Krystal and Saagar discuss Republicans crush early voting, Abercrombie CEO indicted, BBC debunks IDF, Saagar reveals how to vote.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
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.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
So one thing that we've been paying close attention to
and reading into it whatever you can is the early
vote results. And no state have they been more striking
than the Sun belt state of Nevada. Let's put this
up on the screen. And Nevada also benefits from the
fact you got John Ralston, who everyone agrees is like
legit in analyzing.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
The early vote.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So he updates every day his early voting blog, and
at this point, shocking given previous historical trends, Republicans actually
have an advantage in terms.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Of the early vote.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So they have successfully convinced their voters to vote early.
There's been a huge surge in terms of the rural
areas in particular. In fact, he's describing this time he
normally talks about a Clark County, which is Las Vegas
firewall for Democrats. He's talking now about a rural firewall,
a massive Republican advantage where there's been extremely high turnout
(01:22):
in those rural, heavily conservative areas. In Washoe County, which
I believe is where Reno is, it's a swing urban county.
Republicans have a four point lead that's just above their
registration average in Clark County. The firewall is that just
five thousand votes, just two and a half points in
a place where Democrats have a nearly seven percent registration edge.
(01:44):
So so far, and again it's early days. None of
this reads into which way the large number of independents
are going to vote. None of this reads in too
obviously what's going to happen on election day. But the
early indications for Republicans are quite strong. I think Nevada
is stronger than in any of the other states where
we have significant early vote to take a look at.
(02:06):
And one of the theories for why Republicans could be
outperforming in Nevada in particular comes down to the issue
of housing. Let's put this up on the screen. Obviously,
this is something We've been focused on for a long time,
just how much of a pain point the unaffordable housing
(02:27):
market has become for so many voters.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
New York Times did a great ride up here.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
They said, as Harris courts, the Sunbelt housing costs stand
in her way, and they compare the skyrocketing housing costs
not just you know, to buy a home, but also rents,
which is driven and fueled by a number of factors.
They compare that to a similar political earthquake as the
exodus of steel companies or auto manufacturings manufacturers that left
(02:56):
workers reeling in industrial Midwestern So I do think if
you see a big divergence between the type of results
that come out in the sun Belt states Nevada in particular,
versus those quote unquote blue wall states in the industrial Midwest,
I do think housing is going to be a big
part of that.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
I love a story is super interesting. A couple of takeaways.
Number one is actually inside the story they court and
talk about people who are specifically pissed off in Vegas
about California implants, and it made me think about this
kind of blue influx theory and whether the people are like, oh,
(03:36):
these states are all going to turn blue. But they
could actually have like an interesting net effect where you
have a blue voter come in, but that makes people
really hate them and get angry and then vote Republican.
And if you think about it, it's actually a real
like elite versus non elite dynamic where you have people
who are predominant at least a lot more rich than
the average citizen in Nevada, Texas wherever, coming in, driving
(03:58):
up housing prices, and then those people feel a lot
of the displacement, the anger, and they could very much
respond in the same way that the blue Wall voters
did whenever they voted against Democrats on NAFTA, on trade policy, immigration,
et cetera. I actually really could see a similar dynamic there.
What would probably change things is you still have enough
traditional blue voters and others who could offset that. But
(04:22):
the tension means that it's a real like class dynamic
that comes down to the most fundamental question of housing.
I also found the trouble for Harris here was when
voters were presented by this New York Times reporter about
Harris's housing proposal. There's a deep cynicism where they're like,
I don't think any of that's going to happen. Yeah,
I mean, and look are they wrong, especially if there's
divided government. You know, I'm going to do a home
(04:44):
monologue about this. You need an Act of Congress to
have that. What do you think is going to use?
The US Senate full of Republican is going to pass that. No,
it's not going to happen, right. The best you could
hope for is some Fannie Mae Freddie Mack whatever, like
loosening of regulations and maybe some stuff through the Housing
and Urban Development Agency. But that's about it, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I mean, listen, if we're comparing just the policy landscape,
Harris has talked about Real Page. The Biden administration is
going after Real Page, which is the cartel that has
helped you spike rents in places like Las Vegas and
other places around the country. She has, you know, talked
a lot about this plan to help people with that
down payment, which has become a major stumbling block for
(05:25):
people who don't have like intergenerational wealth to be able
to go to mommy and daddy and be like, hey,
help me with my down payment. You know.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
So she does have specific plans, but I think.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
The deeper problem for her is just like people are
unhappy now with how things are and the Democrats are
in power.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Like, it doesn't go deeper than that.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
And you know, I guess the flip side of this
is we did just look at polling that says that
voters in general trust her more on housing and the
type of working class voter that you have overwhelmingly in
Las Vegas and Nevada in general, tends to be the
service sector workers who that's like the as Matt Carr
(06:05):
called them, the quote unquote like democratic working class versus
the like industrial and manufacturing hard hat type of workers,
which is why Nevada has stayed in the Democratic camp
for all these years, even as a lot of you know,
the working class has realigned. So those would be some
of the things that they're helpful about. But you know,
(06:27):
I when you think about housing and how much the
escalating prices have squeezed people, there is maybe no place
in the country that has been harder hat hit then
Las Vegas because they I don't know, if you guys
remember after the Great Recession, massive housing bus there, you know,
just utter devastation. Then you had all of this permanent
(06:50):
capital come in and buy up a bunch of these homes,
turn them into rentals, you know, jack up the prices.
Then you had the brutal hit that they took or
in particular during the pandemic, which meant that people's incomes
were lower than they were before. Many of those people
feel like they really never recovered from the hit the
(07:12):
service sector took during the pandemic. So you have a
lot of economic turmoil concentrated.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Specifically in this state.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
And again, you know, you could talk about like and
I did interview someone here who was like struggling with
all of these things, but was like, I think Kamala
is the person that would be better positioned turn these
things around. So I'm sure that sentiment does exist among some.
But if you've been dealt a rough hand over these
past four years and it was Democrats in charge, you
can see how that's a compelling argument on the Trump
(07:42):
CACHEMPST A side.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It gets to people. You know, when people are like, well, Calmo,
when people took Comma more in housing, very few people
are like I'm going to the ballot box because my
ass is too expensive. They're like, well, housing makes me
pissed off, and I'm pissed off, And that makes me
distrust the party in power, right, So they don't think
directly in terms of that, and that is you know,
that's really comes down to the whole like vibe conversation,
(08:04):
I do understand it, I really do, you know, for
in terms of the frustration, especially in Nevada and in
North Carolina too. We've talked here about Asheville and the
explosion there. But you know, I always say Raleigh and
Charlotte are two of the most booming cities in the
United States. Atlanta, you know, Georgia today is a battleground. Atlanta.
The amount of influx they've had from New York and
(08:25):
from a lot of the East Coast is astounding in
terms of the population change in Georgia, in the entire Sunbelt,
you know, Florida included, we're talking about some of the
biggest internal migration since World War Two that we've seen.
So these places have changed dramatically in the last five years.
Where I'm from Texas, you don't even recognize it. Austin
in particular.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So you know, there's almost like a reverse dynamic in
the Montana Senate race, which is John Tester is the
Democratic incomment and the most endangered Democratic incomment, most of
the Poles seem to indicate like he's not going to
hang out, but you never know his opponent. What's his name, Tim?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
She he yeah, she first name Tim.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I'm making that up anyway, She Yeah, he got caught.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
We talked about this before. This has been on the
record before.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
He claimed he had sustained like a war wound and
been like shot in battle in Afghanistan, I think. And
it turns out he shot himself accidentally in a national park,
which we know because they had to file an incident
report because you're not allowed to discharge a firearm in
a national park. And the park ranger just came out
and went on the record to be like, yeah, I
was there, this is what happened. Like he did not,
(09:27):
he was not wounded in battle. He shot himself when
he was in a national park. So anyway, you never
know what's gonna happen in that race. At the bottom line,
But to get back to my original point about housing,
Montana has seen.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Oh huge, bows huge they call it bos Angelists or whatever.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Huge influx, but it's largely conservatives who have moved into
the state. And she he is one of those people
who was part of the influx into the state. Now,
of course, he frames this as like, listen, I wish
I was born in Montana because I love Montana, but
you know, I'm a business owner and creating job in
the state blah blah blah. And Tester is who's you know,
(10:03):
a long time born and raised as a Farmer's the
big boys got you know, several fingers that he lost
in like a farming accent.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
You know, he's legit.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
He's a legit Montana, which is why he is able
to hand ont hang onto the state as long as
he has. He's making the case of like these outsiders,
like people who are from Montana really understand Montana, like
they trust me, and that's why, you know, I'm going
to represent your interests, and he represents all these people
who are coming in and changing your way of life.
So it's kind of an interesting like reverse dynamic going
(10:31):
out there's interest.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Yeah. By the way, I love Montana too.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Never it's the only states I've never been to.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Oh my god, I would like to go with Donovan. Beautiful.
It is natural. Beauty wise, it's all up there with California.
They have so many incredible national parks.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I highly recommend it, but yeah, they don't shoot yourself
at one of them.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Sure. And the people there, though, I think they make
it known they're like, stop coming here from California, We're
sick of you. And they don't have like a million
people who live there.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Yeah, but it's like it's like because a lot of
the people who transplant it there are like right wing
California who are disgusted with the like liberal direction of this.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
So if I were them too, i'd be mad. You know,
you live in this pristine wilderness and such great and
you have all these rich people who come in and
buy all the land. I know there's a lot of
beef between like private landowners and hunters because it's long
time been like.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
A big wells which I do.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, no, exactly, And actually, if you look at the
most desirable places in Montana, it has some of the
most expensive real estate in the entire country. For those
of you who also like trolls, Zillow and dream Book.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
All right, let's go and move on to this story
that we just wanted to put on your radar because
there are new charges that just dropped against three individuals
associated with Abercrombie and Fitch. But the former CEO in particular,
Michael Jeffries, has been charged along with his longtime partner
Matthew Smith, and they're sort of enabler James Jacobson. Let's
go and put this up on the screen from the
(11:53):
Department of Justice, they say in the headline, former CEO
of Abercromie and Fitch and two others charged with sex
traffic an interstate prostitution. Let me tell you the details
here are as horrifying as you can imagine I'm going
to summarize, but effectively, the allegations are that over decades
(12:15):
these three ran a sex trafficking ring where effectively they
would lure in these young, aspiring male models and promised them,
you know, jobs with modeling with Abercrombie and Fitch, which
is a big deal, you know for a model who's
struggling and trying to make it. But they would hold
(12:37):
out to them that in order to have all of
these career prospects, they would need to engage in a
variety of sex acts. Even beyond that, they would threaten
them with ruining their career if they didn't comply. They
required all of them to sign non disclosure agreements so
that they felt like they couldn't possibly come forward saying anything.
(12:58):
According to the indictment, on more than one occasion when
men did not or could not consent, these men violated
their bodily integrity by subjecting them or continuing to subject
them to invasive, sexual and violent contact by body parts
and other objects. Some of the other details here are
I mean, it's just it's exactly what you imagine. These
(13:19):
young men who are desperate, who are trying to make it,
who are often financially incredibly stressed. This is the they think,
this is like the make or break moment for them,
and the first person they meet is this guy Jacobson,
who apparently and a number of the men in a
BBC investigation told a very similar story. Their first meeting
(13:41):
would be with him and he would coerce them into
oral sex and they would think, Okay, well that was horrible,
but that's like it's probably just this one creep and
I got past that. Now I have my opportunity to
meet with the CEO. This is going to be where
my modeling aspirations come to fruition. And then they go
to one of these events and it's even what they're
(14:02):
subjected to and forced into is even worse. And you know, Sager,
is this an iconic brand, iconic brant. And we've been
hearing some you know, like rumors about what was really
going on there because I don't know. I'm obviously I'm
significantly older than Saga. I remember when, like the catalog
would come out for Abercrombie and Fitch, and even at
the time, you'd be looking at it and are like,
(14:24):
these people are not even wearing clothes like this all
like naked men.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
What's going on here? How are they even?
Speaker 1 (14:30):
And that was their whole thing, and obviously from a
financial perspective, they made a huge impact on the culture.
There were a lot of allegations already about discrimination in
terms of basically they wanted a specific like white, preppy
look even for their sales associates in the stores.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
If you had if you were.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Black or brown or you know, Muslim and wearing headscarf,
that was not allowed at all. You weren't allowed to
have dreadlocks like. They were very particular about and discriminatory
and wanting this very specific look. But obviously the allegations
here go far beyond what we had learned specifically from
(15:09):
this like Abercrombie and Fitch documentary.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, previously, the documentary gave a lot of this stuff
away and the like you read from some of the indictment.
We have it there. You should go read it for yourself.
It is horrifying and honestly, the only thing I'm surprised
is that it took a long time. And I do
think it's important because what it does is it highlights
like so much of the you know, there's a lot
of nostalgia these days for the old days and like, oh,
(15:33):
things were better in the nineties and the two thousands.
By and large, I do mostly agree with that, but
there was a dark side to the culture and to
all of that. We actually have some of the testimony
from some of these people. Let's go ahead and play
D three please. You know that you're getting close. When
the Dire hit with the smell of agricamy.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Think that club beat and their chested guys.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
It was such a pop culture phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
It was an all American look. I think he's I
think he's a predator, and I don't think that's what
the public has seen.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
I was overwhelmed, Like I mean, I've never seen anything
like this what I'd.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Like to talk about is being lied to, tricked and
traded like a commodity.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Me too has empowered women to speak out about sexual abuse.
Now these men say they want to be heard too.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
I think it's rarely considered that men could be a
victim of anything.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
They face a double stigma, and I don't think that
men have quite had their me too movement.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
So you can see, you know, in terms of the
testiment is terrible in terms of the way that they
were treated, and there was definitely a lot of different
way of discussion. I'm sure everybody's been seen on Netflix.
This has all comes to light again from the Menendez case,
you know, all the discussion around sexual assault and how
it involves men in the way that cultural attitudes have
shifted and changed around them. Because it does say something
(16:59):
that this wasn't even taken seriously or investigated or thought
about at the times. And I mean this was just
the two thousands that earned nineteen nineties. They were obviously
tried in the nineteen eighties, So it is certainly it's
really sad. And what it does show us too was
the way that they got away with that for so
long inside the industry. And it was such an open secret.
(17:21):
Were talked about Ditty yesterday, We've talked about Weinstein, and
I think that's the part that really gets me, is
about how open of the knowledge is and it's still
allowed to perpetuate and worse, you know, there's just more victims. People.
These are eighteen nineteen year old guys and you know,
you don't even reason really awful stuff. But they also
had to go through like it was they were getting
forcibly injected, you know at some.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Point exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
One who was interview, who can put this BBC investigation
up on the screen, said the experience, I think it
broke me. I think this stole any ounce of innocence
I had left. It mentally messed me up. But with
the language I now have today, I can sit here
and tell you I was taken advantage of it. And
I think even today, yeah, it takes a lot of
courage to come forward against Actually I think as a
man and say, you know, I was raped, I was assaulted,
(18:04):
I was taken advantage of And I.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Was thinking the same as you.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Sagur like Diddy ran that allegedly ran this criminal enterprise
where you know, similar levels of threats, coercion, similar promises
of like, hey baby, this is going to make your career.
My friend Torre reported on R and B singer Cassie
who was in that horrible video being beaten and dragged
(18:29):
in a hotel hallway. He put on Ice her album
for like a decade just to sort of string her
along of like, oh, you know, of course it's coming.
Of course it's going to be great, and stole from
her so much. Obviously, you know, the abuse is horrifying,
but also he stole from her the prime years of
her career. And you see a similar dynamic here where
(18:49):
you've got these three men who were saying to these
young guys like I hold the keys to the kingdom
and just do what I want you to do and
it's all going to be fine, and using that position
power to enable.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Decades and decades of abuse.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Very similar thing with Harvey Weinstein, right, very similar thing
where you know, yeah, the casting couch, right, you come in,
you do what I want you to do, and I'm
going to put you in a movie. And if you don't,
by the way, I'm going to ruin your life. And
I have the level of power that can make that
happen also say, did you watch the Nickelodeon documentary.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Oh, yeah, I will come of it.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Yeah they didn't.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
They alluded to and there were some specific things that
happened there in terms of like sexual abuse of these kids.
But again it's like, hey, this is kid Central. Your
kid is going to be a star, they're going to
be famous, your family's going to be fine using that
position of power, and also reminded me, of course of
Jeffrey Epstein, who part of how he would more in
young girls is through his association with Les Wexner, who
(19:51):
was with Victoria's Secret, and he held himself out as
I'm a modeling agent, and you know, I'm scouting these girls,
and that was part of how they were. The modeling
industry just seems to be an absolute cesspool. But so
many of these industries where you have a massive disparity
between the power, the people the top and the aspirants
who want to get who are so desperate to get
(20:13):
in this industry, so desperate to make it, et cetera,
it just makes it rife, rife for abuse. And that's
really the portrait that emerges here. Certainly, we wanted to
highlight for you, some of the latest horrors coming out
of the Middle East. So this was actually a video
that was highlighted by a Congressman, Thomas mass So you
(20:35):
could put this up on the screen. This is an
apartment building being just completely demolished by Israel in Beirut,
in Lebanon, and Massey said, along with this video, who's
a Republican, Who's like the only Republican who said anything
reasonable on this conflict in my view in terms.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Of elected officials.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Quote, if Israel insists on destroying civilian targets in Lebanon,
let them buy and build their own weapons. American taxpayer
shouldn't be funding this. So this is not in Gaza.
This is in Lebanon, in a major city where they
are just utterly destroying a massive apartment building there. At
the same time, you know, the IDEAF had put out
(21:16):
this propaganda video we talked about before, which alleged that
Hasbela had a bunch of their financial assets that were
hidden under a hospital. It's very, eaerily reminiscent of some
of the propaganda videos that they had put out in
advance of attacking hospitals in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
So we were all, well, here we go again.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
You know, this is just their attempt to justify yet
another assault on another country's medical system. But one thing
that's different in Lebanon, unlike Gaza, is that you have access.
Journalists have access to be able to actually go to
the hospital and look around and say, Okay, well is
it true what they're saying and TLDR No, it was.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
A total lie.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Here is the BBC underneath said hospital where supposedly the
evil layer existed. Finding absolutely nothing.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Let's take a look at that.
Speaker 5 (22:10):
Well, we're on level minus two in the Al Sahell Hospital.
The area just behind me is where medical waste is stored.
Even that was opened up for us to have a look.
The morgue was opened up, all of the drawers were
opened to show us there was nothing inside. Doctors have
(22:32):
been opening piles of surgical scrubs, boxes of equipment, very
very keen to show us everything there is to see
and to prove that there is nothing here. Well, I'm
just coming now from the basement on minus two up
(22:53):
to minus one. We've been brought around the hospital by doctors.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
We've also been.
Speaker 5 (22:59):
Allowed to move around on our own. Doors have been
opened for us in every area. Copboards we've been allowed
to see what there is to see now. The hospital
staff are adamant that there is no hidden bonker here
containing millions of dollars of cash or gold, as the
(23:20):
Israelis have claimed. They say, this is just a hospital
where patients were being treated last night and where they
had to be evacuated from the emergency area at great
speed because doctors were worried for the lives of the
patients and also worried for the staff.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
So, in addition to obviously the significance of just exposing
this was not shockingly a total incomplete fabrication and lie,
I think Sara also shows something that Israel has known
because they have launched all that assault on journalists and
journalism since the post October seventh. Then many would say
even before it really matters to have journalists have access
(24:01):
to the war zone to be able to adjudicate, like, Okay,
they're saying this, let's go check it out. And in
Gaza access has been almost completely closed off. Any sort
of Western outlet that wants to go in has to
abide by all of the IDF's rules. They have to
be invited in. Yeah, they have to be subject to
that censorship. They get taken on basically like a guided
(24:23):
tour of the things the IDF wants them to see.
And the only outfit that you know, outsider outfit that
has been able to have any access is Al Jazeera,
which Israel has accused of being hamas has stripped their
broadcast licenses, you know, seized their equipment and raided their
office and shut them down. And I think, you know,
(24:45):
this little piece of journalism from the BBC exposes why
they have seen that independent that journalism as such a
threat to the project of annihilation that they're engaged in.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
The journalism piece is really important and that's actually it's
funny because in the idea they like, go look at
it for yourself, and then they did and they're like, well,
that's kind of an issue for you. But I mean
part of the issue is also that even though they
have the access, that our outlets are still not going there.
It's coming from the BBC, right, But I haven't seen
any of this in art. I mean, I get it,
we're twelve days from election. You know, there's a lot,
but it is important if you're gonna check these ts.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yeah, absolutely, And to the point about the all one
assault on journalism. Their latest effort, that Israeli's latest effort.
We can put E four up on the screen. They've
accused these six Al Jazeera journalists of being hamas terrorists.
Put E five up on the screen. Of course, Al
Jazeera strenuously denies this, and this comes in the context
(25:37):
of you know, I don't even know how many journalists
they've killed in Gaza at this point. As I said,
Al Jazeera says this was fabricated evidence.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
As I said before, you.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Know, Al Jazeera's they're really the only outlet that has
been able to operate, So they're the only ones who
have been able to you know, go into hospitals, to
go to the site of these massacres, to really report
on the ground what is happening. And a number of
their reporters have already been killed by Israel in the
(26:09):
context of trying to report on this war. So New
York Times Rights the channel's correspondence are some of the
few remaining reporters on the ground in Gaza to document
the devastating impact of Israel's operations there. Israel has largely
barred the international press. Again, this is from the New
York Times from entering the enclave except on closely monitored
tours accompanied by the Israeli military. Al Jazeera called the
(26:30):
accusations a blatant attempt to silence the few remaining journalists
in the region, there by obscuring the harsh realities of
the war from audiences worldwide. And I would just say, listen, obviously,
I think these charges are total, incomplete.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Bullshit, completely made up.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
You know, they've offered they made up the whole unra
these are terrorist thing. They never provided the evidence that
they said that we're going to back up those claims,
that there's no reason whatsoever to take the Israeli government
at face value with this. But I would also say, hey,
if you don't like these journalists, open it up so
that any outlet can go in and report. If it's
going to be so validating to you of how what
(27:06):
a moral army you are and how great the situation
is on the ground, why don't you let in more
journalists to be able to actually report on the war
and your efforts as it exists.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Yeah, that's a good point. Can we go to the
next part you found this? I found it so interesting
about the realignment that's currently happening. Iran is saying that
it's planning to hold its first joint military drills with
Saudi's in the Red Sea. And this really goes counter
to the entire theory of the Middle East that the
Trump administration had going into the Abraham Accords, which was
to consolidate the Emirates and the Gulf powers against Iran,
(27:39):
but through normalization of relations with Israel. But what's happened
instead is that now the Palestinian question has been forced
so much to the front, especially with the Arab populations,
that they're finding themselves aligned against Israel and obviously also
against the United States, which is this predominant backer. So
the first time here, I mean to see two armies
(27:59):
first military drills. Somebody showed me this. The Ayatola when
he died, in his last rule and testament, included this
whole thing about how the House of Saud was evil
and how it needs to be regime changed. I mean,
these were you know, blood, This is a true blood feud,
not to mention the entire religious dynamic of Sunni and Shia.
So to see this happening is absolutely extraordinary, and it's
(28:20):
one of those where you know, look the entire region
is really aligning against us, and you should ask yourself
for what you know. This isn't even for Iraq war.
This is for our conflict that we're not even in. But
we're funding the entire thing and it's causing a huge
amount of blowbacks, so I think we are going to
pay for it sometimes.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
No, this is literally the first time this has ever happened,
and it should also go not go unnoted that this
was a deal brokered by China. So you know, as
the region is aligning around the Palestinian question against US
and Israel, it's you know, China that is serving the
rule as diplomats and peacemakers amongst these longtime enemies. So
(29:00):
definitely extraordinary development worth keeping an eye on. At the
same time, we can put this up on the screen.
You had, I mean, this is just too perfect. So
you had Tony Blincoln questioning bb net Naho about this
quote unquote general's plan, which is basically, we're going to
seal off northern Gaza, We're to starve everybody that's inside,
(29:20):
and we're just going to assume that they're all Hamas militants.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Blincoln question that Nawho about this, US.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Officials told Bibe, there is a perception that Israel's pursuing
a strategy of isolating the North, telling people that if
they don't leave their effectively targets and denying food to
go in Bib in his Top eight ron. Drmer responded
that this was absolutely not our policy, and the fact
that this perception exists has been deeply damaging to US.
US officials then said, okay, so why don't you go
out and say that publicly, But the Israelis refused to
(29:51):
make such a commitment.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Which you know, it just shows you behind closed doors. Oh,
of course not.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
We would never do that. We can all see the
reports that are coming out. They are literally executing exactly
what is described in the General's plan, and so privately
they'll reassure you us, no, no, we're not doing that whatsoever.
Of course not, we would never do that. Okay, fine,
we'll go out and say that publicly. Yeah, not going
to do that, because number one, we actually that is
(30:18):
actually our plan, and number two, this is popular with
our political base in particular, and so no, we're not
going to go out and tell our political base that
we're not doing the thing that they want us to do,
you know, just to as an indication of the reality
of this plan being implemented in Northern Gaza. We can
(30:38):
put this scene up on the screen.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
This is a.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Breadline people desperately, desperately scrapping to try to get a
loaf of bread. Such as the level of desperation that
has taken hold around Kaza, but in Northern Gaza in particular,
where now I just saw this morning. Even the Israelis
are acknowledging that no food aid, no aid entered Northern
(31:01):
Gaza for weeks in early October. They are acknowledging basically
that they, you know, have blocked aid, something that our
administration has pretended to not be able to figure out
whether or not they're doing. We also know that there's
been we played for you in the last show, the
forced you might call it a death march, evacuation of
Northern Gaza.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Once again.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
We also know that some of the people who have
tried to evacuate Northern Gaza have been shot at and
times killed. So you know, this is the reality of
the policy that our government is funding and supporting and
pretending to have no idea.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
What's going on? Yeah, all right, Sager? What are you
looking at.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
One of the weird parts about doing this job is
every once in a while someone will come up to
me and ask how should I vote. I usually answer
it in the same way, well what do you care
the most about? Sometimes the answer is staying out of war.
Sometimes it's a rich person they say, I don't want
to pay any taxes. Sometimes as a service worker wants healthcare.
Based on that, I interrogated a bit more, and I go, well,
can you with what can't you what are the best
(32:02):
chances of actually happening that you do care about. It's
a very useful exercise. I noticed a lot of people
don't actually do it. For example, we recently played a
clip of someone asking Trump how he was going to
improve the quality of his kids' school in New York City. Now,
I understand it was probably bigger than that, but many
people just appear not to know about ninety five percent
of that control is state and local. Or you're going
to see other voters quote on the cost of groceries
(32:24):
with a very vague understanding how can the president even
affect that? So I thought I would do a monologue
here about my theories of the American presidency. The varying
degrees of things that actually they control. Let's start with
arguably the most important issue, least often considered, war and peace.
The president's commander in chief has near absolute power to
decide the fate of our nation through his or her
(32:45):
conduct of foreign policy. While they cannot declare war, the
imperial presidency has evolved since the time of LBJ and
George W. Bush gives them the authority to launch literal
missile strikes on foreign nations even without a declared war
by Congress. When Trump says it is okay, for example,
for Israel to launch missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities,
or Kamala says Ukrainian victory is a necessity for US security,
(33:08):
you should very clearly understand they are one hundred percent
ability to follow through and directly impact your life. Now,
outside of foreign policy, it's very different, especially on the economy.
We can divide economic impact of the presidency into two areas,
those that require agencies and those that require legislation. Most
of the high profile things that you hear from Trump
(33:29):
and from Kamala, like no tax on tips or housing subsidies,
would not be something they can do on their own.
It would require Congress, which we will return to. In reality,
especially if there is a divided government, you should look
to agency power. This is where both can have tremendous impact.
For example, through the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FTC,
(33:49):
as we've seen under Lena Khan, the Anti Trust Division
of the Department of Justice, they make rulings that massively
impact the US economy, but only within the scope of
defined responsibility. Ironically, their power has actually been lessened for
both presidents, especially Trump after the repeal of the Chevron
doctrine by the Supreme Court. But nonetheless, through agency power
they can affect the price of oil, whether new things
(34:11):
get approved for building, perhaps most importantly, tariffs within a
very defined scope. It would take Congress for Trump or
Kamala to have an across the board tariff as he's proposed,
but Commerce Department, under National Security designations can implement some
tariff to the tune of hundreds of billions on select
items without Congressional input. But I want to point out
there are still some major limits to this. Back in
(34:31):
the Trump years when I covered the White House, he
tried very different things to try and divert from from
the Pentagon to build the border wall. It had huge
legal hurdles it had to jump through. In the end,
it mostly just didn't work. At one point, it set
up a showdown between Trump and Congress. They ended up
losing to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Now on the
congressional front, it's actually pretty simple. The likelihood of some
(34:52):
major flagship items touted by Trump and Kamala have very
little chance of passage. If Kamala actually did win, she
would almost certainly have at least one Chamber of Congress
that was Republican, meaning that when the tax cuts and
jobzax expires in twenty twenty five, what they would have
a say over what replaces it. From Democrats that I've
spoken to, the bargain that will most likely happen is
(35:13):
this Republicans would get an extension of corporate and income
tax bracket reductions, while Democrats would get some version of
a child tax credit that in and of itself, of course,
would be a big bardain, But most of the rest
of her so called plan is probably just dead on
arrival for Trump, even if he had United government, I
do not see a world where a majority of the
Republicans would back no tax on tips, and certainly not
(35:35):
no tax on social security benefits. In all likelihood, what
would pass is an extension of the tax cuts from
twenty seventeen, in addition to probably some big business friendly
tax cruts and perhaps some deficit offset by repealing environmental
tax credits passed by the Biden administration. So if you
were majorly affected by any of those policies, and they're
the most important for you, you need to very heavily
(35:57):
consider that when you're voting. Turning to immigration, this is
another area where the president both has major control and
is also very limited. Now, as we saw under Biden,
interpretation of executive authority can allow literally millions of illegals
to come into the country. At the same time, under
Trump we saw very similar problems with border crossings, and
it was only quelled by a remain in Mexico which
(36:17):
did not address the underlying problem of asylum law and
processing issues that border patrol has. The only way I
see the immigration question majorly affected under Trump or Kamm
Law is again with congressional action of literally rewriting laws,
which can only happen with the United Government otherwise when
it's divided. The likelihood of a grand compromise is very
(36:37):
low because of a theory called thermostatic public opinion. This
theory basically says that when the left is in power,
the country moves right. When the right is in power,
the country moves left. In other words, on immigration, you
should understand the likelihood of what you were voting for
is interpretation of today's immigration laws, not some pie in
the sky vision that people are selling you. And finally,
and potentially, the biggest impact outside of war the president
(36:59):
has control over is the Supreme Court. Trump of course,
appointed three justices on the US Supreme Court while he
was in office. If he were to assume office again,
it is a safe bet Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas
would resign, giving the Conservatives a decades long solid majority
on the Court. This would have impacts of interpretations from
law in social to economic. Conversely, if Kamala won, the
(37:20):
actuarial tables tell us she'll probably have at least one
appointment right, and thus could change the makeup of the
court in the long run. It's not a sexy thing
to think about, but the impact is gigantic, and it
is worth considering both of these. If you are going
to vote. So I will end with this general heuristic
of whatever issue that you care about, be real with yourself.
Ask yourself, does the president actually have the ability to
control this? And then what judgment you think that they
(37:43):
would use for it If they can't control it, Ask
yourself with the likelihood of what you want happening will
get through Congress. Yeah, I know it's depressing, but it's
better you should be clear eyed about what you're voting
for rather than to vote and then get disappointed. Finally,
I'll just say this, it doesn't have to be this way.
My favorite presidents are these who have transcended the dynamic
I just laid out. They actually forced Washington in the
(38:03):
country to really move with them. FDR is one of
the best presents, specifically because he harnessed the power of
the executive and public popularity to force Congress to radically
shift America's relationship with government. Teddy Roosevelt was the very
first to do so. He took a job that mostly
only had power over foreign affairs and war and turned
himself into a real public advocate changed the country forever.
(38:23):
LBJ inherited a job that, again it was stuck almost
entirely in the realm of just the Cold War used
the force of power at expertise to push through massive
social legislation that had not been seen in one hundred years.
In both cases, I'm sorry to tell you I don't
see much of that on the ballot today. My expectations
are set very much accordingly. I hope this helps you
if you're considering how to vote. I do hoop. Do
(38:44):
hope that you will still participate, because if you don't,
the likelihood of things getting even better they're still not
that high. So there you go, Crystal. That's my heuristic,
the guy asked, And if
Speaker 1 (38:52):
You want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue, become
a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
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.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
So one thing that we've been paying close attention to
and reading into it whatever you can is the early
vote results. And no state have they been more striking
than the Sun belt state of Nevada. Let's put this
up on the screen. And Nevada also benefits from the
fact you got John Ralston, who everyone agrees is like
legit in analyzing.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
The early vote.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So he updates every day his early voting blog, and
at this point, shocking given previous historical trends, Republicans actually
have an advantage in terms.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Of the early vote.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So they have successfully convinced their voters to vote early.
There's been a huge surge in terms of the rural
areas in particular. In fact, he's describing this time he
normally talks about a Clark County, which is Las Vegas
firewall for Democrats. He's talking now about a rural firewall,
a massive Republican advantage where there's been extremely high turnout
(01:22):
in those rural, heavily conservative areas. In Washoe County, which
I believe is where Reno is, it's a swing urban county.
Republicans have a four point lead that's just above their
registration average in Clark County. The firewall is that just
five thousand votes, just two and a half points in
a place where Democrats have a nearly seven percent registration edge.
(01:44):
So so far, and again it's early days. None of
this reads into which way the large number of independents
are going to vote. None of this reads in too
obviously what's going to happen on election day. But the
early indications for Republicans are quite strong. I think Nevada
is stronger than in any of the other states where
we have significant early vote to take a look at.
(02:06):
And one of the theories for why Republicans could be
outperforming in Nevada in particular comes down to the issue
of housing. Let's put this up on the screen. Obviously,
this is something We've been focused on for a long time,
just how much of a pain point the unaffordable housing
(02:27):
market has become for so many voters.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
New York Times did a great ride up here.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
They said, as Harris courts, the Sunbelt housing costs stand
in her way, and they compare the skyrocketing housing costs
not just you know, to buy a home, but also rents,
which is driven and fueled by a number of factors.
They compare that to a similar political earthquake as the
exodus of steel companies or auto manufacturings manufacturers that left
(02:56):
workers reeling in industrial Midwestern So I do think if
you see a big divergence between the type of results
that come out in the sun Belt states Nevada in particular,
versus those quote unquote blue wall states in the industrial Midwest,
I do think housing is going to be a big
part of that.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
I love a story is super interesting. A couple of takeaways.
Number one is actually inside the story they court and
talk about people who are specifically pissed off in Vegas
about California implants, and it made me think about this
kind of blue influx theory and whether the people are like, oh,
(03:36):
these states are all going to turn blue. But they
could actually have like an interesting net effect where you
have a blue voter come in, but that makes people
really hate them and get angry and then vote Republican.
And if you think about it, it's actually a real
like elite versus non elite dynamic where you have people
who are predominant at least a lot more rich than
the average citizen in Nevada, Texas wherever, coming in, driving
(03:58):
up housing prices, and then those people feel a lot
of the displacement, the anger, and they could very much
respond in the same way that the blue Wall voters
did whenever they voted against Democrats on NAFTA, on trade policy, immigration,
et cetera. I actually really could see a similar dynamic there.
What would probably change things is you still have enough
traditional blue voters and others who could offset that. But
(04:22):
the tension means that it's a real like class dynamic
that comes down to the most fundamental question of housing.
I also found the trouble for Harris here was when
voters were presented by this New York Times reporter about
Harris's housing proposal. There's a deep cynicism where they're like,
I don't think any of that's going to happen. Yeah,
I mean, and look are they wrong, especially if there's
divided government. You know, I'm going to do a home
(04:44):
monologue about this. You need an Act of Congress to
have that. What do you think is going to use?
The US Senate full of Republican is going to pass that. No,
it's not going to happen, right. The best you could
hope for is some Fannie Mae Freddie Mack whatever, like
loosening of regulations and maybe some stuff through the Housing
and Urban Development Agency. But that's about it, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I mean, listen, if we're comparing just the policy landscape,
Harris has talked about Real Page. The Biden administration is
going after Real Page, which is the cartel that has
helped you spike rents in places like Las Vegas and
other places around the country. She has, you know, talked
a lot about this plan to help people with that
down payment, which has become a major stumbling block for
(05:25):
people who don't have like intergenerational wealth to be able
to go to mommy and daddy and be like, hey,
help me with my down payment. You know.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
So she does have specific plans, but I think.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
The deeper problem for her is just like people are
unhappy now with how things are and the Democrats are
in power.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Like, it doesn't go deeper than that.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
And you know, I guess the flip side of this
is we did just look at polling that says that
voters in general trust her more on housing and the
type of working class voter that you have overwhelmingly in
Las Vegas and Nevada in general, tends to be the
service sector workers who that's like the as Matt Carr
(06:05):
called them, the quote unquote like democratic working class versus
the like industrial and manufacturing hard hat type of workers,
which is why Nevada has stayed in the Democratic camp
for all these years, even as a lot of you know,
the working class has realigned. So those would be some
of the things that they're helpful about. But you know,
(06:27):
I when you think about housing and how much the
escalating prices have squeezed people, there is maybe no place
in the country that has been harder hat hit then
Las Vegas because they I don't know, if you guys
remember after the Great Recession, massive housing bus there, you know,
just utter devastation. Then you had all of this permanent
(06:50):
capital come in and buy up a bunch of these homes,
turn them into rentals, you know, jack up the prices.
Then you had the brutal hit that they took or
in particular during the pandemic, which meant that people's incomes
were lower than they were before. Many of those people
feel like they really never recovered from the hit the
(07:12):
service sector took during the pandemic. So you have a
lot of economic turmoil concentrated.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Specifically in this state.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
And again, you know, you could talk about like and
I did interview someone here who was like struggling with
all of these things, but was like, I think Kamala
is the person that would be better positioned turn these
things around. So I'm sure that sentiment does exist among some.
But if you've been dealt a rough hand over these
past four years and it was Democrats in charge, you
can see how that's a compelling argument on the Trump
(07:42):
CACHEMPST A side.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It gets to people. You know, when people are like, well, Calmo,
when people took Comma more in housing, very few people
are like I'm going to the ballot box because my
ass is too expensive. They're like, well, housing makes me
pissed off, and I'm pissed off, And that makes me
distrust the party in power, right, So they don't think
directly in terms of that, and that is you know,
that's really comes down to the whole like vibe conversation,
(08:04):
I do understand it, I really do, you know, for
in terms of the frustration, especially in Nevada and in
North Carolina too. We've talked here about Asheville and the
explosion there. But you know, I always say Raleigh and
Charlotte are two of the most booming cities in the
United States. Atlanta, you know, Georgia today is a battleground. Atlanta.
The amount of influx they've had from New York and
(08:25):
from a lot of the East Coast is astounding in
terms of the population change in Georgia, in the entire Sunbelt,
you know, Florida included, we're talking about some of the
biggest internal migration since World War Two that we've seen.
So these places have changed dramatically in the last five years.
Where I'm from Texas, you don't even recognize it. Austin
in particular.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So you know, there's almost like a reverse dynamic in
the Montana Senate race, which is John Tester is the
Democratic incomment and the most endangered Democratic incomment, most of
the Poles seem to indicate like he's not going to
hang out, but you never know his opponent. What's his name, Tim?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
She he yeah, she first name Tim.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I'm making that up anyway, She Yeah, he got caught.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
We talked about this before. This has been on the
record before.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
He claimed he had sustained like a war wound and
been like shot in battle in Afghanistan, I think. And
it turns out he shot himself accidentally in a national park,
which we know because they had to file an incident
report because you're not allowed to discharge a firearm in
a national park. And the park ranger just came out
and went on the record to be like, yeah, I
was there, this is what happened. Like he did not,
(09:27):
he was not wounded in battle. He shot himself when
he was in a national park. So anyway, you never
know what's gonna happen in that race. At the bottom line,
But to get back to my original point about housing,
Montana has seen.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Oh huge, bows huge they call it bos Angelists or whatever.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Huge influx, but it's largely conservatives who have moved into
the state. And she he is one of those people
who was part of the influx into the state. Now,
of course, he frames this as like, listen, I wish
I was born in Montana because I love Montana, but
you know, I'm a business owner and creating job in
the state blah blah blah. And Tester is who's you know,
(10:03):
a long time born and raised as a Farmer's the
big boys got you know, several fingers that he lost
in like a farming accent.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
You know, he's legit.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
He's a legit Montana, which is why he is able
to hand ont hang onto the state as long as
he has. He's making the case of like these outsiders,
like people who are from Montana really understand Montana, like
they trust me, and that's why, you know, I'm going
to represent your interests, and he represents all these people
who are coming in and changing your way of life.
So it's kind of an interesting like reverse dynamic going
(10:31):
out there's interest.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Yeah. By the way, I love Montana too.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Never it's the only states I've never been to.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Oh my god, I would like to go with Donovan. Beautiful.
It is natural. Beauty wise, it's all up there with California.
They have so many incredible national parks.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I highly recommend it, but yeah, they don't shoot yourself
at one of them.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Sure. And the people there, though, I think they make
it known they're like, stop coming here from California, We're
sick of you. And they don't have like a million
people who live there.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Yeah, but it's like it's like because a lot of
the people who transplant it there are like right wing
California who are disgusted with the like liberal direction of this.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
So if I were them too, i'd be mad. You know,
you live in this pristine wilderness and such great and
you have all these rich people who come in and
buy all the land. I know there's a lot of
beef between like private landowners and hunters because it's long
time been like.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
A big wells which I do.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, no, exactly, And actually, if you look at the
most desirable places in Montana, it has some of the
most expensive real estate in the entire country. For those
of you who also like trolls, Zillow and dream Book.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
All right, let's go and move on to this story
that we just wanted to put on your radar because
there are new charges that just dropped against three individuals
associated with Abercrombie and Fitch. But the former CEO in particular,
Michael Jeffries, has been charged along with his longtime partner
Matthew Smith, and they're sort of enabler James Jacobson. Let's
go and put this up on the screen from the
(11:53):
Department of Justice, they say in the headline, former CEO
of Abercromie and Fitch and two others charged with sex
traffic an interstate prostitution. Let me tell you the details
here are as horrifying as you can imagine I'm going
to summarize, but effectively, the allegations are that over decades
(12:15):
these three ran a sex trafficking ring where effectively they
would lure in these young, aspiring male models and promised them,
you know, jobs with modeling with Abercrombie and Fitch, which
is a big deal, you know for a model who's
struggling and trying to make it. But they would hold
(12:37):
out to them that in order to have all of
these career prospects, they would need to engage in a
variety of sex acts. Even beyond that, they would threaten
them with ruining their career if they didn't comply. They
required all of them to sign non disclosure agreements so
that they felt like they couldn't possibly come forward saying anything.
(12:58):
According to the indictment, on more than one occasion when
men did not or could not consent, these men violated
their bodily integrity by subjecting them or continuing to subject
them to invasive, sexual and violent contact by body parts
and other objects. Some of the other details here are
I mean, it's just it's exactly what you imagine. These
(13:19):
young men who are desperate, who are trying to make it,
who are often financially incredibly stressed. This is the they think,
this is like the make or break moment for them,
and the first person they meet is this guy Jacobson,
who apparently and a number of the men in a
BBC investigation told a very similar story. Their first meeting
(13:41):
would be with him and he would coerce them into
oral sex and they would think, Okay, well that was horrible,
but that's like it's probably just this one creep and
I got past that. Now I have my opportunity to
meet with the CEO. This is going to be where
my modeling aspirations come to fruition. And then they go
to one of these events and it's even what they're
(14:02):
subjected to and forced into is even worse. And you know, Sager,
is this an iconic brand, iconic brant. And we've been
hearing some you know, like rumors about what was really
going on there because I don't know. I'm obviously I'm
significantly older than Saga. I remember when, like the catalog
would come out for Abercrombie and Fitch, and even at
the time, you'd be looking at it and are like,
(14:24):
these people are not even wearing clothes like this all
like naked men.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
What's going on here? How are they even?
Speaker 1 (14:30):
And that was their whole thing, and obviously from a
financial perspective, they made a huge impact on the culture.
There were a lot of allegations already about discrimination in
terms of basically they wanted a specific like white, preppy
look even for their sales associates in the stores.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
If you had if you were.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Black or brown or you know, Muslim and wearing headscarf,
that was not allowed at all. You weren't allowed to
have dreadlocks like. They were very particular about and discriminatory
and wanting this very specific look. But obviously the allegations
here go far beyond what we had learned specifically from
(15:09):
this like Abercrombie and Fitch documentary.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, previously, the documentary gave a lot of this stuff
away and the like you read from some of the indictment.
We have it there. You should go read it for yourself.
It is horrifying and honestly, the only thing I'm surprised
is that it took a long time. And I do
think it's important because what it does is it highlights
like so much of the you know, there's a lot
of nostalgia these days for the old days and like, oh,
(15:33):
things were better in the nineties and the two thousands.
By and large, I do mostly agree with that, but
there was a dark side to the culture and to
all of that. We actually have some of the testimony
from some of these people. Let's go ahead and play
D three please. You know that you're getting close. When
the Dire hit with the smell of agricamy.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Think that club beat and their chested guys.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
It was such a pop culture phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
It was an all American look. I think he's I
think he's a predator, and I don't think that's what
the public has seen.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
I was overwhelmed, Like I mean, I've never seen anything
like this what I'd.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Like to talk about is being lied to, tricked and
traded like a commodity.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Me too has empowered women to speak out about sexual abuse.
Now these men say they want to be heard too.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
I think it's rarely considered that men could be a
victim of anything.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
They face a double stigma, and I don't think that
men have quite had their me too movement.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
So you can see, you know, in terms of the
testiment is terrible in terms of the way that they
were treated, and there was definitely a lot of different
way of discussion. I'm sure everybody's been seen on Netflix.
This has all comes to light again from the Menendez case,
you know, all the discussion around sexual assault and how
it involves men in the way that cultural attitudes have
shifted and changed around them. Because it does say something
(16:59):
that this wasn't even taken seriously or investigated or thought
about at the times. And I mean this was just
the two thousands that earned nineteen nineties. They were obviously
tried in the nineteen eighties, So it is certainly it's
really sad. And what it does show us too was
the way that they got away with that for so
long inside the industry. And it was such an open secret.
(17:21):
Were talked about Ditty yesterday, We've talked about Weinstein, and
I think that's the part that really gets me, is
about how open of the knowledge is and it's still
allowed to perpetuate and worse, you know, there's just more victims. People.
These are eighteen nineteen year old guys and you know,
you don't even reason really awful stuff. But they also
had to go through like it was they were getting
forcibly injected, you know at some.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Point exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
One who was interview, who can put this BBC investigation
up on the screen, said the experience, I think it
broke me. I think this stole any ounce of innocence
I had left. It mentally messed me up. But with
the language I now have today, I can sit here
and tell you I was taken advantage of it. And
I think even today, yeah, it takes a lot of
courage to come forward against Actually I think as a
man and say, you know, I was raped, I was assaulted,
(18:04):
I was taken advantage of And I.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Was thinking the same as you.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Sagur like Diddy ran that allegedly ran this criminal enterprise
where you know, similar levels of threats, coercion, similar promises
of like, hey baby, this is going to make your career.
My friend Torre reported on R and B singer Cassie
who was in that horrible video being beaten and dragged
(18:29):
in a hotel hallway. He put on Ice her album
for like a decade just to sort of string her
along of like, oh, you know, of course it's coming.
Of course it's going to be great, and stole from
her so much. Obviously, you know, the abuse is horrifying,
but also he stole from her the prime years of
her career. And you see a similar dynamic here where
(18:49):
you've got these three men who were saying to these
young guys like I hold the keys to the kingdom
and just do what I want you to do and
it's all going to be fine, and using that position
power to enable.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Decades and decades of abuse.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Very similar thing with Harvey Weinstein, right, very similar thing
where you know, yeah, the casting couch, right, you come in,
you do what I want you to do, and I'm
going to put you in a movie. And if you don't,
by the way, I'm going to ruin your life. And
I have the level of power that can make that
happen also say, did you watch the Nickelodeon documentary.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Oh, yeah, I will come of it.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Yeah they didn't.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
They alluded to and there were some specific things that
happened there in terms of like sexual abuse of these kids.
But again it's like, hey, this is kid Central. Your
kid is going to be a star, they're going to
be famous, your family's going to be fine using that
position of power, and also reminded me, of course of
Jeffrey Epstein, who part of how he would more in
young girls is through his association with Les Wexner, who
(19:51):
was with Victoria's Secret, and he held himself out as
I'm a modeling agent, and you know, I'm scouting these girls,
and that was part of how they were. The modeling
industry just seems to be an absolute cesspool. But so
many of these industries where you have a massive disparity
between the power, the people the top and the aspirants
who want to get who are so desperate to get
(20:13):
in this industry, so desperate to make it, et cetera,
it just makes it rife, rife for abuse. And that's
really the portrait that emerges here. Certainly, we wanted to
highlight for you, some of the latest horrors coming out
of the Middle East. So this was actually a video
that was highlighted by a Congressman, Thomas mass So you
(20:35):
could put this up on the screen. This is an
apartment building being just completely demolished by Israel in Beirut,
in Lebanon, and Massey said, along with this video, who's
a Republican, Who's like the only Republican who said anything
reasonable on this conflict in my view in terms.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Of elected officials.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Quote, if Israel insists on destroying civilian targets in Lebanon,
let them buy and build their own weapons. American taxpayer
shouldn't be funding this. So this is not in Gaza.
This is in Lebanon, in a major city where they
are just utterly destroying a massive apartment building there. At
the same time, you know, the IDEAF had put out
(21:16):
this propaganda video we talked about before, which alleged that
Hasbela had a bunch of their financial assets that were
hidden under a hospital. It's very, eaerily reminiscent of some
of the propaganda videos that they had put out in
advance of attacking hospitals in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
So we were all, well, here we go again.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
You know, this is just their attempt to justify yet
another assault on another country's medical system. But one thing
that's different in Lebanon, unlike Gaza, is that you have access.
Journalists have access to be able to actually go to
the hospital and look around and say, Okay, well is
it true what they're saying and TLDR No, it was.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
A total lie.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Here is the BBC underneath said hospital where supposedly the
evil layer existed. Finding absolutely nothing.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Let's take a look at that.
Speaker 5 (22:10):
Well, we're on level minus two in the Al Sahell Hospital.
The area just behind me is where medical waste is stored.
Even that was opened up for us to have a look.
The morgue was opened up, all of the drawers were
opened to show us there was nothing inside. Doctors have
(22:32):
been opening piles of surgical scrubs, boxes of equipment, very
very keen to show us everything there is to see
and to prove that there is nothing here. Well, I'm
just coming now from the basement on minus two up
(22:53):
to minus one. We've been brought around the hospital by doctors.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
We've also been.
Speaker 5 (22:59):
Allowed to move around on our own. Doors have been
opened for us in every area. Copboards we've been allowed
to see what there is to see now. The hospital
staff are adamant that there is no hidden bonker here
containing millions of dollars of cash or gold, as the
(23:20):
Israelis have claimed. They say, this is just a hospital
where patients were being treated last night and where they
had to be evacuated from the emergency area at great
speed because doctors were worried for the lives of the
patients and also worried for the staff.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
So, in addition to obviously the significance of just exposing
this was not shockingly a total incomplete fabrication and lie,
I think Sara also shows something that Israel has known
because they have launched all that assault on journalists and
journalism since the post October seventh. Then many would say
even before it really matters to have journalists have access
(24:01):
to the war zone to be able to adjudicate, like, Okay,
they're saying this, let's go check it out. And in
Gaza access has been almost completely closed off. Any sort
of Western outlet that wants to go in has to
abide by all of the IDF's rules. They have to
be invited in. Yeah, they have to be subject to
that censorship. They get taken on basically like a guided
(24:23):
tour of the things the IDF wants them to see.
And the only outfit that you know, outsider outfit that
has been able to have any access is Al Jazeera,
which Israel has accused of being hamas has stripped their
broadcast licenses, you know, seized their equipment and raided their
office and shut them down. And I think, you know,
(24:45):
this little piece of journalism from the BBC exposes why
they have seen that independent that journalism as such a
threat to the project of annihilation that they're engaged in.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
The journalism piece is really important and that's actually it's
funny because in the idea they like, go look at
it for yourself, and then they did and they're like, well,
that's kind of an issue for you. But I mean
part of the issue is also that even though they
have the access, that our outlets are still not going there.
It's coming from the BBC, right, But I haven't seen
any of this in art. I mean, I get it,
we're twelve days from election. You know, there's a lot,
but it is important if you're gonna check these ts.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yeah, absolutely, And to the point about the all one
assault on journalism. Their latest effort, that Israeli's latest effort.
We can put E four up on the screen. They've
accused these six Al Jazeera journalists of being hamas terrorists.
Put E five up on the screen. Of course, Al
Jazeera strenuously denies this, and this comes in the context
(25:37):
of you know, I don't even know how many journalists
they've killed in Gaza at this point. As I said,
Al Jazeera says this was fabricated evidence.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
As I said before, you.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Know, Al Jazeera's they're really the only outlet that has
been able to operate, So they're the only ones who
have been able to you know, go into hospitals, to
go to the site of these massacres, to really report
on the ground what is happening. And a number of
their reporters have already been killed by Israel in the
(26:09):
context of trying to report on this war. So New
York Times Rights the channel's correspondence are some of the
few remaining reporters on the ground in Gaza to document
the devastating impact of Israel's operations there. Israel has largely
barred the international press. Again, this is from the New
York Times from entering the enclave except on closely monitored
tours accompanied by the Israeli military. Al Jazeera called the
(26:30):
accusations a blatant attempt to silence the few remaining journalists
in the region, there by obscuring the harsh realities of
the war from audiences worldwide. And I would just say, listen, obviously,
I think these charges are total, incomplete.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Bullshit, completely made up.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
You know, they've offered they made up the whole unra
these are terrorist thing. They never provided the evidence that
they said that we're going to back up those claims,
that there's no reason whatsoever to take the Israeli government
at face value with this. But I would also say, hey,
if you don't like these journalists, open it up so
that any outlet can go in and report. If it's
going to be so validating to you of how what
(27:06):
a moral army you are and how great the situation
is on the ground, why don't you let in more
journalists to be able to actually report on the war
and your efforts as it exists.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Yeah, that's a good point. Can we go to the
next part you found this? I found it so interesting
about the realignment that's currently happening. Iran is saying that
it's planning to hold its first joint military drills with
Saudi's in the Red Sea. And this really goes counter
to the entire theory of the Middle East that the
Trump administration had going into the Abraham Accords, which was
to consolidate the Emirates and the Gulf powers against Iran,
(27:39):
but through normalization of relations with Israel. But what's happened
instead is that now the Palestinian question has been forced
so much to the front, especially with the Arab populations,
that they're finding themselves aligned against Israel and obviously also
against the United States, which is this predominant backer. So
the first time here, I mean to see two armies
(27:59):
first military drills. Somebody showed me this. The Ayatola when
he died, in his last rule and testament, included this
whole thing about how the House of Saud was evil
and how it needs to be regime changed. I mean,
these were you know, blood, This is a true blood feud,
not to mention the entire religious dynamic of Sunni and Shia.
So to see this happening is absolutely extraordinary, and it's
(28:20):
one of those where you know, look the entire region
is really aligning against us, and you should ask yourself
for what you know. This isn't even for Iraq war.
This is for our conflict that we're not even in. But
we're funding the entire thing and it's causing a huge
amount of blowbacks, so I think we are going to
pay for it sometimes.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
No, this is literally the first time this has ever happened,
and it should also go not go unnoted that this
was a deal brokered by China. So you know, as
the region is aligning around the Palestinian question against US
and Israel, it's you know, China that is serving the
rule as diplomats and peacemakers amongst these longtime enemies. So
(29:00):
definitely extraordinary development worth keeping an eye on. At the
same time, we can put this up on the screen.
You had, I mean, this is just too perfect. So
you had Tony Blincoln questioning bb net Naho about this
quote unquote general's plan, which is basically, we're going to
seal off northern Gaza, We're to starve everybody that's inside,
(29:20):
and we're just going to assume that they're all Hamas militants.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Blincoln question that Nawho about this, US.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Officials told Bibe, there is a perception that Israel's pursuing
a strategy of isolating the North, telling people that if
they don't leave their effectively targets and denying food to
go in Bib in his Top eight ron. Drmer responded
that this was absolutely not our policy, and the fact
that this perception exists has been deeply damaging to US.
US officials then said, okay, so why don't you go
out and say that publicly, But the Israelis refused to
(29:51):
make such a commitment.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Which you know, it just shows you behind closed doors. Oh,
of course not.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
We would never do that. We can all see the
reports that are coming out. They are literally executing exactly
what is described in the General's plan, and so privately
they'll reassure you us, no, no, we're not doing that whatsoever.
Of course not, we would never do that. Okay, fine,
we'll go out and say that publicly. Yeah, not going
to do that, because number one, we actually that is
(30:18):
actually our plan, and number two, this is popular with
our political base in particular, and so no, we're not
going to go out and tell our political base that
we're not doing the thing that they want us to do,
you know, just to as an indication of the reality
of this plan being implemented in Northern Gaza. We can
(30:38):
put this scene up on the screen.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
This is a.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Breadline people desperately, desperately scrapping to try to get a
loaf of bread. Such as the level of desperation that
has taken hold around Kaza, but in Northern Gaza in particular,
where now I just saw this morning. Even the Israelis
are acknowledging that no food aid, no aid entered Northern
(31:01):
Gaza for weeks in early October. They are acknowledging basically
that they, you know, have blocked aid, something that our
administration has pretended to not be able to figure out
whether or not they're doing. We also know that there's
been we played for you in the last show, the
forced you might call it a death march, evacuation of
Northern Gaza.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Once again.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
We also know that some of the people who have
tried to evacuate Northern Gaza have been shot at and
times killed. So you know, this is the reality of
the policy that our government is funding and supporting and
pretending to have no idea.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
What's going on? Yeah, all right, Sager? What are you
looking at.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
One of the weird parts about doing this job is
every once in a while someone will come up to
me and ask how should I vote. I usually answer
it in the same way, well what do you care
the most about? Sometimes the answer is staying out of war.
Sometimes it's a rich person they say, I don't want
to pay any taxes. Sometimes as a service worker wants healthcare.
Based on that, I interrogated a bit more, and I go, well,
can you with what can't you what are the best
(32:02):
chances of actually happening that you do care about. It's
a very useful exercise. I noticed a lot of people
don't actually do it. For example, we recently played a
clip of someone asking Trump how he was going to
improve the quality of his kids' school in New York City. Now,
I understand it was probably bigger than that, but many
people just appear not to know about ninety five percent
of that control is state and local. Or you're going
to see other voters quote on the cost of groceries
(32:24):
with a very vague understanding how can the president even
affect that? So I thought I would do a monologue
here about my theories of the American presidency. The varying
degrees of things that actually they control. Let's start with
arguably the most important issue, least often considered, war and peace.
The president's commander in chief has near absolute power to
decide the fate of our nation through his or her
(32:45):
conduct of foreign policy. While they cannot declare war, the
imperial presidency has evolved since the time of LBJ and
George W. Bush gives them the authority to launch literal
missile strikes on foreign nations even without a declared war
by Congress. When Trump says it is okay, for example,
for Israel to launch missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities,
or Kamala says Ukrainian victory is a necessity for US security,
(33:08):
you should very clearly understand they are one hundred percent
ability to follow through and directly impact your life. Now,
outside of foreign policy, it's very different, especially on the economy.
We can divide economic impact of the presidency into two areas,
those that require agencies and those that require legislation. Most
of the high profile things that you hear from Trump
(33:29):
and from Kamala, like no tax on tips or housing subsidies,
would not be something they can do on their own.
It would require Congress, which we will return to. In reality,
especially if there is a divided government, you should look
to agency power. This is where both can have tremendous impact.
For example, through the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FTC,
(33:49):
as we've seen under Lena Khan, the Anti Trust Division
of the Department of Justice, they make rulings that massively
impact the US economy, but only within the scope of
defined responsibility. Ironically, their power has actually been lessened for
both presidents, especially Trump after the repeal of the Chevron
doctrine by the Supreme Court. But nonetheless, through agency power
they can affect the price of oil, whether new things
(34:11):
get approved for building, perhaps most importantly, tariffs within a
very defined scope. It would take Congress for Trump or
Kamala to have an across the board tariff as he's proposed,
but Commerce Department, under National Security designations can implement some
tariff to the tune of hundreds of billions on select
items without Congressional input. But I want to point out
there are still some major limits to this. Back in
(34:31):
the Trump years when I covered the White House, he
tried very different things to try and divert from from
the Pentagon to build the border wall. It had huge
legal hurdles it had to jump through. In the end,
it mostly just didn't work. At one point, it set
up a showdown between Trump and Congress. They ended up
losing to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Now on the
congressional front, it's actually pretty simple. The likelihood of some
(34:52):
major flagship items touted by Trump and Kamala have very
little chance of passage. If Kamala actually did win, she
would almost certainly have at least one Chamber of Congress
that was Republican, meaning that when the tax cuts and
jobzax expires in twenty twenty five, what they would have
a say over what replaces it. From Democrats that I've
spoken to, the bargain that will most likely happen is
(35:13):
this Republicans would get an extension of corporate and income
tax bracket reductions, while Democrats would get some version of
a child tax credit that in and of itself, of course,
would be a big bardain, But most of the rest
of her so called plan is probably just dead on
arrival for Trump, even if he had United government, I
do not see a world where a majority of the
Republicans would back no tax on tips, and certainly not
(35:35):
no tax on social security benefits. In all likelihood, what
would pass is an extension of the tax cuts from
twenty seventeen, in addition to probably some big business friendly
tax cruts and perhaps some deficit offset by repealing environmental
tax credits passed by the Biden administration. So if you
were majorly affected by any of those policies, and they're
the most important for you, you need to very heavily
(35:57):
consider that when you're voting. Turning to immigration, this is
another area where the president both has major control and
is also very limited. Now, as we saw under Biden,
interpretation of executive authority can allow literally millions of illegals
to come into the country. At the same time, under
Trump we saw very similar problems with border crossings, and
it was only quelled by a remain in Mexico which
(36:17):
did not address the underlying problem of asylum law and
processing issues that border patrol has. The only way I
see the immigration question majorly affected under Trump or Kamm
Law is again with congressional action of literally rewriting laws,
which can only happen with the United Government otherwise when
it's divided. The likelihood of a grand compromise is very
(36:37):
low because of a theory called thermostatic public opinion. This
theory basically says that when the left is in power,
the country moves right. When the right is in power,
the country moves left. In other words, on immigration, you
should understand the likelihood of what you were voting for
is interpretation of today's immigration laws, not some pie in
the sky vision that people are selling you. And finally,
and potentially, the biggest impact outside of war the president
(36:59):
has control over is the Supreme Court. Trump of course,
appointed three justices on the US Supreme Court while he
was in office. If he were to assume office again,
it is a safe bet Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas
would resign, giving the Conservatives a decades long solid majority
on the Court. This would have impacts of interpretations from
law in social to economic. Conversely, if Kamala won, the
(37:20):
actuarial tables tell us she'll probably have at least one
appointment right, and thus could change the makeup of the
court in the long run. It's not a sexy thing
to think about, but the impact is gigantic, and it
is worth considering both of these. If you are going
to vote. So I will end with this general heuristic
of whatever issue that you care about, be real with yourself.
Ask yourself, does the president actually have the ability to
control this? And then what judgment you think that they
(37:43):
would use for it If they can't control it, Ask
yourself with the likelihood of what you want happening will
get through Congress. Yeah, I know it's depressing, but it's
better you should be clear eyed about what you're voting
for rather than to vote and then get disappointed. Finally,
I'll just say this, it doesn't have to be this way.
My favorite presidents are these who have transcended the dynamic
I just laid out. They actually forced Washington in the
(38:03):
country to really move with them. FDR is one of
the best presents, specifically because he harnessed the power of
the executive and public popularity to force Congress to radically
shift America's relationship with government. Teddy Roosevelt was the very
first to do so. He took a job that mostly
only had power over foreign affairs and war and turned
himself into a real public advocate changed the country forever.
(38:23):
LBJ inherited a job that, again it was stuck almost
entirely in the realm of just the Cold War used
the force of power at expertise to push through massive
social legislation that had not been seen in one hundred years.
In both cases, I'm sorry to tell you I don't
see much of that on the ballot today. My expectations
are set very much accordingly. I hope this helps you
if you're considering how to vote. I do hoop. Do
(38:44):
hope that you will still participate, because if you don't,
the likelihood of things getting even better they're still not
that high. So there you go, Crystal. That's my heuristic,
the guy asked, And if
Speaker 1 (38:52):
You want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue, become
a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.