July 15, 2026 • 56 mins
Ryan and Emily discuss NY ban on data centers, Scahill rips Ro on Oct 7, Michigan elections light up.
Robert Pape: https://escalationtrap.substack.com/
Juan David Rojas: https://substack.com/@rojasrjuand
Donovan McKinney: https://www.donavanforcongress.com/
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.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
New York Governor Kathi HOCl announced New York will become
the first set to impose a data center mor a
ttorium yesterday. Let's take a listen here to Governor vocals
press conference.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Hice hyperscale AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power,
truly threatening to outpace our grid's capacity, and they drive
a cost for local rate bears, and I refuse use
to let those costs be passed on to New Yorkers
who already paid too much for the utility bills. These
(01:07):
data centers require millions of gallons of water, straining the
local supplies, and when powered by fossil fuels, they drive
up our carbon footprint. They occupy massive amounts of land,
potentially displacing agricultural space and open spaces. The bottom line
(01:29):
is products shouldn't arrive with a higher utility bill, deleted
water supply, or noise pollution. So we have no choice
but to address these challenges created by these massive facilities.
That is why they all be signing the nation's first
ever statewide moratorium on hyper scale data centers.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
There you have it.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
The political sprint to out anti data center other called
titians is a foot I think that's fairly obvious. But
Kathy Hoko obviously is a Democrat. And let's look at
John Fetterman, Democratic senator from neighboring Pennsylvania, who responded to
a headline about Hope's decision with China wins taking the
(02:16):
Silicon Valley talking point just at face value, not entirely
surprising from Fetterment, of course, But why is this happening?
Obviously here on the show, we've been covering the data
center politics and substance for a while. But I want
to now put up this other headline. This is the
next element. A majority of Americans now support seizing wealth
(02:36):
from the AI industry. So polling, this is a seventeen
hundred adult poll, sixty nine percent of US employees support
forcing AI companies to transfer fifty percent of their stock
into a public wealth fund. That is the Bernie Sanders idea.
This was a poll done by Beera site, a national
pull done by Beer Site, So obviously the politics of
(02:59):
the are pretty clear. I don't know if John Fetterman
there's too much Ryan about the people of Pennsylvania think
on the Data Center moratory in question. But Kathy Hochel, who,
to be honest, I'm not fully sure what her ideological
commitment actually is on this, but she's very clearly reading
(03:20):
the signs from the public at this point.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
We talked a couple of weeks ago about that really
fascinating rant that Alex carp the Palteer CEO, had had
on CNBC. We're tucked into the middle of it. He said,
what you guys don't understand by hyping up the potential
of AI to have this revolutionary, disruptive capacity and to
basically eliminate labor, which is which is the goal of
(03:44):
you know, which is effectively the goal of this industry.
What you guys are doing is you are creating in
the public the appetite to rewrite the entire social contract.
And what he said, in particular is that you're going
to give us a wealth text. You're going to going
to get a slam with on. The Washington Post had
an article yesterday which owned by a billionaire, kind of
warning that the quote unquote, the left, you know, sees
(04:08):
an opportunity to push forward with a with a wealth tax,
and that is he is.
Speaker 7 (04:13):
They are correct, and Alex carp is correct.
Speaker 6 (04:16):
It's not just a wealth tax to your point, it's
this it's this Sanders idea, which to me.
Speaker 7 (04:20):
Is a little bit half baked.
Speaker 6 (04:22):
I'm all for it, like I'm all for the discussion
of it. And when whenever we start talking about you know,
social and public ownership of the kind of direction of
the economy, like as somebody who believes in democracy, I
think that's a good thing.
Speaker 7 (04:37):
But you start to then think, well, why why stop there?
Speaker 6 (04:40):
You know, Trump was like, Hey, if the US is
going to help Intel, we want ten percent of Intel.
Say okay, yeah, Trump, Trump makes a good point. And
what's interesting about the and I'm curious for you know,
how you're how you're thinking.
Speaker 7 (04:53):
On this entire idea of a sovereign wealth fund.
Speaker 6 (04:57):
But so yeah, like I'll stop there before I ramble on,
but you know, where are you on this kind of
just on the principle, the idea of kind of an
American sovereign wealth fund. Right now, they're talking about fuel
you know, fueling it with with AI companies. But Trump,
of course is like what I was saying is like,
you know, these pieces of other companies and AI companies
(05:17):
aren't necessarily profitable anyway at this point, but obviously they
could be, you know, in the not too distant future.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
You know, I see sovereign wealth funds as basically elite
slush funds, and so I know that's not what Sanders
is envisioning, obviously. I just think it's so easy for
them to become that, especially in this environment where American
politics are flush with so much special interest cash. We
just have a system where our politics have been so
(05:48):
easily corrupted by some of the same people that would
find ways to benefit from a sovereign wealth fund. I
don't particularly like the idea just because I feel like
I know what it would become very quickly. But at
the same time, I mean, I'm eager, to your point,
to hear ideas about guard rails, about how something like
that would work.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
I just have a hard time seeing it working in
a way that would not just have these same olig
archs find ways to benefit themselves over and over again.
But something needs to be done, because that's where you
have someone who's been seen as sort of moderate centrist
like Kathy Hochel obviously closing up to New York City
Mayor Mom Donnie after she saw the massive loitical success
(06:31):
that he had both in the primary the general election
against Andrew Pomo and now as governor. He's very popular,
and I think she's picking up all that. And Republicans
are nowhere to be seen really in this conversation unless
they're sounding like John Fetterman, which is, we have to
do this to defeat China and going full inst wonderful
Kevin O'Leary and making that argument. Otherwise they just don't
(06:52):
really want to talk about it. The problem for Republicans
the Fetterman's of the world and the ox Carts of
the world. As he points out, this experiment is being
run in communities around the country right now as we Hyperscale,
which was initiated by the Trump administration when he came
in and did what was it called Operation Stargate Project Stargate,
like day two of his presidency, and as the experiment
(07:14):
is being run, people are saying, no, we don't like this,
it is not good for us. And so the opinion
is either Fetterman style carp style, we know what's best
for you, you are reacting poorly to something that's actually
to your benefit, but we know we know the truth,
or to do what Hopal did.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
And to me, a Somern wealth fund is a bit
of an accounting and a bureaucratic gimmick. But if if
you need that gimmick to get the public excited about it,
then then okay, I get it. Let's take well, you
know we've got Norway cut our Uaea, staud Arabia Alaska.
If you need that gimmick to tell Alaskans, hey, look,
(07:55):
our oil resources are going to go into this wealth
fund and then the wealth is going to be used
precisely for this. And in Alaska it's like basically rebates
that goes out to people, and and that direct observable
connection between one, two, and three produces public trust that
allows it to be created.
Speaker 7 (08:16):
So that's a good point. So I get it, Like,
that's that's worth it.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
But what a sovereign wealth fund basically is is is
the government like it is it is taxation, and then
you're you're taxing the money and then you're you're investing
it and spending it like that's it's the same thing.
But people don't really kind of trust the government to
do that, you know, they think.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Because you'd be investing it and spending it in places
where your donors are going to benefit or in places
where you know, for Trump, I mean that's pretty obvious.
It's kind of what He's already sort of operating a
sovereign wealth at some point.
Speaker 6 (08:50):
Yeah, And I think people believe that a sovereign wealth
fund is a little bit easier to keep their eye
on than the entire behemoth of the federal government. And
so if that, if we need that layer of separation
to start to get people excited about the idea. The
bigger problem to me is just the wealth overall. Like
as as Western economies are growing at about one percent
(09:14):
a year, and you know, oligarchic wealth is growing at
somewhere between five and twenty.
Speaker 7 (09:20):
Percent a year.
Speaker 6 (09:21):
Like the wealth that they are accumulating has to come
from somewhere if it's not coming from economic growth, and
that somewhere is everybody else. And the way that exponential
returns work, it's not long before they go from you know,
the top point zh one percent owning ten percent to
twenty thirty, forty fifty and then basically we're just renting
from them, and it's we've reproduced feudalism, and we're like, oh,
(09:45):
that whole democratic thing that we did for that was
that was a short experiment. We're actually right, you know,
right back to where we were for thousands, thousands of years.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
No, I think that's a good way to look at it,
or it's i mean, not a good way to look
at it, but it's appliesible, get it. But that's the thing,
Like to me, it's not even just the wealth that's
the problems the distribution of it. I think that's probably
the case with you as well, Ryan, and people also
are wondering. This is one of the things that tech
guys don't get. We talked about this a couple of
weeks ago. They want to know why the wealth has
(10:15):
to come from something that seems so ridiculous, right, like,
why is the wealth that we may learn this from
the markets actually sooner rather than later and tragically probably
in some cases. We want to know why the wealth
has to be generated all based on these data centers
and the transmission of so much people want to unplug.
(10:37):
If you look at pulling, they want to unplug, not completely,
but more and more. And so it just feels like
it's not a fair system to people to end up
having their bills in localities spike for something they're not
bought in on in the first place.
Speaker 6 (10:53):
And meanwhile, this is coming while the New York grid
has been massively disinvested from and put a D four.
Mom Donnie keeps warning people, hey, guys, thermostats at seventy
eight polase, which continues to produce kind of a freak
out on Twitter from people who are like, how dare
you tell me? It's guys, it's not an order. It's
just we're all in this together, and if the grid
(11:13):
goes down, you're not gonna have ac either.
Speaker 7 (11:16):
So let's all do the.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Best we can do unplug what we don't need to
have plugged in, and to push our thermostats up as
as high as we can comfortably withstand it so that
the grid does not order yet it's not an order
yet yet.
Speaker 7 (11:31):
Well, people are like socialism doesn't work.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
As if like mom Donnie should have like rebuilt the
grid in like January of the first year of the Star.
Speaker 7 (11:39):
Now, that would have been impressed.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
That would be a generational political.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
Cub yeap while he was shoveling this now all right, Well, Emily,
thank you so much and happy travels.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Thanks Ryan, and thanks to everybody for helping out. Well,
I was a deal with family stuff.
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Appreciate it. You got it.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
Representative Rocanna joined our drop site news live stream yesterday morning.
I wanted to roll some of the more interesting parts
of the conversation between him and Jeremy ska Hill.
Speaker 8 (12:09):
Give you another example where you say it's okay to
continue any level of support for an openly genocidal society
that has mass murdered eighty thousand people, more than three
hundred media workers, has invaded Lebanon, has bombed Iran, and
you're saying, oh, but we need to protect civilians. This
isn't about protecting civilians. The greatest threat to their civilians
is their policy. And so I don't understand why you
(12:30):
have even one qualified shred of support for a sniper
mass murderer masquerading as the only democracy in the Middle East.
Speaker 9 (12:39):
Well, but I'm not saying that the United States should
be supporting the funding for Irondome, just so be very Claire.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
I'm saying that we shouldn't be restricting Israel from.
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Being able to get the Iron Dome or be able
to develop the Iron Dome to technology.
Speaker 8 (12:54):
Well, I stopped there. Everything else you're saying it makes
so much sense. Why do you stop there? It feels
to me like you're trying to have it both ways
on this issues. You can say, well, I actually support,
you know, defending the Israeli civilians. You're not defending Israeli
civilians with that policy. You're defending the sniper's ability to
keep killing because it won't face the ultimate accountability, which
is a total embargo on all support for an apartheid stay.
Number seventh, Did Palestinians have a right to attack Israeli
(13:17):
military basis in the Gaza envelope?
Speaker 10 (13:18):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 9 (13:20):
I mean I think October seven's attack was a terrorist attack,
so I don't.
Speaker 8 (13:23):
As a terrorist attack when they the first targets that
were hit on the morning of October seventh were multiple
military bases. Did Palestinian forces have a right to attack
those military bases?
Speaker 9 (13:34):
I am not for violent violence again in any way.
I mean I am for making sure that we uh.
Speaker 10 (13:44):
And the I have a right to do it.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
Congressmen, do they have a right to attack Israeli soldiers?
Speaker 9 (13:50):
No, I'm not going to say that Hamas had a
right to attack Israeli soldiers or kill Israelis like I don't.
I don't think that advances peace or or advance is.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 8 (14:05):
Does Israel have a right to drop a single bomb
in Gaza in response to October seventh?
Speaker 9 (14:11):
I believe Israel had the right to get people who
killed the civilians, but not in the way they went
about it, which I've said is genocide.
Speaker 8 (14:22):
But the Palestinians don't have a right to attack the
very military bases that are running the killing operations on
October sixth, twenty twenty three or October fifth, twenty twenty three.
It's a double standard. You're you're afraid of violin prohamas.
That's what this is boiled down to, because I bet
if we were talking off the record privately and I
said this to you, you would acknowledge that people around
(14:42):
the world have a right to resistance by all means necessary.
I've always been for legal resistance, and you're saying that
there is no condition under which a Palestinian has a
right to kill soldiers who are posted at military bases,
enforcing by murder and force, star and deprivation an illegal
occupation of Gaza. That's what doesn't make sense to me.
(15:04):
I don't see how you reconcile those two.
Speaker 9 (15:06):
Positions, because I think that the armed resistance is only
going to be in effect.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
They've given the power to frenchials.
Speaker 9 (15:16):
Is similar to what Gandhi thought in terms of how
he took on the British Empire, and that having a
moral force of civil resistance and appealing to the world's
conscience is going to be much better chance of getting dignity.
Speaker 8 (15:31):
Twenty piece nineteen, the Palestinians organized the Great March of Return,
which was a mass, nonviolent mobilization at the gates of
the concentration camp, walls and fence in Gaza. And you
know what Israeli soldiers did. Representative Nay had a competition
to who could shoot the most knee caps of Palestinians.
People around the world have a right to resistance by
(15:52):
all means necessary.
Speaker 10 (15:53):
I think I've always.
Speaker 8 (15:54):
Been resistance, you know how peaceful resistancing the Israelis.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Against under segregation.
Speaker 9 (16:01):
I wouldn't have said that go killed people who were
engaged in segregation against you.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
I mean, I'm much more doctor Kig than Malcolm X.
Speaker 8 (16:09):
I mean, are you much more slave rebellions were justified
against people that were raping, hanging, murdering Africans who had
been kidnapped. I mean, I'm sorry. I spend most of
my day and night talking with Palestinians, working with Palestinians.
My colleague Hoss Shabatra.
Speaker 9 (16:27):
I'm met most of the Palacidias. I'm met, and maybe
a tew days if are not talking about the kind
of armed resistance that you are. They just want to
live their lives and dignity and peace and not have
the Israeli settlers oppressed them.
Speaker 8 (16:41):
But you're a member of the United States Congress who
is justifying Albeit you've been very critical of Israel's war
against Gaza. But you seem to be drawing a line
that says that there are some cases in which Israel
is justified to attack Palestinians, but only those responsible for
October seventh. But you can't find a shred of justification
for any Palestinian to attack the very armed forces operating
(17:04):
under a nation state flag that is backed by the
United States. And you're saying that there is no condition
under which a Palestinian has a right to kill soldiers
who are posted at military bases, enforcing by murder and
forced starvation and deprivation an illegal occupation of Gaza. That's
what doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how
(17:25):
you reconcile those two positions, So I.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Highly recommend actually watching the entire back and forth, which
you can find over on the page there. But essentially,
there are two different conversations going on here, and one
of them I think comes or sort of spells out
why it is that there's been so much resistance to
identifying what's happening in Gaza as a genocide. Now, some
(17:48):
of it is, of course the psychological element of the
historical connotations that it has, but I think that is
a kind of much over indexed part of it. In fact,
I think what's really driving it is that once you
acknowledge that what's happening is in fact a genocide and
ongoing genocide, which is which is somewhat abated in its
(18:10):
violence but not has not abated in as strategic direction,
you are then pushed into policy positions that, as an
American politician, you wouldn't necessarily want to take. And two
of those are resistance to genocide obviously is legitimate, and
(18:31):
any support for an entity carrying out a genocide is
obviously beyond the pale.
Speaker 7 (18:37):
And the.
Speaker 6 (18:39):
Only kind of legitimate responses to that would be actual
kind of international military intervention or sanctions. And that I
think is at the heart of why there's so much
hesitation among so many who recognize that legally what we're
talking about is a genocide, that they don't want to
go all the way and say it because it pushes
(19:01):
you into a logical.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Space where where you have to go to a place
where an American politician doesn't want to go.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
And I thought it Jeremy did a great job kind
of pinning down the essence of the question here, and
why is it okay? You know, for one side to
carry out what is it, what is you know, a
con and others acknowledges a genocide, But it is not
okay for the other side to fight back.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
And if we believe that.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
One side is carrying out a genocide, how is it
okay to give any aid and support or allow or
even to allow other.
Speaker 7 (19:39):
Countries to offer aid and support to that nation.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
So I thought that was a very helpful conversation. And
you know, credit you know, to Rocana for you know,
showing up for those types of debates. There are very
few members of Congress who are who are willing to
be pushed on issues like this, as I believe he
was here Monday. This is this after of course, you know,
gun toting paramilitary settlers held up his you know, held
(20:08):
up his delegation in the West Bank, at which point
the IDF came out and cided for a long time
kind of with those with those settlers and not letting
them pass, and then subsequently lied and said, oh, this
is some closed military zone. It wouldn't have happened to
you if you would have coordinated, which by itself, think
about that, like in order for you not to get
(20:30):
held up at gunpoint by illegal militias in the in
the West Bank, you have to coordinate all of your
travel with the US embassy. Obviously that's not a not
as sustainable practice as there are millions of people you know,
who live there and who are not members of Congress.
Speaker 7 (20:50):
And so this, this, this has.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
Led to a lot of pressure on on Democrats to
follow through on their logical commands and commitments. One of
those is Alexandrio Kazi Cortez. Julian Andreoni, my colleague over
at drop Site News, caught up with her outside the
Capitol and push her on this question of what about Okay,
you've said you don't want to subsidize American sales and
(21:14):
you wouldn't support the transfer of some weapons to Israel.
What about a broad embargo which the definition of which
is somewhat malleable, but can include we won't allow anybody
to trade weapons with TOW or to send weapons to Israel.
So let's listen to this exchange between Julian and AOC.
Speaker 11 (21:39):
Congress Would you support an arms embargo? I know that
you support stopping sending offensive and defensive military aid to Israel.
Speaker 7 (21:47):
Would you support an embargo?
Speaker 10 (21:50):
What do you I mean?
Speaker 12 (21:51):
I consider both of those things to be.
Speaker 11 (21:53):
The side stopping the sale of arms to Israel, stopping
other countries I'm selling to them.
Speaker 12 (21:58):
I don't well other actually other countries I don't know
where we have jurisdiction over. But I think in terms
of US, I do not support any transfer of weapon
sale or or you know, I think, well, here's one
thing that I will say, like the actual ways that
these things work is that is that they have to go.
(22:20):
So anything that I have a vote for, here's what
I'll say. Anything I have a vote for, I will
not I would not authorize that transfer. And I haven't
you know, I never have. I've never voted, to my knowledge,
I don't believe I've ever voted for spops. I don't.
I've never voted for the military n daa budget. So
(22:42):
in terms of my vote and what I have control over,
I always vote no on weapons transfer.
Speaker 11 (22:46):
Would you consider taking a trip like the one that
Congressman Kana took to the West Bank?
Speaker 7 (22:50):
Oh of course, of course.
Speaker 12 (22:51):
You know, I think many years ago, and yeah, who
prevented congresswomen leab in Omar from entering? And so I
had stated years ago that as long as they were
opposing entry to them, but I certainly would be open
(23:12):
to visiting and and would be happy to. You know,
I don't I've never taken an a pack funded trip,
and I don't take a I mean, I don't know
about that, but you know, I've never taken like those
kinds of funded trips. But which is probably another reason
(23:33):
why I haven't gone. But in terms of visiting, i'd
be more than I would be more than happy to.
Speaker 11 (23:37):
You think there needs to be action taken after they
detained them, especially the idea of playing a role in
taking the side of the satellites. You think there should
be sanctions anything like that.
Speaker 12 (23:43):
I think there should be sanctions, and then beyond you know,
of course what happened to Congressman Khana is unacceptable, and
also we need answers on the murders of many US
citizens the hands of settlers in the Israeli government. You know,
(24:04):
we still do not have accountability on US journalists and
other people, and so I think absolutely absolutely we need to.
We needed to have been instituting these sanctions in a
much harsher way for a very long time.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
So there was a very interesting moment there in that
exchange where Julian asks if she'd be willing to take
a similar Palestinian led trip to the West Bank, like
similar to the one that Brokanna just took. She brought
up how the Israelis had blocked Rashida Talib and Nilhanomar
from traveling there. I believe it was in twenty nineteen,
and at the time she had said, as long as
(24:39):
they were blocked from going that in solidarity, she would
also refuse to go. But she's now saying, as you
saw there, that she would be willing to go on
a Palsingian led trip to the West Bank, which I
expect now that she has made that bludge, we're going
to see that and as more members of Congress take
(25:00):
that trip and see for themselves kind of what the
apartheid light conditions are on the ground, I think you're
going to continue to see the American policy among Democrats,
you know, slide further and further in a more skeptical
and hostile direction when it comes to supporting Israel. And
I think one test of that is going to be
(25:20):
today in the House of Representatives. Thomas Massey, who's who
was ousted by Apak in a primary, is still you know,
is still serving out the rest of his term and
has put forward an amendment which would it is a
very blunt amendment that will get a vote on the
House floor, which would block all aid to Israel military
(25:41):
and otherwise. And so yesterday you had Hakeem Jefferys, a
Democratic leader, come out and say that he opposes it
because he said it's too blunt and it would affect
you know, transfers, you know, to you know, humanitarian aid
to Palestinians and such like. And either way, it's it's
not going through the Senate, so it's really just a
kind of symbolic vote to see where members of Congress are.
(26:04):
But importantly, Jeffrey said that he was voting against it,
but he understood if other Democrats.
Speaker 7 (26:11):
Voted for it.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
That's what they call a vote of conscience on Capitol Hill,
where you're not required to vote party line, I mean,
obviously not required. You report only to your constituents. But
if you break with the party on a vote where
they're whipping, it's going to then come with consequences from
the party leadership. And what Jeffreys is saying here is
that there would be no consequences for members who either
(26:35):
vote present, vote or vote yes, although he said he
personally is going to be voting no. J Street, the
Liberal Zionist Organization, put out a statement saying the same thing,
that they oppose the amendment, but they also understand that
this is an unusual opportunity for members of Congress to
go on record against military aid to Israel, and so
(26:55):
they will they will support members who vote yes on it,
and that that support ends up being helpful in uh
in you know, can be helpful in in primary campaigns.
Speaker 7 (27:07):
Now.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
At the same time, if if a if a Democratic
member of Congress votes know on this or votes present,
what they're doing is they're they're putting themselves on a
list of people who are going to be researched, to
be primaried by populist progressive organizations like Justice Democrats, DSA
and others who are trying to figure out who are
(27:29):
the ones who are with us, who are the ones
are against us, who are the ones that are that
are vulnerable? And so I think it, you know, there's
some there's some reporting that you could see a huge
number of Democrats kind of swing and end up supporting
this this massive amendment.
Speaker 7 (27:44):
Meanwhile, we can put.
Speaker 6 (27:45):
Up e three the the the nda A, which includes
the provision which would fuse elements of the Israeli and
American militaries, was blocked in the United States Senate by Democrats.
Now it was, you know, some Democrats in the Senate
spoke out about the provision that merged the Israelian American
(28:10):
militaries overall. What they were objecting to here was the
restarting of the Iran war, which by the way, is
completely illegal, Like the Congress has passed a war Powers
resolution that says the President cannot engage in war with Iran.
He's just doing it illegally anyway. And so we'll be
(28:33):
tracking the debate on the and the vote on the
House floor, and I'm sure Crystalin Sager will be covering
that yesterday tomorrow when they're here.
Speaker 7 (28:42):
Up next, we've.
Speaker 6 (28:43):
Got congressional candidate Donovan McKinney running in Detroit. So in
twenty eighteen, a man named Shri Thanadar, who had made
his fortune in some quite curious ways, which we'll talk
about in a moment, met with a group of Republican
consultants telling them that he wanted to run for governor.
(29:05):
And he had a very unusual question for them, what
party should I run in? The consultants and we wrote
about this at the intercept back of the time.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
The consultants set back.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
To him, well what party are you in? And he said, well,
isn't that you guys are the consultants, like you tell me.
They're very confused, like, well, what do you believe? And
he's like, what do you mean? What do I believe?
Like you're the political consultants. You tell me what I believe,
and then I run for governor. They eventually told him, look,
(29:37):
we've never heard of anything like this from a political
candidate before.
Speaker 7 (29:42):
I don't think this is a good fit for you
and us.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
Eventually he decided that he was a Democrat and he
was going to run for governor as a Democrat. He
was leading in the polls for some time until that
story emerged. Plus a story about some legal abuse, which
we'll get into in a moment also came out. So
in twenty twenty two he spent his considerable fortune instead
running for Congress. He was challenged at the time by
(30:09):
Apak who saw this street Thanadark coming onto the scene
and they were concerned that maybe this guy is anti Israel.
We don't really know. So they spent millions of dollars
against him. He spent millions of his own money and
he won. He afterwards, he became one of apax's biggest
allies in Congress. Now he's being challenged by State Representative
(30:33):
Donovan McKinney, who has the backing of DSA as well
as Justice Democrats, and so State Representative McKinney, thank you
for joining us. I want to run through a bunch
of this today. This is it's one of the strangest
political journeys I think I've ever seen. That's just the
tip of the iceberg. What did I miss about Congressman
(30:55):
Thanadar here?
Speaker 13 (30:57):
No, Eric, I just appreciate you and inviting us on
your show. I'm a big fan of breaking points. But
like what Shari, it's he's a conundrum of all sorts.
He's voted to think ice last year, he's increased the
Department of Ice budget multiple times, sitting on that committee
(31:20):
as as a sitting legislator, as well as he tried
to introduce legislation to abolished ice.
Speaker 10 (31:27):
Just a few months later.
Speaker 13 (31:29):
Because we're gaining steam in our campaign, and so he's
trying to do some things that are politically feasible. He's
taking money from you know, ice contractors to you know,
our utility companies, monopoly utility dte to a pac crypto.
Funny story about him, Eric, he's the first congressional member
(31:51):
in the history of Congress to invest campaign money into
crypto currency. And so you know, he's he's representing one
of the poor where's districts in the country, and we
need somebody that is going to put the people at
the district top of mind. And that's why we decided
to run and take a shot at it, so we
can bring some real representation back to Michigan's thirteenth district.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
Yeah, his connection to the Beagle testing lab was one
of the you know, among all the crazy things about
the guys, one of the craziest. Let's let's I want
to play F one is this is one of the
things you've been using to to go after and do
F one.
Speaker 10 (32:28):
Please, I'm Donovan McKinney, and I prove this message.
Speaker 8 (32:32):
We have new information now a Shree Tanadar.
Speaker 10 (32:34):
He's a Democrat playing to be Michigan's next turn.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
I'm like shreada tested drugs on dogs and less.
Speaker 10 (32:39):
Than to die.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Look, I love animals.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
The allegations involved mistreatment of dogs and monkeys used for testing.
Speaker 7 (32:45):
The dog for found abandoned without food and water.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Employees had to break into the building to save them.
Speaker 5 (32:51):
Billionaire farmer executive streets Hanadaar.
Speaker 14 (32:53):
That's one hundred peoples to die, Shriet Handar, one sick puppy.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
So this was something that did come up in the
twenty eighteen campaign. So tell us what happened with his
abandoned beagles.
Speaker 10 (33:04):
So he owned a pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 13 (33:08):
He sold half of it, and so it's actually he
made probably like double the money back because it actually
increased in value, like doubled in value. So he made
the money back and then something but the pharmaceutical company
tested drugs on dogs and animals, and pretty much when
(33:31):
he sold half of it and closed up shop at
a lot of facilities, he just left all these animals abandoned,
over one hundred beagles, some monkeys. Just terrible all around
human being for doing that. And so you know, think
about this. If he's want to abandon those dogs, just
imagine what he's doing in the Sea of Congress.
Speaker 10 (33:53):
He's abandoning the people of the thirteenth District here in Michigan.
Speaker 6 (33:57):
Yeah, and it was one of kind of one of
those pump and dump schemes where you kind of take
the company, you drive up the fake value of it,
you take your piece of it, and then you bankrupt
the thing. And then yeah, when he bankrupts it, just
walk away and whatever it's doing, yeah, exactly, just keeps unfolding.
I want people to get a sense of him himself.
(34:19):
Let's roll F two. This is when he became allies
with APAX, deeply thanking them for the help.
Speaker 10 (34:26):
Hi.
Speaker 15 (34:26):
This is Congressman Shri Canadar, proudly representing Detroit and the
Michigan's thirteenth District. Here. I am a whole week in
Israel learning about this little country that is surrounded by
terrorism and how it's important that United States and Israel
must have a strong relationship, but more importantly also that
(34:49):
I as an entrepreneur. I met many young innovators, entrepreneurs,
and I'm talking to them about collaborating with city of
Detroit and working with the rich culture of Detroit and
the innovation and entrepreneurship in Israel to make better things
(35:12):
for both countries and the people of my district and
the people of Israel.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
My sense is that Shre was hoping that the enough
APEX support, plus his own money, plus than a divided
field of opponents would be enough for him to be
able to continue to get re elected in Detroit. How
did you your political operation and the community more broadly
avoid that trap of having, you know, if you have
(35:39):
three or four credible, good candidates who are all better
than the incumbent than it are, voters are like, well,
what do I do?
Speaker 7 (35:47):
Like who do I pick to beat him?
Speaker 6 (35:49):
But now it's pretty much a one on one race, Like,
how did you get to that place?
Speaker 13 (35:54):
So we started off, so how he ended up being
congress in the first place?
Speaker 10 (35:59):
He one and a nine way primate, right exactly.
Speaker 13 (36:02):
And this is one of the only, if not the only,
majority black congressional district in the current country not represented
by a black person, And so you know, it was
nine black or eight black people in the race plus him.
So the vote got really split and he won with
I believe twenty eight percent of vote something like that,
with like just a couple of thousand votes, and so
(36:23):
a couple percentage points. And the second time around, in
the twenty four election, there was a you know, a
couple of women, Black women on the on the ballot,
but they didn't have the money and some of them
had you know a lot of baggage that he exploited
with a pac money in his own money because he's
also a self funder, he's a multi millionaire. That left
(36:48):
a lot of you know, bad tastes in a lot
of people's mouths. This time around, a bunch of folks
tried to do it. We had conversations initially, and people
either decided to drop out to support our candidacy or
got kicked off the ballot. Because it's crazy because the incumbent, Shari,
(37:10):
he's the one who challenged a lot of people's signatures and.
Speaker 10 (37:13):
Got it kicked off.
Speaker 13 (37:15):
So it's like a cash twenty two in a sense
because he literally dugged his own grave. And because of that,
we have a great opportunity of winning the seat, and
we're building the eric. We're building the biggest and baddest
coalition in the country. We have over one hundred and
fifty plus endorsements from congressional members on the federal, state, local, county,
(37:39):
and local levels, to faith leaders, to all the unions
Metro the Michigan NFL CIO. I come out the SCIU movement.
I'm a label organizer. I got uaw you name it
to all the progressive organizations on the ground, faith leaders.
We are building a big unit and a big coalition
to take him out, to take him in as much
(38:00):
because organized people can be organized money every time, and
that's what we're looking to do in less than three
weeks away from the election day August fourth.
Speaker 6 (38:10):
Tell us a little bit about yourself. I know you
grew up poor, and was it northern Detroit? Like what
was your Detroit?
Speaker 7 (38:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (38:16):
So what was your upbringing like? And like how did
you become political? Like do you remember a moment where
you realized that you're that you recognize the power of
kind of organizing and people power to do something about
the conditions facing your community.
Speaker 7 (38:32):
Was that a gradual thing? Like yeah, yeah, what brought
you here?
Speaker 9 (38:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (38:36):
No, good question. And I grew up with my my mom,
my brother, and my grandmother. Removed around over thirteen times
across the city of Detroit. Spent the vast majority of
my life in Northeast Detroit, but there was times we
lived in cars, shelters, sometimes on the Street. There were
days where we didn't know where our next meal was
going to come from. But I remember with the principles
(38:58):
my grandm my grandmother raised me on, and one of
them is, no matter what happens in your life, there
will always be people worse off than you. There will
always be people better off than you. But to never
fight the erth to give, never fight the erth to give, Eric,
And I put that, I put her quote on my
first piece of literature when I ever ran for state House.
(39:19):
And I still live by that principle today and it
led me to a life of public service, to helping people,
understanding that we're no better than anyone else and vice versa.
But we all have to utilize our God given talents
and abilities to serve people. And at the end of
the day, so many folks are struggling. They need folks
to be their most authentic sales. But they need people
(39:41):
who are going to rise to the occasion and meet
the urgency of this moment. I got seniors on fixed income,
Eric that literally make you received nine hundred dollars a
month from Social Security every month. Literally, their their rent
is eight hundred dollars right their food assistance from the
federal government just got cut down to less than thirty
(40:01):
dollars a month, and they're out of pocket.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
Costs to do.
Speaker 13 (40:05):
Doctor visits and for prescription drugs at skyrocketing, and so
every few weeks they have to make a conscious decision
either I'm going to have food at the table, I'm
going to be able to eat, I'm going to be
able to pay my rent, or I'm going to have
to figure out ways to have some dollars for my
life saving medicine. These are the conditions of our district,
(40:25):
and people are going through folks who are working two
to three jobs, not even making.
Speaker 10 (40:29):
Ends meet anymore. Air And so for me, this is
deeper in politics.
Speaker 13 (40:33):
This is about adhering to the moment and the needs
of the people in the district, not sending money to
you know, for bombs and weapons to kill families and
children overseas, and not for any type of foreign influence
or special interest for running a grassrooms campaign, now taking
any corporate pack money, APAC money at all.
Speaker 10 (40:53):
We raised over a million dollars so far. Eric.
Speaker 13 (40:55):
The average donation in our campaign is thirty dollars, And
so when people are looking at this nationwide movement and
when people are looking for leaders to step up to
not only meet the moment, but to be present and
fight for them and what they're care about. That's why
we're running, and that's why a lot of people are
grabbing tours our campaign, and that's how we're going to win.
Speaker 10 (41:16):
On Tuesday, August.
Speaker 7 (41:17):
For you were endorsed by Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Early on, you were endorsed by Justice Democrats, and last
month to kind of metro Detroit, DSA and endorsed your campaign.
And I know that when it happened, there was there
was an argument internally, They're like, well, he's not been
a long time kind of DSA member, but he he
supports everything that we believe in. So you know, the
argument carried the day to say like let's let's get
(41:42):
behind him. There's also been this national pushback from the
right about DSA saying that it's a bunch of white gentrifiers,
which is kind of ironic to hear Republicans complaining that
something's white. But anyway, well we'll let them have their
fun over there. But so I'm curious when it comes
to DSA. I think DSA desperately wants to have more
(42:04):
people who grew up poor in Northeast Detroit organizing behind
Democratic socialis And so what what's your.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
Relationship been like with them, and what advice do.
Speaker 6 (42:14):
You have two DSA chapters both in Detroit and also
you know around the country, about how they can be
more resonant in neighborhoods like the ones that you grew
up in and kind of push back against some of
that that criticism that they get from being kind of
white outsiders coming in to put like a fancy democratic
(42:35):
socialism label on their politics, on their gentrifying politics.
Speaker 13 (42:39):
Now, I would say, listen, this is not about labels
in particular. This is about the issues that are impacting
the everyday life and the quality of life of our
residents and community members. And I preach about all the time,
but we have to if the Democratic Party wants to
continue to act like or at least claim that are
party of the people, then we need to act like it.
(43:01):
And we need to ensure that we deliver on the
resources as much as possible. How define politics is to
redistribution and resources? Eric, And so, if you're in these
powerful positions of influence and you're at the table deciding
these things, you need to bring back home resources when
people are struggling to make ends meet. And so you know,
(43:22):
to dsay, it's all democratic socialists talk about the issues, right,
the fact that people have to decide if they're going
to get health care on their premiums or skyrocketing more
I proming these corporations get to decide who gets health
care or not, who gets delivered or not based off
if they have a preeze it's a condition or not.
Speaker 10 (43:41):
Right, we have so many We live in a wealthiest
country in the.
Speaker 13 (43:44):
World, but we got so many people who are unhoused
right now, even our veterans.
Speaker 10 (43:50):
Is that right? No, making sure that we have opportunities
for our kids to.
Speaker 13 (43:56):
Grow up in higher education, free college, a boss ice,
stop sending money overseas for genocide like these are the
simple issues that people care about living in the world
where our kids can be able to breathe clean air
and drink clean water. That's something in my district that
is near and dear to every resident of mine. So
(44:16):
you know, this is not necessarily about you know, who's
more socialist than whoever. But these socialist ideas, these are
common sense ideas, Eric, and it makes sense when you
break it down to people and you talk to them
and you realize, damn, we all care about the same things.
For the most part, eighty percent of us pretty much
want the same thing. We might differ on how the
(44:38):
execution of it and how to get there and achieve it,
but in reality, most folks want to be able to
work one job, to not only make his meat, to
have some disposable income, maybe take your family trip once
in a while, benefits to take care of their family,
and of retiing to look forward to. That's what probably
the most. That's the American dream. But right now that
(45:00):
is being wasted. There's no longer that that thing that
people can capture and hold on to, and so we
got to fight, like hell fort and I'm a proud
DSA member, but also I need Dessa to stop over
talking people and really talk to the issues at heart
and what people care about day in and day out.
Speaker 6 (45:17):
Also wanted to get your take on the Michigan Senate race.
You've endorsed abdual outside in that race may be decided
in Detroit, and there's there's been some controversy in the
state lately because Haley Stevens with some with support from
her outside tuber PACs has been very strongly suggesting that
Barack Obama is actually supporting her campaign, which is not
(45:40):
which is not true.
Speaker 7 (45:42):
Wonderful running.
Speaker 10 (45:43):
They're running ads like crazy.
Speaker 13 (45:45):
I just right before I hopped on, I saw four
ads from I think, I think Apex Funnel Group about
how Haley is, you know, getting the support of Obama's.
Speaker 7 (45:57):
Crazy Let me show.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
Let me show one of those ads, because yes, I
think they're over fifty million dollars at this point, and
we're not August fourth, so we've got ways to go.
They might spend sixty seventy million dollars in one state
by the end of this. Let's let's roll f three.
Speaker 5 (46:11):
My husband worked at Ford for forty one years.
Speaker 14 (46:14):
My father worked for General Motors for thirty years.
Speaker 8 (46:16):
And when they came for our auto.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
Jobs, Ailey Stephens stood up.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
She was chief of status to President Obama's Auto Rescue.
Speaker 13 (46:23):
And Hailey Stephens, by the way, she was a critical
part of my team that helped.
Speaker 10 (46:27):
The American auto industry come rolling ball.
Speaker 8 (46:30):
That's say, two hundred thousand Michigan jobs.
Speaker 10 (46:33):
She helps, say jobs for my own family.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
If President Obama trust her.
Speaker 7 (46:37):
So do I. The stronger Michigan is responsible for the
content of this ad, So sorry to make you watch
that again.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
You've probably seen it a thousand times at this point,
so strongly suggesting that she's got the auto worker support too.
By the way, at the beginning of that UAW has
in fact endorsed abdul Alsie.
Speaker 7 (46:53):
Obama has not endorsed at all.
Speaker 10 (46:56):
But it.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
Seems like this these as are breaking through and that
the public is starting to believe that Obama does support Stevens.
A new pole has her up seven now against El
Saiad And I think it was a Detroit News sponsored poll.
Speaker 7 (47:11):
What on the ground, like is that accurate?
Speaker 6 (47:13):
Like are you meeting people who are like, yeah, I'm
with Stevens because Obama's behind him.
Speaker 13 (47:20):
I've met a few folks on the doors at at
different events who you know, have heard this propaganda and
have started to believe it. But I will say, Abdullah
has a great ground game, and I think and close
that gap. People kind of see through that proper game
and so to speak. But like we have to that listen,
(47:42):
we're going to get out spent, We're going to we're
going to like they're going to run more more ads.
They're going to try to run more attacks against Abdul
as well as myself because we are the progressive candidates,
the working family candidates, you know, u aw indoors, Bernie
in doors, I mean, you name it. And so we
have to come back that through people power. And so
(48:04):
we're making these phone calls, we're knocking on the doors,
We're showing up to advance where people don't normally show
up to And that's how you try to figure out
how to come back that and burst the gap and
bring people together to understand our message. But it's sad
that we got to spend so much money in our politics.
That's why me and a duel we both support in
(48:24):
New Citizens United getting all corporate money out of our politics.
I've led it at the state level here in Michigan
to taking back our Power legislation, which we couldn't get
a hearing on it in Lancing. But guess what, the
people on the ground and organizations on the ground decided
to take our legislation, create a ballot initiative collected over
six hundred thousand signatures, and we'll know in a few
(48:47):
weeks the state boarder campus is going to approve it
to put it on this year is November ballot, and Eric,
if it gets on this year's November ballot, I guarantee
it's going to pass with eighty percent of vote. You
want to know why, because Democrats were of independence alike
understand that corporate influence on our politics is just too much,
and we got a level the playing field to ensure
(49:07):
that the people's voices are heard.
Speaker 10 (49:09):
It can be rained true.
Speaker 6 (49:12):
I also wanted to get you to respond to another
controversy that's going on in Michigan in a different race
that's kind of fascinating in the way it's been been unfolding.
Speaker 7 (49:21):
And this is Will Lawrence, who's running against kind of two.
Speaker 6 (49:23):
Centrist candidates, has had some of his comments from a
podcast with Curry Peterson Smith, who describes himself kind of
as a black internationalist, twisted to say that he's like
a racist guy. I want to roll the actual comments
so that people can hear what he said and then
get your reaction to because I think it's what he's
(49:45):
actually probing at is an interesting conversations.
Speaker 7 (49:48):
So let's let's roll F four here.
Speaker 8 (49:50):
That is a contested space that we need to show
up to.
Speaker 14 (49:55):
Me how do you feel what do you think is
the trajectory as a millennial black leftist. It's not something
I can talk too much about because I'm I'm white,
and it's it's not my it's not my struggle. That
being said, like the extent to which the older generation
of black political leadership are such of a pillar, frankly
(50:18):
for establishment, capitalist, imperialist American power through their role, you know,
as this kind of traditionalist, establishmentist pillar of the Democratic Party,
it's a big problem. It's a big problem for left
politics in this country. And uh, and and it gets
(50:42):
us every single time, and it really defangs the white left,
uh puts and puts us in you know, impossible positions.
Really it's very effective politically. And so I don't know,
I'm curious. But we're also seeing, you know now that
(51:03):
unfortunately I don't want anyone to vote for Trump, but
like young black people are are are falling away from
the Democratic Party and the support is not showing up
in the same way. We'll see what happens in November.
I'm curious where you think this is headed and what
the the younger black left needs to do in order
(51:24):
to change this dynamic.
Speaker 16 (51:27):
Yeah, totally I meant just to start again with a
kind of like you know, internationalist answer of a kind
is this is this is a question that it's faced
in different places around the world, where like the centrist
parties and the kind of you know, and some center
left parties have just failed. I have failed to well
(51:52):
I shouldn't they failed.
Speaker 6 (51:53):
I'm curious for your obviously there's a lot more nuanced
than I got kind of portrayed in the headlines. But
I'm curious when what you thought when you saw the headlines,
but then also where you are on kind of Will
Lawrence and the general ideas he's talking about there.
Speaker 13 (52:08):
I've met Will and known Will for some years now,
and on the environmental justice side of things.
Speaker 10 (52:14):
He comes out the Sunrise Movement. I came out of
s c i U.
Speaker 13 (52:17):
S CiU was the first union to sign onto the
Green New Deal, and so you know our agenda lines
around the environmental justice. When I first saw the headlines,
I was I was a little taken back. I'm not
going to lie, but I actually listened to it and
I'm like, man, actually, he's not totally wrong there, right.
Like me, as a young black man, husband and father
(52:41):
of three young children ages four and younger. Like I
think about my upbringing, and I think about and I
give you three examples, Eric of what has happened that
has disappointed me and not want me to even engage
in the political process. But I have to because I
do believe that's part of changing the landscape of not
(53:03):
only the now, but the future. What happened in two
thousand and eight recession in housing, but what did the
Democratic Party do at that particular time.
Speaker 10 (53:14):
We ended up bailing out the banks instead of.
Speaker 13 (53:17):
The people that were going through the housing crisis, like
Michigan in particular, the city Detroit in my district, we
had the largest home ownership rate eighty two percent at
the time in the early two thousands, out of any
city in America.
Speaker 10 (53:31):
And now we're plumbing it now.
Speaker 13 (53:32):
We're a majority renter city right now because of the
policies back then, the Democratic establishment decided to bail out
the corporation instead of the people that needed those resources
the most.
Speaker 10 (53:44):
Another thing, what happened with the George Floyd movement.
Speaker 13 (53:48):
And the Black Lives Matter right, the George Floyd justice
and police and that we had two black men in
the US Senate trying to figure out how to hash
out a deal with that legislation, him Scott Republican out
of South Carolina, Corey Booker, a Democrat out of New Jersey,
discussing and trying to figure out how to make it happen,
(54:08):
but to no avail. They couldn't get it done, and
that locked down a lot of black people in particularly
a lot of people of color in young people, millennials
especially to be not necessarily be hopeful in the democratic
process and into politics. Another thing that let us down
and just recently happened, the voting rights sack, the overturning
(54:30):
of the voting right sack. How the Supreme Court just
got it just a few weeks ago, and in under
Democratic leadership on abiden we could have got the John
Lewis voting rights and an advancement that done, but just couldn't.
And so where are we meeting the moment in terms
of Democratic party.
Speaker 10 (54:47):
We're tired of the establishment. We're tired of the status quote.
Speaker 13 (54:50):
We're tired of people just giving us the platitudes, the
talking points just to tell us what we want to hear, Eric,
we want leaders and fighters that are going to adhere
to their urgency and the issues at hand, and that's
why people are excited about Will. That's why they're excited
about a duel. That's why they're excited about us and
our candidacy for Congress and Michigan's thirteenth district.
Speaker 6 (55:11):
Yeah, it's August fourth, all those primaries, and Kyle Blonkwist
over in somewhere else in Michigan.
Speaker 13 (55:16):
You're not Kyle, Yeah, yeah, he's in District one, So
that's northern Michigan and then the entire Upper Peninsula.
Speaker 6 (55:24):
Yeah, it's you know, it's a kind of coalition of
four candidates coming from different places but headed in the
same direction in interesting ways. So Donovan McKinney, August fourth
is the primary. Thanks so much for being here. That'll
do it for us today, as always, Breakingpoints dot Com
sign up for our new newsletter. Become a premium subscribers,
you can support what we're doing. Chryslin Sager will be
(55:46):
back here tomorrow. They'll see you then,
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
New York Governor Kathi HOCl announced New York will become
the first set to impose a data center mor a
ttorium yesterday. Let's take a listen here to Governor vocals
press conference.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Hice hyperscale AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power,
truly threatening to outpace our grid's capacity, and they drive
a cost for local rate bears, and I refuse use
to let those costs be passed on to New Yorkers
who already paid too much for the utility bills. These
(01:07):
data centers require millions of gallons of water, straining the
local supplies, and when powered by fossil fuels, they drive
up our carbon footprint. They occupy massive amounts of land,
potentially displacing agricultural space and open spaces. The bottom line
(01:29):
is products shouldn't arrive with a higher utility bill, deleted
water supply, or noise pollution. So we have no choice
but to address these challenges created by these massive facilities.
That is why they all be signing the nation's first
ever statewide moratorium on hyper scale data centers.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
There you have it.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
The political sprint to out anti data center other called
titians is a foot I think that's fairly obvious. But
Kathy Hoko obviously is a Democrat. And let's look at
John Fetterman, Democratic senator from neighboring Pennsylvania, who responded to
a headline about Hope's decision with China wins taking the
(02:16):
Silicon Valley talking point just at face value, not entirely
surprising from Fetterment, of course, But why is this happening?
Obviously here on the show, we've been covering the data
center politics and substance for a while. But I want
to now put up this other headline. This is the
next element. A majority of Americans now support seizing wealth
(02:36):
from the AI industry. So polling, this is a seventeen
hundred adult poll, sixty nine percent of US employees support
forcing AI companies to transfer fifty percent of their stock
into a public wealth fund. That is the Bernie Sanders idea.
This was a poll done by Beera site, a national
pull done by Beer Site, So obviously the politics of
(02:59):
the are pretty clear. I don't know if John Fetterman
there's too much Ryan about the people of Pennsylvania think
on the Data Center moratory in question. But Kathy Hochel, who,
to be honest, I'm not fully sure what her ideological
commitment actually is on this, but she's very clearly reading
(03:20):
the signs from the public at this point.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
We talked a couple of weeks ago about that really
fascinating rant that Alex carp the Palteer CEO, had had
on CNBC. We're tucked into the middle of it. He said,
what you guys don't understand by hyping up the potential
of AI to have this revolutionary, disruptive capacity and to
basically eliminate labor, which is which is the goal of
(03:44):
you know, which is effectively the goal of this industry.
What you guys are doing is you are creating in
the public the appetite to rewrite the entire social contract.
And what he said, in particular is that you're going
to give us a wealth text. You're going to going
to get a slam with on. The Washington Post had
an article yesterday which owned by a billionaire, kind of
warning that the quote unquote, the left, you know, sees
(04:08):
an opportunity to push forward with a with a wealth tax,
and that is he is.
Speaker 7 (04:13):
They are correct, and Alex carp is correct.
Speaker 6 (04:16):
It's not just a wealth tax to your point, it's
this it's this Sanders idea, which to me.
Speaker 7 (04:20):
Is a little bit half baked.
Speaker 6 (04:22):
I'm all for it, like I'm all for the discussion
of it. And when whenever we start talking about you know,
social and public ownership of the kind of direction of
the economy, like as somebody who believes in democracy, I
think that's a good thing.
Speaker 7 (04:37):
But you start to then think, well, why why stop there?
Speaker 6 (04:40):
You know, Trump was like, Hey, if the US is
going to help Intel, we want ten percent of Intel.
Say okay, yeah, Trump, Trump makes a good point. And
what's interesting about the and I'm curious for you know,
how you're how you're thinking.
Speaker 7 (04:53):
On this entire idea of a sovereign wealth fund.
Speaker 6 (04:57):
But so yeah, like I'll stop there before I ramble on,
but you know, where are you on this kind of
just on the principle, the idea of kind of an
American sovereign wealth fund. Right now, they're talking about fuel
you know, fueling it with with AI companies. But Trump,
of course is like what I was saying is like,
you know, these pieces of other companies and AI companies
(05:17):
aren't necessarily profitable anyway at this point, but obviously they
could be, you know, in the not too distant future.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
You know, I see sovereign wealth funds as basically elite
slush funds, and so I know that's not what Sanders
is envisioning, obviously. I just think it's so easy for
them to become that, especially in this environment where American
politics are flush with so much special interest cash. We
just have a system where our politics have been so
(05:48):
easily corrupted by some of the same people that would
find ways to benefit from a sovereign wealth fund. I
don't particularly like the idea just because I feel like
I know what it would become very quickly. But at
the same time, I mean, I'm eager, to your point,
to hear ideas about guard rails, about how something like
that would work.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
I just have a hard time seeing it working in
a way that would not just have these same olig
archs find ways to benefit themselves over and over again.
But something needs to be done, because that's where you
have someone who's been seen as sort of moderate centrist
like Kathy Hochel obviously closing up to New York City
Mayor Mom Donnie after she saw the massive loitical success
(06:31):
that he had both in the primary the general election
against Andrew Pomo and now as governor. He's very popular,
and I think she's picking up all that. And Republicans
are nowhere to be seen really in this conversation unless
they're sounding like John Fetterman, which is, we have to
do this to defeat China and going full inst wonderful
Kevin O'Leary and making that argument. Otherwise they just don't
(06:52):
really want to talk about it. The problem for Republicans
the Fetterman's of the world and the ox Carts of
the world. As he points out, this experiment is being
run in communities around the country right now as we Hyperscale,
which was initiated by the Trump administration when he came
in and did what was it called Operation Stargate Project Stargate,
like day two of his presidency, and as the experiment
(07:14):
is being run, people are saying, no, we don't like this,
it is not good for us. And so the opinion
is either Fetterman style carp style, we know what's best
for you, you are reacting poorly to something that's actually
to your benefit, but we know we know the truth,
or to do what Hopal did.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
And to me, a Somern wealth fund is a bit
of an accounting and a bureaucratic gimmick. But if if
you need that gimmick to get the public excited about it,
then then okay, I get it. Let's take well, you
know we've got Norway cut our Uaea, staud Arabia Alaska.
If you need that gimmick to tell Alaskans, hey, look,
(07:55):
our oil resources are going to go into this wealth
fund and then the wealth is going to be used
precisely for this. And in Alaska it's like basically rebates
that goes out to people, and and that direct observable
connection between one, two, and three produces public trust that
allows it to be created.
Speaker 7 (08:16):
So that's a good point. So I get it, Like,
that's that's worth it.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
But what a sovereign wealth fund basically is is is
the government like it is it is taxation, and then
you're you're taxing the money and then you're you're investing
it and spending it like that's it's the same thing.
But people don't really kind of trust the government to
do that, you know, they think.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Because you'd be investing it and spending it in places
where your donors are going to benefit or in places
where you know, for Trump, I mean that's pretty obvious.
It's kind of what He's already sort of operating a
sovereign wealth at some point.
Speaker 6 (08:50):
Yeah, And I think people believe that a sovereign wealth
fund is a little bit easier to keep their eye
on than the entire behemoth of the federal government. And
so if that, if we need that layer of separation
to start to get people excited about the idea. The
bigger problem to me is just the wealth overall. Like
as as Western economies are growing at about one percent
(09:14):
a year, and you know, oligarchic wealth is growing at
somewhere between five and twenty.
Speaker 7 (09:20):
Percent a year.
Speaker 6 (09:21):
Like the wealth that they are accumulating has to come
from somewhere if it's not coming from economic growth, and
that somewhere is everybody else. And the way that exponential
returns work, it's not long before they go from you know,
the top point zh one percent owning ten percent to
twenty thirty, forty fifty and then basically we're just renting
from them, and it's we've reproduced feudalism, and we're like, oh,
(09:45):
that whole democratic thing that we did for that was
that was a short experiment. We're actually right, you know,
right back to where we were for thousands, thousands of years.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
No, I think that's a good way to look at it,
or it's i mean, not a good way to look
at it, but it's appliesible, get it. But that's the thing,
Like to me, it's not even just the wealth that's
the problems the distribution of it. I think that's probably
the case with you as well, Ryan, and people also
are wondering. This is one of the things that tech
guys don't get. We talked about this a couple of
weeks ago. They want to know why the wealth has
(10:15):
to come from something that seems so ridiculous, right, like,
why is the wealth that we may learn this from
the markets actually sooner rather than later and tragically probably
in some cases. We want to know why the wealth
has to be generated all based on these data centers
and the transmission of so much people want to unplug.
(10:37):
If you look at pulling, they want to unplug, not completely,
but more and more. And so it just feels like
it's not a fair system to people to end up
having their bills in localities spike for something they're not
bought in on in the first place.
Speaker 6 (10:53):
And meanwhile, this is coming while the New York grid
has been massively disinvested from and put a D four.
Mom Donnie keeps warning people, hey, guys, thermostats at seventy
eight polase, which continues to produce kind of a freak
out on Twitter from people who are like, how dare
you tell me? It's guys, it's not an order. It's
just we're all in this together, and if the grid
(11:13):
goes down, you're not gonna have ac either.
Speaker 7 (11:16):
So let's all do the.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Best we can do unplug what we don't need to
have plugged in, and to push our thermostats up as
as high as we can comfortably withstand it so that
the grid does not order yet it's not an order
yet yet.
Speaker 7 (11:31):
Well, people are like socialism doesn't work.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
As if like mom Donnie should have like rebuilt the
grid in like January of the first year of the Star.
Speaker 7 (11:39):
Now, that would have been impressed.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
That would be a generational political.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
Cub yeap while he was shoveling this now all right, Well, Emily,
thank you so much and happy travels.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Thanks Ryan, and thanks to everybody for helping out. Well,
I was a deal with family stuff.
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Appreciate it. You got it.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
Representative Rocanna joined our drop site news live stream yesterday morning.
I wanted to roll some of the more interesting parts
of the conversation between him and Jeremy ska Hill.
Speaker 8 (12:09):
Give you another example where you say it's okay to
continue any level of support for an openly genocidal society
that has mass murdered eighty thousand people, more than three
hundred media workers, has invaded Lebanon, has bombed Iran, and
you're saying, oh, but we need to protect civilians. This
isn't about protecting civilians. The greatest threat to their civilians
is their policy. And so I don't understand why you
(12:30):
have even one qualified shred of support for a sniper
mass murderer masquerading as the only democracy in the Middle East.
Speaker 9 (12:39):
Well, but I'm not saying that the United States should
be supporting the funding for Irondome, just so be very Claire.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
I'm saying that we shouldn't be restricting Israel from.
Speaker 9 (12:49):
Being able to get the Iron Dome or be able
to develop the Iron Dome to technology.
Speaker 8 (12:54):
Well, I stopped there. Everything else you're saying it makes
so much sense. Why do you stop there? It feels
to me like you're trying to have it both ways
on this issues. You can say, well, I actually support,
you know, defending the Israeli civilians. You're not defending Israeli
civilians with that policy. You're defending the sniper's ability to
keep killing because it won't face the ultimate accountability, which
is a total embargo on all support for an apartheid stay.
Number seventh, Did Palestinians have a right to attack Israeli
(13:17):
military basis in the Gaza envelope?
Speaker 10 (13:18):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 9 (13:20):
I mean I think October seven's attack was a terrorist attack,
so I don't.
Speaker 8 (13:23):
As a terrorist attack when they the first targets that
were hit on the morning of October seventh were multiple
military bases. Did Palestinian forces have a right to attack
those military bases?
Speaker 9 (13:34):
I am not for violent violence again in any way.
I mean I am for making sure that we uh.
Speaker 10 (13:44):
And the I have a right to do it.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
Congressmen, do they have a right to attack Israeli soldiers?
Speaker 9 (13:50):
No, I'm not going to say that Hamas had a
right to attack Israeli soldiers or kill Israelis like I don't.
I don't think that advances peace or or advance is.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 8 (14:05):
Does Israel have a right to drop a single bomb
in Gaza in response to October seventh?
Speaker 9 (14:11):
I believe Israel had the right to get people who
killed the civilians, but not in the way they went
about it, which I've said is genocide.
Speaker 8 (14:22):
But the Palestinians don't have a right to attack the
very military bases that are running the killing operations on
October sixth, twenty twenty three or October fifth, twenty twenty three.
It's a double standard. You're you're afraid of violin prohamas.
That's what this is boiled down to, because I bet
if we were talking off the record privately and I
said this to you, you would acknowledge that people around
(14:42):
the world have a right to resistance by all means necessary.
I've always been for legal resistance, and you're saying that
there is no condition under which a Palestinian has a
right to kill soldiers who are posted at military bases,
enforcing by murder and force, star and deprivation an illegal
occupation of Gaza. That's what doesn't make sense to me.
(15:04):
I don't see how you reconcile those two.
Speaker 9 (15:06):
Positions, because I think that the armed resistance is only
going to be in effect.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
They've given the power to frenchials.
Speaker 9 (15:16):
Is similar to what Gandhi thought in terms of how
he took on the British Empire, and that having a
moral force of civil resistance and appealing to the world's
conscience is going to be much better chance of getting dignity.
Speaker 8 (15:31):
Twenty piece nineteen, the Palestinians organized the Great March of Return,
which was a mass, nonviolent mobilization at the gates of
the concentration camp, walls and fence in Gaza. And you
know what Israeli soldiers did. Representative Nay had a competition
to who could shoot the most knee caps of Palestinians.
People around the world have a right to resistance by
(15:52):
all means necessary.
Speaker 10 (15:53):
I think I've always.
Speaker 8 (15:54):
Been resistance, you know how peaceful resistancing the Israelis.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Against under segregation.
Speaker 9 (16:01):
I wouldn't have said that go killed people who were
engaged in segregation against you.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
I mean, I'm much more doctor Kig than Malcolm X.
Speaker 8 (16:09):
I mean, are you much more slave rebellions were justified
against people that were raping, hanging, murdering Africans who had
been kidnapped. I mean, I'm sorry. I spend most of
my day and night talking with Palestinians, working with Palestinians.
My colleague Hoss Shabatra.
Speaker 9 (16:27):
I'm met most of the Palacidias. I'm met, and maybe
a tew days if are not talking about the kind
of armed resistance that you are. They just want to
live their lives and dignity and peace and not have
the Israeli settlers oppressed them.
Speaker 8 (16:41):
But you're a member of the United States Congress who
is justifying Albeit you've been very critical of Israel's war
against Gaza. But you seem to be drawing a line
that says that there are some cases in which Israel
is justified to attack Palestinians, but only those responsible for
October seventh. But you can't find a shred of justification
for any Palestinian to attack the very armed forces operating
(17:04):
under a nation state flag that is backed by the
United States. And you're saying that there is no condition
under which a Palestinian has a right to kill soldiers
who are posted at military bases, enforcing by murder and
forced starvation and deprivation an illegal occupation of Gaza. That's
what doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how
(17:25):
you reconcile those two positions, So I.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Highly recommend actually watching the entire back and forth, which
you can find over on the page there. But essentially,
there are two different conversations going on here, and one
of them I think comes or sort of spells out
why it is that there's been so much resistance to
identifying what's happening in Gaza as a genocide. Now, some
(17:48):
of it is, of course the psychological element of the
historical connotations that it has, but I think that is
a kind of much over indexed part of it. In fact,
I think what's really driving it is that once you
acknowledge that what's happening is in fact a genocide and
ongoing genocide, which is which is somewhat abated in its
(18:10):
violence but not has not abated in as strategic direction,
you are then pushed into policy positions that, as an
American politician, you wouldn't necessarily want to take. And two
of those are resistance to genocide obviously is legitimate, and
(18:31):
any support for an entity carrying out a genocide is
obviously beyond the pale.
Speaker 7 (18:37):
And the.
Speaker 6 (18:39):
Only kind of legitimate responses to that would be actual
kind of international military intervention or sanctions. And that I
think is at the heart of why there's so much
hesitation among so many who recognize that legally what we're
talking about is a genocide, that they don't want to
go all the way and say it because it pushes
(19:01):
you into a logical.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Space where where you have to go to a place
where an American politician doesn't want to go.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
And I thought it Jeremy did a great job kind
of pinning down the essence of the question here, and
why is it okay? You know, for one side to
carry out what is it, what is you know, a
con and others acknowledges a genocide, But it is not
okay for the other side to fight back.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
And if we believe that.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
One side is carrying out a genocide, how is it
okay to give any aid and support or allow or
even to allow other.
Speaker 7 (19:39):
Countries to offer aid and support to that nation.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
So I thought that was a very helpful conversation. And
you know, credit you know, to Rocana for you know,
showing up for those types of debates. There are very
few members of Congress who are who are willing to
be pushed on issues like this, as I believe he
was here Monday. This is this after of course, you know,
gun toting paramilitary settlers held up his you know, held
(20:08):
up his delegation in the West Bank, at which point
the IDF came out and cided for a long time
kind of with those with those settlers and not letting
them pass, and then subsequently lied and said, oh, this
is some closed military zone. It wouldn't have happened to
you if you would have coordinated, which by itself, think
about that, like in order for you not to get
(20:30):
held up at gunpoint by illegal militias in the in
the West Bank, you have to coordinate all of your
travel with the US embassy. Obviously that's not a not
as sustainable practice as there are millions of people you know,
who live there and who are not members of Congress.
Speaker 7 (20:50):
And so this, this, this has.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
Led to a lot of pressure on on Democrats to
follow through on their logical commands and commitments. One of
those is Alexandrio Kazi Cortez. Julian Andreoni, my colleague over
at drop Site News, caught up with her outside the
Capitol and push her on this question of what about Okay,
you've said you don't want to subsidize American sales and
(21:14):
you wouldn't support the transfer of some weapons to Israel.
What about a broad embargo which the definition of which
is somewhat malleable, but can include we won't allow anybody
to trade weapons with TOW or to send weapons to Israel.
So let's listen to this exchange between Julian and AOC.
Speaker 11 (21:39):
Congress Would you support an arms embargo? I know that
you support stopping sending offensive and defensive military aid to Israel.
Speaker 7 (21:47):
Would you support an embargo?
Speaker 10 (21:50):
What do you I mean?
Speaker 12 (21:51):
I consider both of those things to be.
Speaker 11 (21:53):
The side stopping the sale of arms to Israel, stopping
other countries I'm selling to them.
Speaker 12 (21:58):
I don't well other actually other countries I don't know
where we have jurisdiction over. But I think in terms
of US, I do not support any transfer of weapon
sale or or you know, I think, well, here's one
thing that I will say, like the actual ways that
these things work is that is that they have to go.
(22:20):
So anything that I have a vote for, here's what
I'll say. Anything I have a vote for, I will
not I would not authorize that transfer. And I haven't
you know, I never have. I've never voted, to my knowledge,
I don't believe I've ever voted for spops. I don't.
I've never voted for the military n daa budget. So
(22:42):
in terms of my vote and what I have control over,
I always vote no on weapons transfer.
Speaker 11 (22:46):
Would you consider taking a trip like the one that
Congressman Kana took to the West Bank?
Speaker 7 (22:50):
Oh of course, of course.
Speaker 12 (22:51):
You know, I think many years ago, and yeah, who
prevented congresswomen leab in Omar from entering? And so I
had stated years ago that as long as they were
opposing entry to them, but I certainly would be open
(23:12):
to visiting and and would be happy to. You know,
I don't I've never taken an a pack funded trip,
and I don't take a I mean, I don't know
about that, but you know, I've never taken like those
kinds of funded trips. But which is probably another reason
(23:33):
why I haven't gone. But in terms of visiting, i'd
be more than I would be more than happy to.
Speaker 11 (23:37):
You think there needs to be action taken after they
detained them, especially the idea of playing a role in
taking the side of the satellites. You think there should
be sanctions anything like that.
Speaker 12 (23:43):
I think there should be sanctions, and then beyond you know,
of course what happened to Congressman Khana is unacceptable, and
also we need answers on the murders of many US
citizens the hands of settlers in the Israeli government. You know,
(24:04):
we still do not have accountability on US journalists and
other people, and so I think absolutely absolutely we need to.
We needed to have been instituting these sanctions in a
much harsher way for a very long time.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
So there was a very interesting moment there in that
exchange where Julian asks if she'd be willing to take
a similar Palestinian led trip to the West Bank, like
similar to the one that Brokanna just took. She brought
up how the Israelis had blocked Rashida Talib and Nilhanomar
from traveling there. I believe it was in twenty nineteen,
and at the time she had said, as long as
(24:39):
they were blocked from going that in solidarity, she would
also refuse to go. But she's now saying, as you
saw there, that she would be willing to go on
a Palsingian led trip to the West Bank, which I
expect now that she has made that bludge, we're going
to see that and as more members of Congress take
(25:00):
that trip and see for themselves kind of what the
apartheid light conditions are on the ground, I think you're
going to continue to see the American policy among Democrats,
you know, slide further and further in a more skeptical
and hostile direction when it comes to supporting Israel. And
I think one test of that is going to be
(25:20):
today in the House of Representatives. Thomas Massey, who's who
was ousted by Apak in a primary, is still you know,
is still serving out the rest of his term and
has put forward an amendment which would it is a
very blunt amendment that will get a vote on the
House floor, which would block all aid to Israel military
(25:41):
and otherwise. And so yesterday you had Hakeem Jefferys, a
Democratic leader, come out and say that he opposes it
because he said it's too blunt and it would affect
you know, transfers, you know, to you know, humanitarian aid
to Palestinians and such like. And either way, it's it's
not going through the Senate, so it's really just a
kind of symbolic vote to see where members of Congress are.
(26:04):
But importantly, Jeffrey said that he was voting against it,
but he understood if other Democrats.
Speaker 7 (26:11):
Voted for it.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
That's what they call a vote of conscience on Capitol Hill,
where you're not required to vote party line, I mean,
obviously not required. You report only to your constituents. But
if you break with the party on a vote where
they're whipping, it's going to then come with consequences from
the party leadership. And what Jeffreys is saying here is
that there would be no consequences for members who either
(26:35):
vote present, vote or vote yes, although he said he
personally is going to be voting no. J Street, the
Liberal Zionist Organization, put out a statement saying the same thing,
that they oppose the amendment, but they also understand that
this is an unusual opportunity for members of Congress to
go on record against military aid to Israel, and so
(26:55):
they will they will support members who vote yes on it,
and that that support ends up being helpful in uh
in you know, can be helpful in in primary campaigns.
Speaker 7 (27:07):
Now.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
At the same time, if if a if a Democratic
member of Congress votes know on this or votes present,
what they're doing is they're they're putting themselves on a
list of people who are going to be researched, to
be primaried by populist progressive organizations like Justice Democrats, DSA
and others who are trying to figure out who are
(27:29):
the ones who are with us, who are the ones
are against us, who are the ones that are that
are vulnerable? And so I think it, you know, there's
some there's some reporting that you could see a huge
number of Democrats kind of swing and end up supporting
this this massive amendment.
Speaker 7 (27:44):
Meanwhile, we can put.
Speaker 6 (27:45):
Up e three the the the nda A, which includes
the provision which would fuse elements of the Israeli and
American militaries, was blocked in the United States Senate by Democrats.
Now it was, you know, some Democrats in the Senate
spoke out about the provision that merged the Israelian American
(28:10):
militaries overall. What they were objecting to here was the
restarting of the Iran war, which by the way, is
completely illegal, Like the Congress has passed a war Powers
resolution that says the President cannot engage in war with Iran.
He's just doing it illegally anyway. And so we'll be
(28:33):
tracking the debate on the and the vote on the
House floor, and I'm sure Crystalin Sager will be covering
that yesterday tomorrow when they're here.
Speaker 7 (28:42):
Up next, we've.
Speaker 6 (28:43):
Got congressional candidate Donovan McKinney running in Detroit. So in
twenty eighteen, a man named Shri Thanadar, who had made
his fortune in some quite curious ways, which we'll talk
about in a moment, met with a group of Republican
consultants telling them that he wanted to run for governor.
(29:05):
And he had a very unusual question for them, what
party should I run in? The consultants and we wrote
about this at the intercept back of the time.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
The consultants set back.
Speaker 6 (29:16):
To him, well what party are you in? And he said, well,
isn't that you guys are the consultants, like you tell me.
They're very confused, like, well, what do you believe? And
he's like, what do you mean? What do I believe?
Like you're the political consultants. You tell me what I believe,
and then I run for governor. They eventually told him, look,
(29:37):
we've never heard of anything like this from a political
candidate before.
Speaker 7 (29:42):
I don't think this is a good fit for you
and us.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
Eventually he decided that he was a Democrat and he
was going to run for governor as a Democrat. He
was leading in the polls for some time until that
story emerged. Plus a story about some legal abuse, which
we'll get into in a moment also came out. So
in twenty twenty two he spent his considerable fortune instead
running for Congress. He was challenged at the time by
(30:09):
Apak who saw this street Thanadark coming onto the scene
and they were concerned that maybe this guy is anti Israel.
We don't really know. So they spent millions of dollars
against him. He spent millions of his own money and
he won. He afterwards, he became one of apax's biggest
allies in Congress. Now he's being challenged by State Representative
(30:33):
Donovan McKinney, who has the backing of DSA as well
as Justice Democrats, and so State Representative McKinney, thank you
for joining us. I want to run through a bunch
of this today. This is it's one of the strangest
political journeys I think I've ever seen. That's just the
tip of the iceberg. What did I miss about Congressman
(30:55):
Thanadar here?
Speaker 13 (30:57):
No, Eric, I just appreciate you and inviting us on
your show. I'm a big fan of breaking points. But
like what Shari, it's he's a conundrum of all sorts.
He's voted to think ice last year, he's increased the
Department of Ice budget multiple times, sitting on that committee
(31:20):
as as a sitting legislator, as well as he tried
to introduce legislation to abolished ice.
Speaker 10 (31:27):
Just a few months later.
Speaker 13 (31:29):
Because we're gaining steam in our campaign, and so he's
trying to do some things that are politically feasible. He's
taking money from you know, ice contractors to you know,
our utility companies, monopoly utility dte to a pac crypto.
Funny story about him, Eric, he's the first congressional member
(31:51):
in the history of Congress to invest campaign money into
crypto currency. And so you know, he's he's representing one
of the poor where's districts in the country, and we
need somebody that is going to put the people at
the district top of mind. And that's why we decided
to run and take a shot at it, so we
can bring some real representation back to Michigan's thirteenth district.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
Yeah, his connection to the Beagle testing lab was one
of the you know, among all the crazy things about
the guys, one of the craziest. Let's let's I want
to play F one is this is one of the
things you've been using to to go after and do
F one.
Speaker 10 (32:28):
Please, I'm Donovan McKinney, and I prove this message.
Speaker 8 (32:32):
We have new information now a Shree Tanadar.
Speaker 10 (32:34):
He's a Democrat playing to be Michigan's next turn.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
I'm like shreada tested drugs on dogs and less.
Speaker 10 (32:39):
Than to die.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Look, I love animals.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
The allegations involved mistreatment of dogs and monkeys used for testing.
Speaker 7 (32:45):
The dog for found abandoned without food and water.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Employees had to break into the building to save them.
Speaker 5 (32:51):
Billionaire farmer executive streets Hanadaar.
Speaker 14 (32:53):
That's one hundred peoples to die, Shriet Handar, one sick puppy.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
So this was something that did come up in the
twenty eighteen campaign. So tell us what happened with his
abandoned beagles.
Speaker 10 (33:04):
So he owned a pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 13 (33:08):
He sold half of it, and so it's actually he
made probably like double the money back because it actually
increased in value, like doubled in value. So he made
the money back and then something but the pharmaceutical company
tested drugs on dogs and animals, and pretty much when
(33:31):
he sold half of it and closed up shop at
a lot of facilities, he just left all these animals abandoned,
over one hundred beagles, some monkeys. Just terrible all around
human being for doing that. And so you know, think
about this. If he's want to abandon those dogs, just
imagine what he's doing in the Sea of Congress.
Speaker 10 (33:53):
He's abandoning the people of the thirteenth District here in Michigan.
Speaker 6 (33:57):
Yeah, and it was one of kind of one of
those pump and dump schemes where you kind of take
the company, you drive up the fake value of it,
you take your piece of it, and then you bankrupt
the thing. And then yeah, when he bankrupts it, just
walk away and whatever it's doing, yeah, exactly, just keeps unfolding.
I want people to get a sense of him himself.
(34:19):
Let's roll F two. This is when he became allies
with APAX, deeply thanking them for the help.
Speaker 10 (34:26):
Hi.
Speaker 15 (34:26):
This is Congressman Shri Canadar, proudly representing Detroit and the
Michigan's thirteenth District. Here. I am a whole week in
Israel learning about this little country that is surrounded by
terrorism and how it's important that United States and Israel
must have a strong relationship, but more importantly also that
(34:49):
I as an entrepreneur. I met many young innovators, entrepreneurs,
and I'm talking to them about collaborating with city of
Detroit and working with the rich culture of Detroit and
the innovation and entrepreneurship in Israel to make better things
(35:12):
for both countries and the people of my district and
the people of Israel.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
My sense is that Shre was hoping that the enough
APEX support, plus his own money, plus than a divided
field of opponents would be enough for him to be
able to continue to get re elected in Detroit. How
did you your political operation and the community more broadly
avoid that trap of having, you know, if you have
(35:39):
three or four credible, good candidates who are all better
than the incumbent than it are, voters are like, well,
what do I do?
Speaker 7 (35:47):
Like who do I pick to beat him?
Speaker 6 (35:49):
But now it's pretty much a one on one race, Like,
how did you get to that place?
Speaker 13 (35:54):
So we started off, so how he ended up being
congress in the first place?
Speaker 10 (35:59):
He one and a nine way primate, right exactly.
Speaker 13 (36:02):
And this is one of the only, if not the only,
majority black congressional district in the current country not represented
by a black person, And so you know, it was
nine black or eight black people in the race plus him.
So the vote got really split and he won with
I believe twenty eight percent of vote something like that,
with like just a couple of thousand votes, and so
(36:23):
a couple percentage points. And the second time around, in
the twenty four election, there was a you know, a
couple of women, Black women on the on the ballot,
but they didn't have the money and some of them
had you know a lot of baggage that he exploited
with a pac money in his own money because he's
also a self funder, he's a multi millionaire. That left
(36:48):
a lot of you know, bad tastes in a lot
of people's mouths. This time around, a bunch of folks
tried to do it. We had conversations initially, and people
either decided to drop out to support our candidacy or
got kicked off the ballot. Because it's crazy because the incumbent, Shari,
(37:10):
he's the one who challenged a lot of people's signatures and.
Speaker 10 (37:13):
Got it kicked off.
Speaker 13 (37:15):
So it's like a cash twenty two in a sense
because he literally dugged his own grave. And because of that,
we have a great opportunity of winning the seat, and
we're building the eric. We're building the biggest and baddest
coalition in the country. We have over one hundred and
fifty plus endorsements from congressional members on the federal, state, local, county,
(37:39):
and local levels, to faith leaders, to all the unions
Metro the Michigan NFL CIO. I come out the SCIU movement.
I'm a label organizer. I got uaw you name it
to all the progressive organizations on the ground, faith leaders.
We are building a big unit and a big coalition
to take him out, to take him in as much
(38:00):
because organized people can be organized money every time, and
that's what we're looking to do in less than three
weeks away from the election day August fourth.
Speaker 6 (38:10):
Tell us a little bit about yourself. I know you
grew up poor, and was it northern Detroit? Like what
was your Detroit?
Speaker 7 (38:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (38:16):
So what was your upbringing like? And like how did
you become political? Like do you remember a moment where
you realized that you're that you recognize the power of
kind of organizing and people power to do something about
the conditions facing your community.
Speaker 7 (38:32):
Was that a gradual thing? Like yeah, yeah, what brought
you here?
Speaker 9 (38:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 13 (38:36):
No, good question. And I grew up with my my mom,
my brother, and my grandmother. Removed around over thirteen times
across the city of Detroit. Spent the vast majority of
my life in Northeast Detroit, but there was times we
lived in cars, shelters, sometimes on the Street. There were
days where we didn't know where our next meal was
going to come from. But I remember with the principles
(38:58):
my grandm my grandmother raised me on, and one of
them is, no matter what happens in your life, there
will always be people worse off than you. There will
always be people better off than you. But to never
fight the erth to give, never fight the erth to give, Eric,
And I put that, I put her quote on my
first piece of literature when I ever ran for state House.
(39:19):
And I still live by that principle today and it
led me to a life of public service, to helping people,
understanding that we're no better than anyone else and vice versa.
But we all have to utilize our God given talents
and abilities to serve people. And at the end of
the day, so many folks are struggling. They need folks
to be their most authentic sales. But they need people
(39:41):
who are going to rise to the occasion and meet
the urgency of this moment. I got seniors on fixed income,
Eric that literally make you received nine hundred dollars a
month from Social Security every month. Literally, their their rent
is eight hundred dollars right their food assistance from the
federal government just got cut down to less than thirty
(40:01):
dollars a month, and they're out of pocket.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
Costs to do.
Speaker 13 (40:05):
Doctor visits and for prescription drugs at skyrocketing, and so
every few weeks they have to make a conscious decision
either I'm going to have food at the table, I'm
going to be able to eat, I'm going to be
able to pay my rent, or I'm going to have
to figure out ways to have some dollars for my
life saving medicine. These are the conditions of our district,
(40:25):
and people are going through folks who are working two
to three jobs, not even making.
Speaker 10 (40:29):
Ends meet anymore. Air And so for me, this is
deeper in politics.
Speaker 13 (40:33):
This is about adhering to the moment and the needs
of the people in the district, not sending money to
you know, for bombs and weapons to kill families and
children overseas, and not for any type of foreign influence
or special interest for running a grassrooms campaign, now taking
any corporate pack money, APAC money at all.
Speaker 10 (40:53):
We raised over a million dollars so far. Eric.
Speaker 13 (40:55):
The average donation in our campaign is thirty dollars, And
so when people are looking at this nationwide movement and
when people are looking for leaders to step up to
not only meet the moment, but to be present and
fight for them and what they're care about. That's why
we're running, and that's why a lot of people are
grabbing tours our campaign, and that's how we're going to win.
Speaker 10 (41:16):
On Tuesday, August.
Speaker 7 (41:17):
For you were endorsed by Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Early on, you were endorsed by Justice Democrats, and last
month to kind of metro Detroit, DSA and endorsed your campaign.
And I know that when it happened, there was there
was an argument internally, They're like, well, he's not been
a long time kind of DSA member, but he he
supports everything that we believe in. So you know, the
argument carried the day to say like let's let's get
(41:42):
behind him. There's also been this national pushback from the
right about DSA saying that it's a bunch of white gentrifiers,
which is kind of ironic to hear Republicans complaining that
something's white. But anyway, well we'll let them have their
fun over there. But so I'm curious when it comes
to DSA. I think DSA desperately wants to have more
(42:04):
people who grew up poor in Northeast Detroit organizing behind
Democratic socialis And so what what's your.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
Relationship been like with them, and what advice do.
Speaker 6 (42:14):
You have two DSA chapters both in Detroit and also
you know around the country, about how they can be
more resonant in neighborhoods like the ones that you grew
up in and kind of push back against some of
that that criticism that they get from being kind of
white outsiders coming in to put like a fancy democratic
(42:35):
socialism label on their politics, on their gentrifying politics.
Speaker 13 (42:39):
Now, I would say, listen, this is not about labels
in particular. This is about the issues that are impacting
the everyday life and the quality of life of our
residents and community members. And I preach about all the time,
but we have to if the Democratic Party wants to
continue to act like or at least claim that are
party of the people, then we need to act like it.
(43:01):
And we need to ensure that we deliver on the
resources as much as possible. How define politics is to
redistribution and resources? Eric, And so, if you're in these
powerful positions of influence and you're at the table deciding
these things, you need to bring back home resources when
people are struggling to make ends meet. And so you know,
(43:22):
to dsay, it's all democratic socialists talk about the issues, right,
the fact that people have to decide if they're going
to get health care on their premiums or skyrocketing more
I proming these corporations get to decide who gets health
care or not, who gets delivered or not based off
if they have a preeze it's a condition or not.
Speaker 10 (43:41):
Right, we have so many We live in a wealthiest
country in the.
Speaker 13 (43:44):
World, but we got so many people who are unhoused
right now, even our veterans.
Speaker 10 (43:50):
Is that right? No, making sure that we have opportunities
for our kids to.
Speaker 13 (43:56):
Grow up in higher education, free college, a boss ice,
stop sending money overseas for genocide like these are the
simple issues that people care about living in the world
where our kids can be able to breathe clean air
and drink clean water. That's something in my district that
is near and dear to every resident of mine. So
(44:16):
you know, this is not necessarily about you know, who's
more socialist than whoever. But these socialist ideas, these are
common sense ideas, Eric, and it makes sense when you
break it down to people and you talk to them
and you realize, damn, we all care about the same things.
For the most part, eighty percent of us pretty much
want the same thing. We might differ on how the
(44:38):
execution of it and how to get there and achieve it,
but in reality, most folks want to be able to
work one job, to not only make his meat, to
have some disposable income, maybe take your family trip once
in a while, benefits to take care of their family,
and of retiing to look forward to. That's what probably
the most. That's the American dream. But right now that
(45:00):
is being wasted. There's no longer that that thing that
people can capture and hold on to, and so we
got to fight, like hell fort and I'm a proud
DSA member, but also I need Dessa to stop over
talking people and really talk to the issues at heart
and what people care about day in and day out.
Speaker 6 (45:17):
Also wanted to get your take on the Michigan Senate race.
You've endorsed abdual outside in that race may be decided
in Detroit, and there's there's been some controversy in the
state lately because Haley Stevens with some with support from
her outside tuber PACs has been very strongly suggesting that
Barack Obama is actually supporting her campaign, which is not
(45:40):
which is not true.
Speaker 7 (45:42):
Wonderful running.
Speaker 10 (45:43):
They're running ads like crazy.
Speaker 13 (45:45):
I just right before I hopped on, I saw four
ads from I think, I think Apex Funnel Group about
how Haley is, you know, getting the support of Obama's.
Speaker 7 (45:57):
Crazy Let me show.
Speaker 6 (45:57):
Let me show one of those ads, because yes, I
think they're over fifty million dollars at this point, and
we're not August fourth, so we've got ways to go.
They might spend sixty seventy million dollars in one state
by the end of this. Let's let's roll f three.
Speaker 5 (46:11):
My husband worked at Ford for forty one years.
Speaker 14 (46:14):
My father worked for General Motors for thirty years.
Speaker 8 (46:16):
And when they came for our auto.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
Jobs, Ailey Stephens stood up.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
She was chief of status to President Obama's Auto Rescue.
Speaker 13 (46:23):
And Hailey Stephens, by the way, she was a critical
part of my team that helped.
Speaker 10 (46:27):
The American auto industry come rolling ball.
Speaker 8 (46:30):
That's say, two hundred thousand Michigan jobs.
Speaker 10 (46:33):
She helps, say jobs for my own family.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
If President Obama trust her.
Speaker 7 (46:37):
So do I. The stronger Michigan is responsible for the
content of this ad, So sorry to make you watch
that again.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
You've probably seen it a thousand times at this point,
so strongly suggesting that she's got the auto worker support too.
By the way, at the beginning of that UAW has
in fact endorsed abdul Alsie.
Speaker 7 (46:53):
Obama has not endorsed at all.
Speaker 10 (46:56):
But it.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
Seems like this these as are breaking through and that
the public is starting to believe that Obama does support Stevens.
A new pole has her up seven now against El
Saiad And I think it was a Detroit News sponsored poll.
Speaker 7 (47:11):
What on the ground, like is that accurate?
Speaker 6 (47:13):
Like are you meeting people who are like, yeah, I'm
with Stevens because Obama's behind him.
Speaker 13 (47:20):
I've met a few folks on the doors at at
different events who you know, have heard this propaganda and
have started to believe it. But I will say, Abdullah
has a great ground game, and I think and close
that gap. People kind of see through that proper game
and so to speak. But like we have to that listen,
(47:42):
we're going to get out spent, We're going to we're
going to like they're going to run more more ads.
They're going to try to run more attacks against Abdul
as well as myself because we are the progressive candidates,
the working family candidates, you know, u aw indoors, Bernie
in doors, I mean, you name it. And so we
have to come back that through people power. And so
(48:04):
we're making these phone calls, we're knocking on the doors,
We're showing up to advance where people don't normally show
up to And that's how you try to figure out
how to come back that and burst the gap and
bring people together to understand our message. But it's sad
that we got to spend so much money in our politics.
That's why me and a duel we both support in
(48:24):
New Citizens United getting all corporate money out of our politics.
I've led it at the state level here in Michigan
to taking back our Power legislation, which we couldn't get
a hearing on it in Lancing. But guess what, the
people on the ground and organizations on the ground decided
to take our legislation, create a ballot initiative collected over
six hundred thousand signatures, and we'll know in a few
(48:47):
weeks the state boarder campus is going to approve it
to put it on this year is November ballot, and Eric,
if it gets on this year's November ballot, I guarantee
it's going to pass with eighty percent of vote. You
want to know why, because Democrats were of independence alike
understand that corporate influence on our politics is just too much,
and we got a level the playing field to ensure
(49:07):
that the people's voices are heard.
Speaker 10 (49:09):
It can be rained true.
Speaker 6 (49:12):
I also wanted to get you to respond to another
controversy that's going on in Michigan in a different race
that's kind of fascinating in the way it's been been unfolding.
Speaker 7 (49:21):
And this is Will Lawrence, who's running against kind of two.
Speaker 6 (49:23):
Centrist candidates, has had some of his comments from a
podcast with Curry Peterson Smith, who describes himself kind of
as a black internationalist, twisted to say that he's like
a racist guy. I want to roll the actual comments
so that people can hear what he said and then
get your reaction to because I think it's what he's
(49:45):
actually probing at is an interesting conversations.
Speaker 7 (49:48):
So let's let's roll F four here.
Speaker 8 (49:50):
That is a contested space that we need to show
up to.
Speaker 14 (49:55):
Me how do you feel what do you think is
the trajectory as a millennial black leftist. It's not something
I can talk too much about because I'm I'm white,
and it's it's not my it's not my struggle. That
being said, like the extent to which the older generation
of black political leadership are such of a pillar, frankly
(50:18):
for establishment, capitalist, imperialist American power through their role, you know,
as this kind of traditionalist, establishmentist pillar of the Democratic Party,
it's a big problem. It's a big problem for left
politics in this country. And uh, and and it gets
(50:42):
us every single time, and it really defangs the white left,
uh puts and puts us in you know, impossible positions.
Really it's very effective politically. And so I don't know,
I'm curious. But we're also seeing, you know now that
(51:03):
unfortunately I don't want anyone to vote for Trump, but
like young black people are are are falling away from
the Democratic Party and the support is not showing up
in the same way. We'll see what happens in November.
I'm curious where you think this is headed and what
the the younger black left needs to do in order
(51:24):
to change this dynamic.
Speaker 16 (51:27):
Yeah, totally I meant just to start again with a
kind of like you know, internationalist answer of a kind
is this is this is a question that it's faced
in different places around the world, where like the centrist
parties and the kind of you know, and some center
left parties have just failed. I have failed to well
(51:52):
I shouldn't they failed.
Speaker 6 (51:53):
I'm curious for your obviously there's a lot more nuanced
than I got kind of portrayed in the headlines. But
I'm curious when what you thought when you saw the headlines,
but then also where you are on kind of Will
Lawrence and the general ideas he's talking about there.
Speaker 13 (52:08):
I've met Will and known Will for some years now,
and on the environmental justice side of things.
Speaker 10 (52:14):
He comes out the Sunrise Movement. I came out of
s c i U.
Speaker 13 (52:17):
S CiU was the first union to sign onto the
Green New Deal, and so you know our agenda lines
around the environmental justice. When I first saw the headlines,
I was I was a little taken back. I'm not
going to lie, but I actually listened to it and
I'm like, man, actually, he's not totally wrong there, right.
Like me, as a young black man, husband and father
(52:41):
of three young children ages four and younger. Like I
think about my upbringing, and I think about and I
give you three examples, Eric of what has happened that
has disappointed me and not want me to even engage
in the political process. But I have to because I
do believe that's part of changing the landscape of not
(53:03):
only the now, but the future. What happened in two
thousand and eight recession in housing, but what did the
Democratic Party do at that particular time.
Speaker 10 (53:14):
We ended up bailing out the banks instead of.
Speaker 13 (53:17):
The people that were going through the housing crisis, like
Michigan in particular, the city Detroit in my district, we
had the largest home ownership rate eighty two percent at
the time in the early two thousands, out of any
city in America.
Speaker 10 (53:31):
And now we're plumbing it now.
Speaker 13 (53:32):
We're a majority renter city right now because of the
policies back then, the Democratic establishment decided to bail out
the corporation instead of the people that needed those resources
the most.
Speaker 10 (53:44):
Another thing, what happened with the George Floyd movement.
Speaker 13 (53:48):
And the Black Lives Matter right, the George Floyd justice
and police and that we had two black men in
the US Senate trying to figure out how to hash
out a deal with that legislation, him Scott Republican out
of South Carolina, Corey Booker, a Democrat out of New Jersey,
discussing and trying to figure out how to make it happen,
(54:08):
but to no avail. They couldn't get it done, and
that locked down a lot of black people in particularly
a lot of people of color in young people, millennials
especially to be not necessarily be hopeful in the democratic
process and into politics. Another thing that let us down
and just recently happened, the voting rights sack, the overturning
(54:30):
of the voting right sack. How the Supreme Court just
got it just a few weeks ago, and in under
Democratic leadership on abiden we could have got the John
Lewis voting rights and an advancement that done, but just couldn't.
And so where are we meeting the moment in terms
of Democratic party.
Speaker 10 (54:47):
We're tired of the establishment. We're tired of the status quote.
Speaker 13 (54:50):
We're tired of people just giving us the platitudes, the
talking points just to tell us what we want to hear, Eric,
we want leaders and fighters that are going to adhere
to their urgency and the issues at hand, and that's
why people are excited about Will. That's why they're excited
about a duel. That's why they're excited about us and
our candidacy for Congress and Michigan's thirteenth district.
Speaker 6 (55:11):
Yeah, it's August fourth, all those primaries, and Kyle Blonkwist
over in somewhere else in Michigan.
Speaker 13 (55:16):
You're not Kyle, Yeah, yeah, he's in District one, So
that's northern Michigan and then the entire Upper Peninsula.
Speaker 6 (55:24):
Yeah, it's you know, it's a kind of coalition of
four candidates coming from different places but headed in the
same direction in interesting ways. So Donovan McKinney, August fourth
is the primary. Thanks so much for being here. That'll
do it for us today, as always, Breakingpoints dot Com
sign up for our new newsletter. Become a premium subscribers,
you can support what we're doing. Chryslin Sager will be
(55:46):
back here tomorrow. They'll see you then,
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.