraine, but actually here
in the United States. Just take a listen to that flavor, and we'll tell you what happened to her.
Russia hates the truth that their obsessive focus on a Ukrainian volunteer is simply allowing the light of the Ukrainian nation's honesty to shine brightly. Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder and their rabid mouths will foam an uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes, and
this puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war criminal propagandist will all be hunted down and justice will be served as we in Ukraine are led on this mission by faith in God, liberty and complete liberation. This is Sergeant Sarah Ashton Cerrillo of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and i'd like to thank the ex social media platform for carrying this exclusive message from Kiev. There has been much discussion recently related to my role within the
Armed Forces of Ukraine. Before answering some of the questions put forward by Senator Vance of Ohio, I'd like to thank all those in the US who are supporting the Ukrainian people without Republicans and Democrats working together on behalf of Ukraine. Our growing and unstoppable success on the battlefield and the inevitable victory it will bring over the Russian
invaders would take significantly longer. America is once more showing why it's history's greatest republic and the world's loan superpower, and all of us in Ukraine are humbled by the support we're receiving from the American people. Let me also take a moment, in my role as spokesperson for the afu's Territorial Defense Forces to state unequivocally that we and the TDF and across Ukraine believe journalists or heroes and have the right to report on Ukraine's war for liberation
without interference. Free speech is the pillar of all democracy. The first Amendment of the US Constitution, along with the rest of that sacred document, is ordained by God.
So Chrystal.
The Defense Forces of Ukraine, let's put this up there on the screen, have now announced Junior Sergeant Sarah Ashton Sirillo has been suspended from the duties of the spokesperson of the Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine while an investigation
is now underway. In further statement, they said from the Armed Forces that the statements of Sergeant Cerrillo in recent days were not approved by Command of the TDF or the Command of the AFU while conducting military operations against the ukres aggressor the Defense forces of Ukraine strictly observe the norms of international humanitarian law. The Command of TDF will conduct an official investigation in the circumstances of these statements.
Appropriate decisions will then be taken. She will be suspended immediately pending the investigation. So there was the only reason that this even came to light is because of that video where she was basically going to hunt down and kill anybody who doesn't agree with us. Senator Vance put out a letter being like, hold on, are we funding this person's salary?
Like who is this person?
And then from that the Ukrainians apparently took notice of what we're look Undeniably, she has become a hero amongst a lot of the Ukraine flag and bio people. She she just got an award in Las Vegas for like from the city, for being like a heroic American. It's just an example of this unhinged behavior by some of the people who are aligned with this cause, and that we're being directly in many respects like propped up. Not only by the US government by a lot of people
here who just love these types of statements. But you know, ironically it came to bite them because they're like, hold on a second, this is creating problems for us in the US.
Yeah. I mean, I think Zelenski choosing to investigate this person and fire her effectively it's part of the charm offensive party came to Washington.
I mean, they cleaned out a bunch of the like.
Defense Cabinet ministers in an attempt to also show a series about corruption. So I don't really read into it anything more than that.
I think, yeah, I think you're right. I think it's what they were like, oh my gosh, this could be causing problems for us.
They probably, I mean, they got a senator and was sending a messages about it. What they you know, they're like, all right, fine, goodbye, well a launch an investigations.
This is not worth ache.
This is not worth the headache to put out this type of stuff. But you know, it does just give you an example of how some of their like some of their rhetoric, as we talked about with letter Block about the regime change and about is actually starting to invite some pushback in Washington, probably not enough in order to do anything about actual funding, but this is just one of the latest examples.
So I wanted to give you guys that update. I thought it was funny.
So let's give you an update on the autoworkers strike set to potentially escalate as contract negotiations continue without resolution of this morning. And this has created some very interesting political dynamics. So first person out, Joe Biden came out with a very strong statement I thought, in support of
the striking workers, very clearly on their side. Donald Trump then has attempted to signal his support, his symbolic support for the workers, even without fully taking their side, by planning a speech in Detroit to worker union workers, not all auto workers but former union workers, current union workers, etc. But in Detroit on the day of the second GOP debate.
And so, because this is how Democrats are, this has set off a whole series of like you know, pearl clutching and handringing about oh god, what do we do now work with regards to Joe Biden. So put this up on the screen from Politico. They have the headline Trump scooped us dem sound alarm on Biden's handling of the auto workers strike. Donald Trump's decision I had to Detroit for a speech next week is setting off alarms
among some Joe Biden allies. And the idea here is they quote a union advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity to say that Trump is still himself and was saying, do crazy shit. But they added, he actually has people who know what they're doing. He boxs Biden in. It's kind of genius. Another Democratic strategist said, Trump scooped us. Now, if we announce we're going to we're going, it looks like we're just going because of Trump. We waited too long.
That's the challenge worth remembering. Actually, Trump did better among union members in twenty sixteen than he did in twenty twenty.
Biden was able to double the.
Margin that Hillary Clinton achieved among union members in twenty twenty, So he does perform better with this group.
But I mean, I just think it's silly.
Their whole concern The question is whether or not Joe Biden should go and walk the picket line. And basically every Democrat who's advising him, and every Democrat mission Michigan is like, yes, go and walk the picket line, go make an appearance, go meet with these striking autoworkers. The union itself has said, you know, of course they.
Would welcome him.
I mean, who wouldn't welcome the President of the United States, regardless of who it is, to come and.
Show support for striking work.
But they're doing all this hand ram Oh gosh, now that Trump's going, maybe we can't go and it'll look like we're just following him, et cetera. I think that's so silly, all of that thinking, of course he should just go. And if he does go, I mean, it would be a big deal. No president in over a century has shown up at a picket line, so it would be an extraordinary action. And they're just kind of like, you know, dragging their feet about whether or not it would be the right thing to do.
It reminds me of the East Palestine situation whenever Trump visited and then Buddhajed came afterwards and he was like, no, I didn't come just because Trump came, and he was like, it's ridiculous. But one of the reasons that we had written a scene behind the scenes was that the Biden advisors were wary of going after Trump had visited because they didn't want to seem as if they were following him.
As you said, I don't think it mattered to the people there actually though at the time, and I don't think it matters this time around. In fact, you know, it would just be you could spin it and be like, yeah, good, I'm glad he's there.
It's a show of bipartisanship. Yeah, the two of us support this thing.
That's how things should be in American politics should be, and that's why all GEOP lawmakers should do the same. There'd be an easy way to play it from a position of strength.
Yeah, he could say, yeah, I'm glad to see him symbolically supporting him now while he was screwing workers while he was in office and giving away direct tax catt you know, I mean, you would use it as a messaging opportunity. And you're the president of the United States. I mean, you're going to attract a lot of attention if you take what would be again a historic action by going and walk in the picket line, put those
next peace up on the screen. Jeffstein's been doing some really great reporting over at the Washington Post about the strike and from the worker's perspective, and he's got this political insight here, he says his Trump wooz Detroit Unions. Democrats urge Biden to join UAW strikers. He's coming under increasing pressure, they say, from some Democratic lawmakers, to do something none of his prodecessors apperative done in office, join
striking workers walking a picket line. He also is the one who points out, according to Director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University, that he would be the first president in a century to join a picket line. The White House declined to comment when asked if Biden is weighing a visit, but they say an interviews with The Washington Post, more than a half dozen Democrats in Congress
and the Michigan state legislator said he should go. UAW leadership has also communicated to the White House that a presidential visit would be welcomed. So I think there's a decent possibility that he shows up. I think he one hundred percent should show up. In my opinion, this is
an absolute no brainer. If you don't want to get out maneuvered by Trump and his you know, symbolic nonsense, then there's a really clear path to doing that he's already rhetorically Biden has already clearly taken the side of striking workers, So this is just going one step further further and actually physically showing up in solidarity for them.
Yeah, what I read is that one of the complications, apparently is that the GM CEO and Biden are close and apparently has been.
She's been making Mary Bara yes, because she's busy.
She was a Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, so yeah, she's.
Like, they know, so they know each other, and apparently there's some uh, there's been communication about you shouldn't be doing such a thing, and I don't want to sacrifice our relationship shift apparently as the CEO.
But yeah, you know, I think it's it would have been a no brain. I agree.
You know, the easy way to not go off Fox or whatever is we've just been doing it earlier or announcing it, you know, whenever it happens.
But I agree, even now, I.
Oh, they'll think this and that. No, they'll just be happy that you're there with them. Like, no one's gonna you know, think, oh you look weak and you were pressured, et cetera. They're just going to be happy that you're there so showing support for workers, so don't overthink it, guys,
that would be my recommendation. At the same time, thanks to our partnership with Status KUP and Jordan Sheridan on the ground, he was able to talk to workers themselves about how they are viewing all of these political machinations. And again, guys, thank you so much for helping support us so we can get this kind of exclusive reporting. And also, you know, shout out to Jordan Chardan and Status, so if you're able to support them as well, please
do so. Take a listen to what the workers had to say about the politics of this.
Do you welcome a visit from Trump?
And do you agree with them as far as we need to shift away from the electric vehicle transition?
I do agree with shifting away from the electric electric vehicles.
I do agree with that.
You know.
Also it's all about the support for us.
Yeah, I don't really know what to say.
Do you think in terms of the electric vehicles that it's kind of hurting the workers there's not enough demand for it. Why why do you agree with shifting away from electric Really?
Job security?
Job security?
Most of me.
Sixty percent less workforce means we're gonna lose a lot of UAW jobs.
That's what I believe.
What do you think of the former president who says he's coming here next week to I guess talk to the workers.
What do you think about him saying.
He would reverse these electric vehicle policies compared to President Biden.
Well, first of all, he's a politician, So whatever he says that, I'm not gonna believe him anyway. But the main thing is for electric vehicles here is a concern for the future for autoworkers. I think part of this contract party fight has to secure that future, whatever it is. You know, I don't think there's any way to tell how a popular elected vehicle is going to be, how well they're going to sell. But we have to have jobs and jobs. There are secure jobs and well paying jobs.
So whatever that is, whether they are more electric vehicles being sold or less, we still got to make sure that autoworkers have jobs. That we have to defend our jobs and our pay rate and our futures. So if if they're going to be more electric vehicle produced, we have to make sure the jobs in the battery plans, for example, are union jobs. They are high their jobs at the same pay rate, and people have a chance
to work there. Because right now, if an engine planet closed, for example, because they have fewer gas parted vehicles, the battery plants where there are going to be jobs might not be in the same city are given the same state. So we have to be a way to secure our jobs as autoworkers, whatever the future is.
What do you think about you know, the Biden administration gave Ford to nine point two billion dollar loan. Doesn't see it for electric doesn't seem to be a lot of strings attached, does not you know, demands for wages for workers, making them union shops. What do you think about Ford getting that big loan without some requirements.
Well, it shows you which side the governments they're subsidizing the auto company, not just Ford, all the all the company being subsidized by the Inflation Reduction Act and building battery of ficialities in his company in this country. So they're subsidizing them without any protection for the workers. So, but that's what the government nobody does right in my opinion, they're out there serving big businesses and not the workers.
Former President Trump says he's coming here next week he's gonna.
Talk to the workers.
UAW President Sean Fain had some not so nice words for him, saying, we're fighting against billionaires like him.
What do you think about Trump coming here?
I have no comment about Donald Trump.
Not a supporterizer, no comment. What do you think? In general?
He criticized the electric vehicle shift, saying, you know, if he becomes president again, he would shift away from this investment in electric.
Vehicles, He'll be in prison.
Okay, do you agree with I agree with him because I've talked to workers who feel electric They don't have job security with these electric jobs, and there's not enough demand for the electric Do you do you agree with him?
Or do you think this electric transition is a good thing.
I think it's a good thing. I think it's it's the way of the future.
They're going to have to figure out how it's gonna all work, where people are going to have to plug in their cars and whatnot.
But you know, it's change and we have to embrace change.
So I talked to Yeah, those were really interesting, A good spectrum of views there, and you know, I thought the gentleman in the middle who was like, listen, we're not opposed to evs.
We just got to have job security. I think that's the general of you.
I asked Jordan, you know what was the overall vibe as he was talking to workers about the politics of it, and he was like, most of them don't want to talk about these guys, Like most of them are skeptical of both of these politicians. It's not their primary focus. Like they're focused on their fight against the Big three, against the bosses, trying to win job security, trying to win decent wages, like that is the primary thing that
they're focused on and want to talk about. And this stuff over here all seems like kind of a sideshow.
Makes sense.
Yeah, absolutely, While he was into Troy, Jordan Tardan of Status, who was also able to get an exclusive interview with UAW President Sean Fain, covered a range of issues.
Let's take a listen to some of the highlights.
Joe Kernan, who's worth three million dollars, that's his salary at CNBC. He said, that's just optics. What the CEOs make, it doesn't really matter. UAW is deploying a quote politics of envy by continually hammering the.
CEO pay are you and the workers just quote envious of the CEOs.
I call it a politics of reality, the reality of what our members go through every day. I mean, the majority of our workers are scraping to get by paycheck to paycheck.
I mean, you know that's not envy.
You know, when workers start out at fifteen or sixteen dollars an hour and it could take them years as attempt to even get the full time. If they get the full time, there's no guarantee they'll get there. If they do, they go to eighteen and then they have an eight year progression to get the full pay. They're not our members are. This isn't the old Big three where you know, it was the gold standard. When you got a job at the Big three, you were set
for life. That's not what this is anymore. And that's what we're fighting to bring back. These jobs should matter. And we're generating a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits in the last decade, twenty one billion the first six months this year, and our workers are falling further and further behind.
That's got to stop.
And you know it's it's ironic, you know, when you know Kramer's compared me to Trotsky or anyone else and talking about, you know, the ninth class at Harvard's going to be Sean Fayne and in communism, and I laugh. You know it's like I tell them, you know, yeah, there's I come from Central Indiana. I said, yeah, that's Central Indiana is really known for a breeding ground for cornfields and communism.
It's it's laughable.
I don't know if you saw Mary Barraw, she the General Motors CEO, did a bit of a robotic interview on CNN. She was asked, you know, how do you kind of justify you're getting a thirty four percent increase? Why should workers get She gave some weird math equation that ninety two percent of her salary is based on company performance. I kind of take that reading in between
the lines, is the stock price? Could you kind of talk about because it seems like they're just doing this scheme of buying back the stock that juice up the stike so the CEO and executives make more pay not she's not specifically talking about like the workers.
Well, the worst part of this, like I tell people, when she talks about performance, she's getting paid and the stock price goes up and down based off the performance of our members, of our workers. Because they're in their busting their asses doing this work, delivering great product, sales happen. That generates the massive profits. But the sick twisted part of this is you look at the last four years,
incomes of went up. Sales have went up sixty five percent in the Big three, CEO pay went up forty percent, stock buybacks went up fifteen hundred percent. This is our time, this is our we call this our generation defining moment.
This is it.
And so you know, and when I talk about not having limits, you know, throughout my campaign, ain't running for this job. And even since then, when we're talking about our issues, when we put our demands out there, I can't tell you how many people would say, you know, oh, you'll never get cost of living back, that's the thing of the past. You'll never Why are you fighting for pensions?
We'll never see a pension. And all I hear is what we can't do and our unfortunately that was driven by a leadership that had a can't do mentality, settling for the bare minimum and making people think that's okay. The sky has to be the limit. We cannot limit ourselves. And what we can achieve if the founders of this union would have went into negotiations saying what they can't do, if they would have went in and they would have fought, or if they wouldn't they fought, They fought, They got
beat up. They some gave their lives to have this opportunity, and they didn't give a damn what anybody told them. They couldn't have. They said, no, we're going to take it. We're going to get what we have to get, no matter how to buy any means necessary.
I don't really care if you endorse President Biden. That's all that Ceenn cares about. But I'm interested. You know, you hear some verbally kind of pro worker language. He did, you know, stop around road strike at the end of last year. But aside from you know, occasional vague support, there hasn't been a lot of action. There was no push for the pro Act, which would have, you know, been a big boost for organized labor when Democrats had
complete control. You know, Biden apparently is sending two top aids here. I don't know what they'd be doing, but we know the Republicans and their views on labor. Do you need more from the Democratic Party, aside from you know, talk and showing up when the cameras are here.
Yeah, I mean, the proof's got to be in a pudding. The proof's going to be in the work.
I mean.
And as we said, our endorsements are going to be earned. It would drive me nuts as a worker to just watch sometimes we just endorse people and there's really no body of work behind that. And we can't be taken for granted. No more, workers shouldn't allow themselves to be taken for granted. And so, you know, there's a lot of things going on in this economy, and there's a lot of things with the ev transition. I mean, we're not against a green economy.
I mean, we got to.
Have clean air, we got to have clean you know, we've got to have a world for people to live in, future generations to live on. And but it's got to be a just transition where you know, labor is guys, the seeds a table. You know, there's a lot of money, you know, with the IRA that was put in play with the government, a lot of our taxpayer dollars to
help fund this transition. But again, like always, the corporation has come with their hands out there's always way the government finds a way to put money in our pockets, but labor gets left behind.
Labor cannot continue to be left behind.
And that's been our message to the White House, to Congress, and to anyone that'll listen.
And so you know, that's that's got to change.
So you can really see there the way that his vision is to try to restore the previous eras understanding of what an auto worker job should mean, that it should be the gold standard. As he put it, it should mean that you can have a stable middle class life. And by doing so, he's trying to redefine what that looks like for the entire working class, with the entire you know, blue collar and also service sector working class should be able to expect from their job.
So, you know, I think he's very compelling.
It's very clear he was just elected, as I've pointed out, and over the sort of like historic more company tied leadership. The members for the first time had a truly democratic election. This is the leadership that they chose. They wanted to go in this more militant direction because they've seen the way that their wages have been eaten away and eaten away and eaten away over years. They've seen the way that they got nothing back after basically bailing out these automakers.
And the latest information just this morning is that they've set a kind of a new deadline of new non Friday.
If they aren't able, which it doesn't look like they're likely to be, aren't able to come to some sort of a contract agreement before noon on Friday, they're going to then escalate the strike and bring in additional plants from the Big Three in order to strike and join what's already about ten thousand workers out of I think it's ten thousand out of the one hundred and fifty thousand UAW workers who are already on the picket line.
So you can hear a lot of clarity there in what his goals ultimately are.
Yeah, I think it's really interesting the way that he's phrasing it. It's very important. Actually, it probably comes at the best possible time. I also think that his confrontational attitude, specifically toward the boss class, as you said, you know, coming in a time of historic acceptance of unions, of growing political I wouldn't say there's political opposition in the same way that there would have been you know, ten
or fifteen years ago. So anyway, I think it's very interesting to see how he's positioning himself, but also to see how much, you know, given the interviews that we saw with the workers, all of them they don't want to get involved in the politics.
They're just like, well, we just want better pay.
So clearly he is speaking, you know, on behalf of them, and that militant attitude is reflective of what they elected him to do.
Yeah, that's probably the biggest take.
He's critical of.
It was very critical of Trump, saying we are fighting with every fiber of our being against the billionaire class and need to stop electing these people who are you know, basically screwing everybody over. But he also has been very critical of the Biden administration and saying, you know, their big rub is not that they don't want to transition to evs. It's that they want to ma make sure that those jobs are going to be union jobs.
That's the big rub.
The original plan of the idea of the Administration and Inflation Reduction Act is that those incentives to the carmakers would come with a requirement that they be union jobs, but that got dripped out in negotiations, Joe Manchin in particular didn't want it, and so there are now no protections in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure that these new battery plants and the new ev manufacturing facilities are actually union.
So that is at the core of this fight.
That is a genuine rub between the auto workers and the Biden administration. It's something that of course Trump honed right in on and is trying to use to create a gulf there. And you know, is obviously going to be in town next week. But you know, from what I can tell from from Sean Fain and from the rest of the membership, like those political fights are really
secondary to them. They're very much focused on the here and now, what's my wage going to be, what are my benefits going to be, what's the future going to be for me and my family in this industry, and how are we going to make sure that we secure
our part in it? And that way, it really reminds me of lot of some of the fights with the writers and actors who are also looking at the way their industry is changing and saying, this is our chance to make sure that we have a secure spot in what this future looks like with AI and also with streaming, and they can already see the way that they're getting completely screwed in terms of streaming revenue. I'man just basically cut out completely from streaming revenue, whether you're an actor
or a writer. And so they're saying, we're using this point little moment that we have when contracts are up and when the labor market is tight, and when we have an administration, a national ab relations board that at least is not going to completely screw us, to try to make sure we can secure our future in a changing industry. And it's the exact, very similar dynamics here with autoworkers.
Absolutely, yeah, I'm fascinating to see how it continues to spiral. It seems like the lawmakers aren't sorry, the bosses aren't giving in here, so a wider strike obviously really hit their bottom line. And we'll see if they can hold out as long as the studios can. I don't think so, given the current economic just how united the UAW is and you know, get their ability to stretch and all that.
But hopefully it's not a long one.
Hopefully they seem very committed, and you know, we'll see what the automakers ultimately do. The ball is in their court, as they say, that's all right. Now we're going to shift gears. We have some special guests joining us in studio here, two Australian members of Parliament who are advocating for the release of Julian Assange.
They are in town. They're going to join us right now.
We're very excited to have two special guests in studio here with us this morning. Two members of Parliament all the way from Australia, from two very different political ideologies, who are in town to advocate for the release of Julian Nossane. We have a Member of Parliament Barnamy Joyce and also Member of Parliament Monique Bryan.
Great to have both of you here with us.
Thanks you, thanks having us on your show.
Absolutely course, So if you could start just by telling us why are you in town? Why make what is a very long trip to come here and advocate on behalf of Julian Assange.
Oh thanks Chris. Yes, it's a long way to come.
And the parliamentary delegation that's come Australia, there's six of us, is unique, I think, as far as we can tell us unprecedented for three members from our Lower House and our Upper House to come in this way. But we're also people from across the political spectrum in Australia, which basically reflects the fact that our electorates feel really strongly
about the Assange case. More than nine out of ten Australians now feel that it's pastime for Julian the signs to be released and to be allowed to go home to be with his wife and his two children. There's a real wave of support for him in Australia. We're very anxious about the prospect that he could be extradited from the United Kingdom to the States, and we're here to advocate on his behalf.
So to talk up a little bit about that, Sarah, what are the issues at stake? Is about us standing up for journalism. He's a citizen.
What are some of the issue areas that have united you know all these disparate political coalitions do for them to come to Washington and say this is something that we demand.
Let's go through the issues here. For me, it's not so much about Julian Nossinge. It's a principle all about extra territorial reach. Let's put a turn around. Let's imagine a guy from Ohio and all of a sudden, he lives in Ohio. He's never committed an offense in the United States at a state level or federal level, and then Australia says, well, he's committed offense for US, and then he goes overseas. The next thing you know, Australia
is saying, well, he's coming to jail in Australia. He's going to stay there for one hundred and seventy five years.
The people of the.
United States would rightly say, what on earth is going on here? Let's go through some other things. Julian or Sanche never stole anything from the United States. A guy by the name of Bradley Manning who then became Chelseah's then Chelsea Manning did and then he published it Let's go through a Nothing. He didn't publish it first. An American guy by the name of John Young published it first from cryptome. I think it was the name website. It's just a Julian had a much large reach in Australia.
Julian actually got a Walkly Award journalism award. Now I'm not here to advocate. Actually think that morally it was wrong, but it wasn't a criminal offense in Australia, and that's a big difference. And we've got other issues. We've got a lady by the name of Chung Lei. She's in jail in China. She's a journalist. So what do we say there?
Do we say?
The Chinese are, well, you should send her back. Let's go back and say, hey, how about how about you work on your first roll in your bone, in your backyard and then come and talk to us. So as a principal, it's where a lot of australianers said, are this is messy. And I think for us, in our relationship close relationship with the United States, especially on defense a new world, we see it as a mess and we just won't cleaned up and moved on.
Miss Ryan.
How is the reception here in Washington, Ben, How the politicians that you've been speaking with Are they receptive?
They have been really receptive.
So we've met thus far with representatives from the Department of State and the Department of Justice and a couple of politicians, and we're meeting with a number more today.
And I think the thing that's really resonated is the center which this really matters to Australians, and I think people are a bit surprised, and we've heard on several occasion people saying, well, we didn't think you guys were that fussed about it, that worried about it, that you cared that much about Juliana Sanje's situation, but also that they weren't as aware as we want them to be.
In that's while we're here about how strongly we feel about freedom of the press and about protection of our citizens' rights. And one of the things we've said repeatedly is that Australians have huge respect for the US and our countries work really closely together in lots of ways, economic, on defense, in any number of other ways, and there's not many points of difference between the US and Australia.
We have great respect for.
Your Constitution, in your First Amendment right to freedom of the speech of speech and freedom of the press, and we, I guess expect a reciprocal level of respect for our press and for the speech of our citizens, and we don't want this to become a point of difference between
Australia and the US. Right that's something we're trying to say we come here not to pick a fight, but to advocate on behalf of someone that matters to us and hopefully to strengthen the relationship between Australia and the US, not the reverse.
Well, it's a very powerful message and so just outlines on the steps for what comes next. And there's currently an extradition fight about bringing him over from the UK. If the US were to drive the charges, would that drop the extradition You'd be free to go home?
Is that what we're advocating.
For Saga, Yeah, precisely, right, there's no point extraditing someone to the United States if there's no charge to answer exactly right now. During the science was probably in prison for around about eleven years impact I'm more about thirteen. Part of it sort of set self in prison and the Ecuador and AMBERSIEMI saw that. But right now he's in a place called Belmarsh Prison, which is a high security prison in England. He gets out for one out or two hours a day. And if you think about it,
he said, well why are you in jail? Look, you didn't commit a crime in Australia. There is no Australia. It's not like a you know, sort of a backwater in a remote corner of the world that goes around deliberately persecuting people, or we have special laws. We're very similar on a common law principle, and how we the United States works, and we just we're trying to take people on the journey and trying to say this is not a right or left thing. I was Deputy Prime
Minister of Australia and I'm from the right. Now I'm
strongly from the right. And if we in Australia both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, who polls apart in both ones from the left of the left once from the right of the right, have both landed in the same spot, it really just calls into question, you know, think about it, Just think about this principle, because we don't we have a strong belief in the United States, and therefore United States is such a leading role in so many areas of the globe, and you
don't want one sort of barnacle, the sort of sullied reputation. You just say, let's park the scene and move on.
Yeah, unfortunately we've got more than one bon We can talk about that another time. Has public sentiment in Australia shifted. Has pressure been building on this?
It really has, for a number of different reasons. The first thing is that this has gone for more than eleven years, during which time Julian has married, and he has two small children who've never had an opportunity to live with him, and so we do feel like enough
is enough. In that context, Chelsea Manning has been tried, found led guilty, been found guilty, convicted to thirty five years in jail, but then had her sentence commuted by President Obama, so she now walks free, whereas mister a Stunt has never actually been sent to trial as such, and eleven years later, is still being detained. It seems
egregious that contrast to us really hits very poorly. But the other thing that's happened over time is that we have understood more about our own military's engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan and around some of the circumstances of that engagement. A number of criminal trials in Australia underway now are about to start of military personnel from Australia interesting for
potential war crimes. And so I think we see the information that mister Assange released in a different light now than we did when it was released, and I think that probably to some extent as well, reflects some of the things that have happened in the US. Sure with
the vision and the documents that he released. With the passage of time, we recognize their significance and their value, and we would not be seeing that sort of information if journalists feel that they can't take classified documents and publish them in the public interest if they're truthful.
Do you feel that there may also be a bit of an opportunity with this administration because under the Obama Biden administration, they were no fan of Julian Assange, but they evaluated the relevant laws and said, we don't see how we can prosecute this man without criminalizing all of journalism and criminalizing publishers and the other out It's like the New York Times that we're also reporting on this in for.
Me, de Spiegel, LeMond, El Pos, the Guardian, all of those would have been drawn into the same thing and they would have had to have been prosecuted.
And the Obama administration.
And so Biden was obviously vice president then so is there a sense that, okay, potentially we can make the argument like let's just go back to what was decided previously.
Under the Obama Biden administration.
Well, we look for the outcome and we'll leave the process up to the United States, and we understand that you can't turn up in another country with the process of duress. And it's really on the same principles. You've got to turn up and show your case, plead your case, explain yourself. And that's that's why we are here. My position is not so much on as a person who has involvement in military and Australia, I'm not here to justify on a moral basis what Juan Thessanche did. That's
if I've never met the guy. I don't even know whether i'd like him.
That's it's kind of irrelevantly.
It's kind of irrelevant.
I think it's important for people to know that because a lot of the times what people are doing is they looking at the action making a judgment on the process. The process must be right, because I don't I have a view of this person, and you guys say no, you've got to separate that as you know that in law, the lady who represents justice as a sword, she has scales, but she's also got a blindfold, and you've got to be blinded to the person and not make a judgment.
And let's see where that process ends. I just think on a cogent examination of it, people has to say exactly what you will have everybody in see an end everyone in fox. I mean, they better build a really, really really big jail, because if this is the case, there's a lot of people going to jail, and that's obviously peytently absurd.
Yeah, it's not just the journalists to a bit risk, it will impact all of us because we wouldn't receive the news that we need to receive if journalists are afraid to publish it.
Is there any action that you would ask our audience to take to support your efforts here?
Anything that people.
Could do to be a I think the really important thing is to think about the case and then lobby your Congress, your senator, make them aware of it. I have found in some instances I'm surprised at the lack of understanding maybe a view in a certain way after a discussion, But I think it's really important that people see it and see it for me through the light of a process and say, look, this is the United States of America. You know this. We're not some Central
American Republic or something like that. This is kind of crazy, and we're certainly not the CCP in China. This is the kind of the way they carry on how we should be carrying on.
Last words, Yeah, tell you I'm aware here because people lobbied US politicians listen to their constituents, and so we would really ask people to do that and to speak out about this because it matters to all of us.
Yeah.
Well, thank you both so much for joining us, for making the trip, and hopefully thank you, thank.
You thanks for having us.
Had a couple of special elections this week. Both of them went in the direction of the Democratic candidate, and this led to some new analysis of how all of these special elections have been going, which points in a very different direction from how the polling has been going. Of course, the polling has Biden and Trump very tight, it has Republicans with a significant edge in terms of
the congressional ballot. But these special elections have sort of consistently swung towards the Democrats by double digits over what would be expected. So go ahead and put this analysis up on the screen. We want to make sure and flag this for people. This is from ABC News and they say that Democrats have been winning big in special elections on average, so not in one race or the other. On average, they have won by margins up eleven points
more than the weighted relative partisanship of their district. So whatever you would expect based on presidential results and based on what the normal partisan lean of a district is, Democrats have been out performing that by about eleven points. One of the special elections this particular week was actually in New Hampshire discre that is six percentage points more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole. It went for Trump, yet the Democrat won by twelve points, So
that is an eighteen point Democratic overperformance above their partisan baseline. Okay, so now you may be asking does any of this matter? Well, that's kind of an open question. But usually put the next piece up on the screen. Usually what happens in these special elections does seem to correlate with what happens in terms of the national House popular vote. So if you have Democrats who are overperforming the special elections, they tend to overperform when it comes to the congressional ballot.
When it comes to midterm or presidential year elections, they go through the data here.
Now, the relationship does not always hold.
There was a year here in nineteen ninety seven and ninety eight where Republicans were overperforming by twelve points, but then when it came to the national House popular vote it was more or less even they were at point nine.
So not a big correlation there.
But if you look at a lot of these other years, you can see there seems to be a trend of whatever party is overperforming the special elections tends to do wellme the congressional vote. Now, you could probably guess some of the reasons that might be contributing to this, same as when the predicted red wave did not materialize in the midterms, could very much be discussed with Trump and stop the steal and crucially abortion, which obviously has really
motivated the Democratic part of the electorate. You could also say, you know, this could have to do and this may actually lessen the impact when it comes to a presidential election year. But it used to be that Republicans were the party that had more of the college educated voters who were more likely to be to routinely show up election after election after election, it was more difficult for
Democrats to turn out their base. That dynamic has now flipped where it is Democrats, who overwhelmingly are bay college educated voters who are more likely to consistently turn out for elections. So you could say, Okay, well, maybe they're turnout for these special elections, but when you have a general election with likely Trump and Biden on the ballot,
you may get a very different electorate. Another reason why you may have a discrepancy between what's happening in these special elections versus what the polls look like at this point is, right now, the polls do not have.
What's called a likely voter screen.
They're just looking at everybody, all registered voters, and they haven't started to factor in all right, but who's going to actually show up and who's not going to show up? So that could account for the difference. But it is very interesting to note that when people have actually been going to the polls and voting for candidates, Democrats have on average been outperforming by about eleven points.
Yeah.
I think all these points are very valid.
I think the only reason why we should all zero in as you said, is they've been especially predictive, and look in retrospect, they were one of the most predictive things of what was to come in the twenty twenty two midterm elections. And also, I mean, the real thing is is that I believe very strong that one of the problems with polls is that they are unable to account for massive, small change, massive changes in a very
short period of time. So one of the reasons that the polls were completely wrong in twenty sixteen is that Trump activated a ton of people who just had never voted before, and so pollsters had not built that into their model. All of these white working class voters crawled out of the would work, they hadn't voted since Ronald Reagan, and decided to come out to vote for Trump. The
same thing happened with abortion. A lot of people who never voted before, never cared about electoral politics, crawled out of the would work and decided to vote. Also, even amongst people who do vote, these were people who increased their voting percentage. So, as you said, I even if you increase college educated voters who usually come out to vote, let's say sixty whatever percent they're voting in eighty ninety percent. That's why some of these were happening. Well, that still
represents a big change in the election. I think that these special elections are so indicative for that reason that, especially when we're living through such crazy times, nobody and to pid the level of voter turnout.
That we saw in twenty twenty or twenty twenty yea, that was.
Massive, then everyone's like, uh, damn's gonna get blown out midterms.
They always follow the script.
Yeah, but in the aftermath of COVID, all this insanity and the dobbs, it's like, who boom, we have just had a big election. I think we'll probably have just as big. A one big voter turnout is usually a bad sign, at least right now for Republicans, because it
just means newer voters who are entering the fray. Why in this moment would you be new to voting For a lot of reasons, it's abortion, and if abortion skews dramatically towards Democrats, so it's a big flashing red sign I think for Republicans.
I've also seen some data to indicate that young voters zoomers and young millennials have really been surging to the polls, I guess your elections, and obviously that benefits Democrats, and I do think that there is a direct line between that and Trump, but also largely abortion. Now the other side of it is, listen, the midterms did not have Donald Trump on the ballot, and the you know, the twenty eighteen midterms did not have Donald Trump on the ballot.
Also when Democrats did very well, Donald Trump likely is going to be on the ballot this time around. So does that bring back the dynamics we had in the
past where the polls then under state Republican support. I have no idea at this point, but I will say I think it's really important to take note of this data because the polls we've seen misses at this point in both directions on the polls, but when people actually have to show up to vote, I think taking note of that voter behavior may actually be more indicative of
the direction that we're heading in. With a million caveats, we don't know what the economy is going to be like, we don't know what the war in Ukraine is going to be like. We don't know what inflation is going to be like, we don't know what Trump's trials are
going to be like, we don't know. I mean, there's a million factors between now and then, not to mention, I'm sure there are going to be things that are that happened that we have no concept of right now and could not possibly name, even as a potential chaos X factor. So a million caveats. But this is really interesting. Let me put another one as a former Kentucky resident who's kind of obsessed with Kentucky politics. One of the few states that has elections on the ballot this year.
Virginia also has legislative elections on the ballot this year, but Kentucky's electing a governor this year. Now, back bear with me for a minute. Back in twenty fifteen, the year before Trump is elected, Kentucky had what ended up being a very canary in the coal mine kind of election.
Now, people nationally.
They have this conception of Kentucky as a red state. That's sort of true, but at the state level back in twenty fifteen, actually Democrats still held the state House and they held the governorship. So the Kentucky Democratic candidate for governor was significantly in the seem to have large margins, seemed to be beating the Republican nominee god by the
name of Matt Bevan by a large amount. Bevan was this kind of like Trumpian businessman, kind of a character, and out of nowhere there was a low turnout election and Bevin massively outperforms the polls and ends up sweeping into power, even though this was very unexpected in Kentucky politics. Okay, so ends up being a bellweather then for Trump precipitates,
you know, Trump coming into twenty sixteen. Okay, so this time around, you have an incumbent Democratic governor, a guy by the name of Andy Basheer, who surprisingly is actually, even as a Democrat in red state, one of the most popular governors in the entire country. And he's running against a Mitch McConnell protege by the name of Daniel Cameron, who's currently the ag Put this up on the screen. This is poles. Take it with a grain of salt. They could be just as wrong as they were last
time in Kentucky. But every pole that has come out of this race in recent months has had Andy Basheer leading, the Democrat leading, and actually by a quite significant margin. So this one, this is an internal pole. So I always take those with a grain of salt, but it actually reflects similar margin to what we've seen in other polls, and it has Andy Basheer up on on Daniel Cameron by a margin of nine points and he's over fifty percent. It's fifty one percent to forty two percent, again in
the relatively read state of Kentucky. So if this result holds, that would be another thing to take a look at. The other survey that was taken the summer had Andy Wassheer leading Dan Cameron by eight points. So even though this is an internal it seems to track with some of the other polling that is out there. So that is another one, another potential bell weather to watch, which has been indicative at other times in the past. Now it's not the end all be all again, a million
things can happen. You got Donald Trump on the ticket, who is a wild card in and of himself. But I think it's really interesting to take note of what is happening when voters are actually showing up at the polls.
Absolutely, I mean, of course, that was the most indicative thing of the polls, and it's why we have to zero in on it. And when you see a Republican underperformance, it's still a big problem, especially in state like Kentucky. I mean, it's also smart for Bashir to be talking
about abortion all the time. We already know from that law that went up for a referendum in the state of Kentucky that even in a deep red state, what in Trump went by like thirty points or something outrageous like that, T twenty thirty points just blown out of the water.
They still can't get it past the finish line.
So it also a lot of people, as I was talking about, who don't traditionally vote, came out to vote for that one. They came out to vote in Michigan, in Ohio, Kansas, and the story is.
Over and over and over and over again on the same thing.
So any politician who's attached to that cause is the best possible thing that you can do.
Yeah, Andy Cher is running a brutal right now, did you watch it about abortion? It's this young girl who is straight to camera and you know, she's the picture of the you know, white all American girl talking about the fact that she, at twelve years old, was raped and that Dan Cameron would have forced her to have that baby.
It is brutal and you.
Know, again, just shows you even in a state like Kentucky, which is very religious, very culturally conservative, Even in Kentucky, this issue is a killer for Republicans, and the Democratic governor is making as much out of it as they possibly can.
Absolutely, all right, sagary looking.
At well, who is a journalist?
Not that long ago? Actually not that hard to answer that question. They work for a news outlet.
Easy.
But around nineteen ninety six, when the Internet really began to take off and user generated content slowly began to eat into the attention span of Americans, it started to become not so easy.
Is someone who just posts something that happened to them? Is that person a journalist? It's a tough question.
A tougher question is this, Well, we have well enshrined rights as journalists here in the United States. Should those rights, as expressed in the Constitution and subsequent case law apply to that person. I've always aired on the side of yes.
In fact, I err on the side of even if you're not a journalist, and don't even consider yourself one, I believe that if you're an everyday citizen, but then you produce an act of journalism like Let's say you're in public and something happens and you post about it, it should still apply to you for that instance. This is still the fight of our time, especially with the
rise of the Internet and non institutional media. And the reason it matters today is how these people are treated by the LAE law, as expressed in a troubling new verdict here in Washington, d C.
Concerning January sixth.
Now.
Stephen her Horn is a twenty three year old North Carolina resident. He was just found guilty of four misdemeanors in federal court in Washington relating to charges of having entered the US Capitol on January sixth. Horn's case is different from others because he has claimed since January sixth he was a journalist documenting the event rather than a protester.
Horn's case has garnered scrutiny ever since the day of the attack, when he posted video to his Facebook page documenting the event with the captain quote, I was in DC today when the Capitol was stormed. Horn did not try to actually hide his presence in the attack. He followed up with footage with that was a post on January seventh, twenty twenty one, Here's what he wrote, quote, I was in DC today the Capitol was stormed. This is the full unedited footage that I took. He adds quote,
this was not a peaceful protest. I saw many instances of pushing against police officers, as well as at least one instance where a barrage of projectiles was thrown. At the end, he says this quote, I did not enter the Capitol building as part of the protest or for cheap thrills, but to document and accurately record a significant event which was taking place. Feel free to share, download, repost his video or any clip from it. The footage was from video that was taken by a helmet cam
that he was wearing at the time. Now, DC prosecutors have argued Horn is a sham journalist, that he invented the excuse the day after the attack to avoid criminal charges. Their argument is that the footage doesn't even show him trying to ask questions of people at the attack, and the footage was actually not even that good that I
don't disagree with. They zoomed in on, particularly on a photo of him standing atop in Abraham Lincoln statue with a camera that was pointed at the crowd in selfie fashion. The defense, however, argued a different story. They noted that the entire footage does not show him ever participating in any stop to steal chance. They show that he was never an aggressive towards law enforcement. He did not destroy
or participate in any destruction of property. In fact, public record himself shows that Horn turned himself in after the FBI wanted to question him in relation to the incident, and he even shared all of his footage with the FBI so they could identify other people involved in the attack.
Since the event, Horn has produced a documentary on January sixth with an expansive list of tactical failures, the timeline perspectives on crowd control, and despite his defense in the expansive firstmen of protections provided to journalists under US law, the jury took only hours to convict him of the following entering or remaining in a restricted area, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area, disorderly conduct in a
capitol building, parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building. In my opinion, this is a major miscarriage of justice for several reasons. Number one is obvious the federal prosecutors here sought to cross the line of firstmen of protections to go after someone who, all evidence shows, did not engage in any egregious activity in the Capitol except for entering. If he was a normal citizen, it would be a
different matter. But considering the decent enough evidence here that he genuinely was producing acts of journalism and has since committed set acts, it was not worth bringing charges and going to trial over such a matter. To be clear, I am not saying if you murder someone and then say it was for a documentary, you shouldn't be charged.
I'm saying here that, considering how blurry the line is, and considering how many dozens of journalists that were present within the capital on that day, that establishing a precedent like this one makes it more difficult, not less, to conduct journalism from this day forward. In fact, one of the arguments that DC prosecutors made was that Horne was not credentialed. This is an insulting and an antiquated consideration of journalism.
Think of it.
Of some of the most monumental footage that you have seen taken in the last decade, very very little of it comes from credential journalists. They come from citizens in the wild who upload that content for the world to see. The act must be predected at all costs. Here it is clear the FED sought to make a statement that crossing into the Capitol building is so awful that it is worth impeding on First Amendment case law.
What do you think, Crystal?
And by the way, I'm not particularly sympathetic to this guy because it's a tough one.
It's a tough case because here's the thing that gets me is he'd ever done anything, Like you've never done anything. He'd never produced any journalism before, and so it does feel very convenient.
And he was, you know, he was on.
Facebook, he was like supporting stop this deal groups and whatever. So it does feel very convenient that the day after he's like, I'm a journalist, guys, here's my journalistic footage.
I get that.
I think it's a tough one.
I think it's tough that said, like, look, if he had beat somebody, if he had destroyed property, I'd say.
Yeah, I mean, then that makes it much clear more clearly, because those are you know, those are separate crimes.
But even if you are like you're not allowed to beat people up if you're a journal exactly right.
Yeah, I think I think it's really a difficult one because, like I said, the thing that really sticks with me is he'd never done anything like this before.
If I had to guess, he probably did invent it.
But I still don't even care because I think that the fact is is that you if you.
How do you, though, keep from having a principle that anyone can just like bring a camera and then commit a crime and then pretend to at to the fact like, oh it was all for journalism.
Well, that's the thing it's about it. It depends on the saveria of the crime and like what it was. So if he had destroyed a structure, if he whatever, Like what is trespassing, We're talking about a misdemeanor entree charge here, like more separate one unrestricted ground. I mean, that's basically making it so that if you don't have a press For example, I don't have a press pass, okay, so when I have to go, I have to get a visitors pass. So let's say I didn't do that properly.
But while I'm there, I'm like filming something, you know. I mean, look, nobody would, but they could. And that's one of those work with you.
I mean, it would be much more clear cut here you like we do with show. It's just why prior works of journalism and so it wasn't just an after the.
I don't disagree.
I still believe in the most expansive protection for the exact reason of always there will be the educase. And on the EDU case, we should side on the side of the First Amendment, especially whenever we're talking about misdemeanor. We're not talking about destruction. We're talking about you know, some bs trespassing here. Look, he probably invented it, to be honest, I really do. I really think he probably invented it.
That's it. I don't care.
I think that the precedent that's being set here is bad enough that it's like we shouldn't we shouldn't be bringing this charge. If he's a quanon shaman or whatever, that's a whole other matter, right, But like, even on that, it's like going to the length of a trial just to set a precedent for this.
I don't know that that seems like on their I.
Mean, think about how many people came out of Ferguson, right, who were I mean, they were right in the middle of it, Guys like Tim Poole or I forget some of the others. There's a lot of journalists today actually who made their name on for Not one of them were credential. They were just people with YouTube channels. Yeah, and they were caught up in the melee.
The credential piece is obviously complete bullshit, right, But there's the additionalists on there who are But I mean, to me, the most compelling argument is like it's a low like since it's an edge case and it's this low level misdemeanor trespassing, it's like, all right, do we really want to set this back? That's to me the most compelling. But do I actually believe this guy that he was there for Johnalis purposes? No?
Not really. I don't believe them, Crystal, What are you taking a look at?
Well?
A new poll reveals that as autoworkers have gone and strike against the big three car companies, the public is overwhelmingly on their side. Courty Morning Console. Only eight teen percent of Americans oppose the autoworker strike, in contrast to the solid majority fifty four percent who explicitly support it. The rest are not sure. These numbers put opposition to the strike at about the same level of popularity as
complete abortion bans and defunding the police. In other words, getting on the wrong side of this strike is politically moronic. Post pandemic Americans have become incredibly clear about their disgust for corporate greed and their support for the workers who our nation relies on every single day just to function.
So I've been watching with great amusement as many Republicans have just gone ahead and stuck with their same old Reagan era anti union rhetoric, while also accidentally kind of making Joe Biden sound way more amazing on unions than he actually is.
Just take a listen.
It tells you that when you have the most pro union president and he teuts that he is emboldening the unions, this is what you get. And I'll tell you who pays for it is the taxpayers. You know here, from what I understand, the union is asking for a forty percent race. You know, the companies have come back with a twenty percent raise. I think any of the taxpayers would love to have a twenty percent raise and think that's great. But you know the problem is this is
gonna we're all going to suffer from this. This is going to cost things to go up, and you know this is going to last a while. But you know, when you have a president that's constantly saying, go union, go union, this is what you get. The unions get emboldened and then they start asking for things that you know that companies have a tough time doing. And so I don't think government should get involved in this. These
are private sector matters. But I do think the tone of how a president talks about unions and how a president emboldens them does play a role in this, and we're seeing what Biden has done play a role in this.
I think Brunald Rayton game is a great example when federal voice side there must write that you strike your fire. Civil concept to me to extend that we can use that once again. Absolutely. The second thing I would do, though, is very important.
This is a.
Probably not a well known fact.
The first thing part of the challenge that we have today with President Biden is I don't mean this would be disingenuous, I mean this would be sincere. I'm not sure if the words are bought and paid for but
it certainly he has been leased by the unions. And I say that because the first bill he passed, y'all remember the one point nine trillion dollars COVID relief backage, I only had one percent for COVID vaccines and had eighty six billion dollars I believe for union pensions because they keep making these deals and as a result of the deal, they promised too much, deliver too.
Little, and the tax payers pick.
Up the tab.
All of this stuff, These strikes, these UAW strikes again all right, just part of a broader whole picture here, which is that the unions have paid off Joe Biden, the no credit part for literally decades on end, and finally they got their man in the White House, the most pro union president since Barack Obama, and probably more pro union even than Barack Obama, who's too elitist. Joe Biden has been in the pocket of the union since day one in Wilmington, Delaware. Well, now all of these
unions are seeing their moment to shine. It is amazing how we can keep relearning the same lessons over and over and over again.
Nikki Haley, by the way, goes on to probably describe herself as a union buster. Tim Scott, as you heard there, apparently thinks that all workers exercising their rights to take collective action should just be summarily fired. No wonder these
two are big donor favorites in a way. I actually they'll kind of appreciate the anti worker clarity of their message as opposed to Trump wants to signal symbolic support for workers in spite of the fact that his administration was stuffed with aggressive union busters, which fits with his business track record also as an aggressive union buster. But Haley, Scott and Shapiro here are giving Biden an accidental assists when they basically accept his rhetoric of being the most
pro union president in history. This is, of course a wild overstatement, is true, Biden is way more pro union Barack Obama or any other president in my lifetime, as Nationhal Labor Relations Board has been phenomenal as his his rhetoric on this particular strike. But I am quite sure it will come as a surprise to Sean Fain and a lot of other union workers and leadership that Biden
is a quote one hundred percent union shill. After all, the UAW has withhold held their endorsement over frustration that EVE incentives for new factories did not include requirements that those jobs be union. They might also want to talk to the rail workers who saw the White House work with rail bosses to cram down a deal that blocked their ability to strike. So, yeah, he is better than Obama. He is better than Clinton. He is wildly better than Trump, w Bush, or Reagan. But he could do a hell
of a lot more than he has done. This commentary also completely denies workers any power agency. It was not Joe Biden who voted to authorize these strikes. It was rank and file workers who elected Sean Fain because of his more militant approach and voted almost unanimously to go out on this strike. These workers bailed on the automakers
in two thousand and eight. They have every reason in demand that their jobs do decent jobs at a time when automakers are turning massive profits and issuing billions in stock buybacks. After all, these companies have spent sixty six billion dollars in stock buybacks and dividends over the past ten years. Corton Robert Reich. This would be enough to hand out four hundred and forty thousand dollars to every
single one of the striking autoworkers. So spare me your tiers for the billionaires and their multiinational corporations here now, for Haley and Scott, this is just kind of knee jerk Reagan Republicanism. It's like a doll that you pull a string and Chamber of Commerce anti union talking points come out.
For Ben Shapiro, though he lays on.
A lengthier ideological argument, he's clearly thought a lot more about this for why unions are always bad and had nothing to do ever with American middle class prosperity. Trashing as adults, anyone who thinks otherwise, take a listen.
All adults who suggest that it's unions that made American light so wonderful during the nineteen fifties nineteen sixties. It was the union job, the union job where you sat there for ten hours a day doing riveting or whatever. And neglect the fact that a lot of those jobs you know now is use sitting in an air conditioned office doing another kind of job, and that your grandfather, who had to sit out there in the fact for
doing the riveting, would kill for your job. Right now, put that aside, The fact is that the real reason America boom during the nineteen fifties is because every other place on Earth was on fire during the nineteen forties.
So, first of all, I don't think anyone suggesting that blue collar work is easier or more desirable than cushy office jobs. On the contrary, the fact that autoworkers are doing demanding, difficult, physically taxing jobs only makes the case stronger for good pay and good benefits. But the evidence on unions helping and build American dream, it's really pretty indisputable. This chart right here, this says it all. So the blue line is union density, which has been on a
steady decline since the nineteen seventies. The red line is middle class share of income low and behold as union's lost power and traction in our economy, the middle class fell off a cliff. More accurately, they were pushed off a cliff. Today, even with union power at a low EBB, they still benefit not only their own membership, but all workers within industries which are significantly unionized. So, for example, non unionized FedEx workers benefit from the fact that UPS
is unionized. Tesla workers are likely to benefit from the fact that the Big Three are unionized. A recent Treasure report actually analyzed these impacts and found union workers on average earn twenty percent more than their non union counterparts, and that non union workers share in a spillover effect
of increased wages themselves. Interestingly, they also find union membership is associated with some of the civic values that can serve as like Ben say they care a lot about Union members are more likely to vote, They're more likely to buy a house, to donate to charity, to attend community meetings, to volunteer, and to participate in neighborhood projects. That all makes a lot of sense. When you earn a good wage and you don't have to work a second or third job, you've got more time and mental
energy for that type of civic engagement. Still think that only adults would believe that unions help build the two parent white picket fence broadly shared prosperity that conservatives in particular harken back to One thing I'm appreciating about this strike is how it creates a kind of political clarity. It's all fine and good to say vague things about the working class, but when the chips are down, what do you say, and more importantly, what do you actually do?
We all know American workers cannot depend on the political class to have their backs and cut them in on the incredible prosperity of this nation. And that is why unions are so incredibly essential, because they give workers the ability to fight for themselves and to win in a prosperous, empowered working class could actually make America great again.
I thought it was very interesting to see, and
If you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.