← Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
1/15/26: FBI Raids WaPo Journos, Ford Worker Flipped Off By Trump, Gambling Economic Takeover
00:53:00
Loading summary
Transcript164 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.
- [00:04]
B
When you feel uncomfortable, what do you put on Biggie? You put on Biggie when you feel uncomfortable.
- [00:10]
C
Because I want to get confident.
- [00:11]
B
This is DJ Hester Prynne's Music is Therapy, a new podcast from me, a DJ and licensed therapist. 12 months, 12 areas of your life, money, love, career, confidence. This isn't just a podcast, it's unconventional therapy for your entire year. Listen to DJ Hester Prynne's Music is Therapy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:35]
C
Hey guys, Sagar and Krystal here.
- [00:36]
A
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
- [00:43]
C
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
- [00:49]
A
So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.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.
- [01:00]
C
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you@breakingpoints.com so a very.
- [01:06]
A
Concerning development with regard to First Amendment rights. We can put this up on the screen the FBI executed a search warrant on a reporter's home from the Washington Post. Here's what Cash Patel said this morning. The FBI and partners executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to be allegedly obtaining and reporting classified sensitive military information from a government contractor, endangering our war fighters and compromising American America's national security. The alleged leaker was arrested this week and is in custody and this is an ongoing investigation. We will have no further comment. Let's go ahead and put this C2 up on the screen. This is the Washington Post report with regard to this search warrant. So they say. The FBI executed a search warrant Wednesday morning at a Washington Post reporter's home as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials. That reporter, Hannah Natenson, was was at her home in Virginia at the time of the search. Federal agents searched her home and her devices, seizing her phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch. One of the laptops was her personal computer, the other a Post issued laptop. The Post also received a subpoena Wednesday morning seeking information related to the same government contract, according to a person familiar with the law enforcement action. The subpoena asked the Post to hand over any communications between the contractor and other employees. They go on to say it is exceptionally rare for for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters homes. Federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources or information. They also talk about the email that was sent from the executive editor, Matt Murray of the Post newsroom, who called it an extraordinary aggressive action that is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work. And I think that is the correct way to look at it. Obviously reporting classified information is not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment and is the subject of much litigation over a lot of time. We'll talk about the James Rosen case back from the Obama administration in a moment. But just to give you a little bit more detail about what the backstory is here, I can put C3 up on the screen. It looks like reporting suggests is from Kyle Cheney, who's the legal analyst over at Politico. Reporting suggests the search warrant for Post reporter Hannah Natenson's home stem from the case of Aurelia Perez Ligonis, who is currently facing charges of illegally removing and retaining classified information. So listen, no surprise that the government will go after leakers. It is very disconcerting that you would have this aggressive search of a reporter who may have reported on some of this classified information. And the Post from Kash Patel too, who doesn't say she's criminal, but is very is sort of framing her activities as a journalist as being counter to national security is also I think very unnerving and very inappropriate.
- [04:14]
C
Well beyond that, it's a terrible. This is why the Assange case became so important because he was charged under the Espionage act for leaking classified information or obtaining classified information. That's literally our job by the way. Under this standard I would be, I could be prosecuted. Ryan could be prosecuted. You could as well and or not prosecuted, but subject to a leak. Let's say if somebody who had leaked to me, I mean it's happened many times classified information. Most recently I think in my case was Venezuela with USAID stuff. These were top secret documents that were leaked to us. We published them, vetted them, asked the State Department for comment. Let's say they were prosecuting the people who leaked that to us. They could then seize my work laptop, my Apple Watch if I or my whoop data, I guess if I had one. Not sure exactly why that's relevant. And my personal cell phone, all of for to. For the prosecution of that person. Now the reason why you don't do that is because we did not commit a crime or at least currently there is no law of a crime. The person who did that, you could, you could say that they were being prosecuted for a crime. In this particular case, though the precedent has long been one and this is as we'll all show you right wingers have been freaking out about for a long time is it is a direct threat against the First Amendment, in particular about the right to a free press. And in this case, while she is not being prosecuted, the detention of her personal laptop and information is then to try to be used to potentially not just look in this case but in any leaker and or to use your information as a potential lead to other people who are leaking to you. This has a long, I mean to say that it's never happened before. Not true. I mean the Obama, Nixon, there's been many cases where this type of stuff. But in general we don't see these types of prosecutions or others not just over concern about press freedom. But you know, as we're all about to show everybody with Fox News, it often like when there's a government in power who doesn't like some sort of particular media outlet, oh, it just so happens they end up getting their phone searched or whatever. And that's what happened. Appears to have happened in this case.
- [06:27]
A
Yeah. I mean imagine just think about if this was standard operating procedure. Anytime you report classified information, which is the job of journalists and you know, the Pentagon's like rules about reporting notwithstanding, that is the job of especially national security reporters that every time you could possibly be subject to this kind of aggressive search and seizure of your work and personal property, that's insane and obviously would have a tremendously chilling effect on the type of reporting that was done because people would be fearful. I mean that's the whole point is to make people fearful that they would be subject to, to similarly invasive activities from the government. We've been referring to this James Rosenki. I don't know if you guys remember this. We put this up on the screen. This was a huge scandal and rightfully so under the Obama administration. James Rosen, this Fox News reporter and they claimed that his reporting because he encouraged a leaker to leak, that that made him criminally liable and that he was a co conspiracy conspirator under the Espionage act. And that's how they tried to justify this. Now they didn't get very far with this. There was huge blowback both from the public and from the courts. But it was deeply seen as, and again rightfully so, deeply troubling because it was an attempt to effectively criminalize standard issue reporting practices where of course, if you're a journalist, you want people to leak to you, you want to be able to shed light on things that the government wants to keep secret. And so they tried to use the fact that he was in connection with this leaker and was trying, you know, get information from them as an actually criminal activity. And it is very similar, like you said, to the Assange case, very similar theory there. Assange was prosecuted under the Trump administration. Obama had looked, the Obama administration had looked at the Assange case and said, we can't figure out how to prosecute this without criminalizing journalism. The Trump administration decided to go forward with that and make a very similar argument that actually he was a co conspirator because he had encouraged these series of leaks.
- [08:33]
C
Yeah, which is great. I mean, even in this, the Rosen case, I'd forgotten, but the line in here is they also seized phone records from more than 20 lines used by the Associated Press. Again, trying to look at the people insane going to the ap. And this is, unfortunately, this has been going back all the way to the War on terror prior to 99. Stuff like this mostly didn't happen again during the 70s. All that not gonna dispute in the 60s and 70s, but between the 70s and the 90s it was a generally well established norm. Then the War on terror happened and all of a sudden spying on journalists and or the collaboration and direct oversight of media by the government ramped up to the nth degree. I mean, there's the famous story about the warrantless spying from the NSA where Bush brings the journalists who had the story into the Oval Office from the New York Times and he says, if you guys publish this, Americans are going to die. And by the way, they shamefully actually held off on publishing the story and didn't end up doing it for, I think it was several months or something like that. Specifically because of this warning directly from the President over where they had a story where it was directly illegal, warrantless spying from that point forward. I think since 911 there has been this overwrought approach after WikiLeaks. And largely that's because the reason why so much classified information and stuff like this has been leaked now over the years is because from the war on terror and WMD and all that, from the beginning, what do we know? They are constantly lying. They are constantly not telling the truth. That is why many people in government Then leak classified information. Fine. They do so of their own accord and they know the risks and they could definitely be prosecuted. I don't think they should be, but whatever. That's the law. Right. So they could be. But going and seizing people's phone records, as you said, it's not just about chilling. It really, I think, is about operationalizing and using the law in this case to go after media outlets that they don't like. And I think why we're trying to tell the story this way is this has been normalized. Normalized, Normalized, normalized. And then what does the Trump people do? They always just take the dial and turn it up to 12. This is why it's important to speak out at that time. And of course, a lot of mainstream media didn't say anything about the James Rosen case. Some did. I'll give credit where it's due. But a lot of people were like, oh, it's Fox News. Screw them. Were pro Obama. It's like, well, this is the problem. This is how it gets normalized.
- [10:55]
A
Yeah. And I do think it's worth dwelling on to those new Pentagon press corps rules, to a mass exodus of every mainstream outlet, including Fox News.
- [11:04]
C
Not just mainstream, like my former employer, Daily Caller. Like right wing outlets.
- [11:09]
A
Yeah. They were like, we can't agree to this because it required them to say that they would not try to pursue any sort of classified information that staffers were not explicitly authorized from the top brass to discuss. So it sought to ban any sort of reporting that the government would not want to come out. So now you have just the most, like, embarrassing group of sycophants that are in there asking the dumbest possible questions, by and large. And so this is the view that they have, that it should be basically not allowed for you to report things that they don't like. And this is, I think this should be seen as sort of part and parcel of that attitude that comes directly from the President of the United States. The other thing to say about this is, you know, it's a Washington Post reporter owned by Jeff Bezos. Like Bezos have anything to say? I haven't seen anything yet. Jeff Bezos is busy. You know, he wants to cuddle up to Trump and get his goodies from this administration, be able to do whatever he wants. I don't see him coming out and standing up for his reporters, standing up for First Amendment protections. That statement. Still waiting on that one.
- [12:17]
C
Why would he do that? All he cares about is his yacht, St. Bart's life, what I'm Not I would go off if I continue a.
- [12:26]
A
Lot to psychoanalyze about these personal life nerds who become billionaires. You know.
- [12:30]
C
That's right. And testosterone replacement therapy. That too, at a much older age.
- [12:34]
A
That too.
- [12:35]
C
Some of the problems that that apparently has wrought on all of us. But yeah, broadly that. That's the issue as well, is that back in the day, you would have these media owners, they were intertwined with the state. Like, don't get me wrong.
- [12:45]
A
Yeah, like the grams or whatever.
- [12:47]
C
Directly oligarchal with having immense interests before the United States government makes it so that in this case, you're just gonna roll over and take it. Why? Cause you don't want Amazon to get targeted.
- [12:58]
D
Or you yourself.
- [12:59]
C
You know, you're living the high life on some yacht that's so big they have to take apart a bridge in Amsterdam. That's all you actually care about. So, yeah, this piddly paper, which you bought for ego purposes under Obama, now it's just become a nuisance and you just use it, you know, for your own purposes, occasionally to try and boost your overall stock price or your personal tax advantage. That's it.
- [13:20]
A
Yeah.
- [13:21]
C
What it's all about.
- [13:21]
A
Yeah. This interesting dichotomy between this story and the next one, because you have, apparently the billionaires of the world, like, terrified of stepping out of line, but we've got a worker here at Ford who was not. Who was not afraid.
- [13:36]
B
When you feel uncomfortable, what do you put on Biggie? You put on Biggie when you feel uncomfortable.
- [13:41]
C
Because I want to get confident.
- [13:42]
B
This is DJ Hester Prynne's Music Is Therapy, a new podcast from me, a DJ and licensed therapist that asks one simple question. Who do you want to be? And what's the song that can take you there? Music changes what you feel, and what you feel changes what you do. Right? That moment where a song shifts something inside you, that's where transformation starts. This year, I'm talking to experts across every area of life, like personal finance icon Gene Chatsky, New York Times journalist David Gellis, relationship legend Dan Savage, human connection teacher Mark Groves, and the man who shaped my ear more than anyone, Questlove. They'll bring the strategies. I'll pair them with the right records and will teach you how to use the music to make change stick. This isn't just a podcast. It's unconventional therapy for your entire year. Listen to DJ Hester Prince. Music is Therapy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [14:39]
A
So, okay, so I'm about to show you this video of Trump flipping off and saying, like, f you to this Ford worker. Trump went to a Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan. He's doing the whole tour with them, blah, blah, blah. And there was a Ford worker there who called him a pedophile protector. And Trump was not too happy about that. I can put this up on the screen. I don't like this is. I haven't seen quite this reaction. He's saying, f you, pointing at the guy. F you. And then there's the middle finger there right at the end given to this guy. And then put the next one up on the screen. Ford looks like they caved to pressure. The UAW worker who yelled pedophile protector at Trump today has been suspended. But he says he has absolutely no regrets. I'm going to go ahead and look up his quote because he had some sort of epic quotes in this regard, but quite an extraordinary moment there, Sager, coming from this worker. And before, Let me put D3 up on the screen. The UAW, he's a member of the United Autoworkers. This is why, folks, it's important to be in a union because they're standing up for his rights. They say the UAW is speaking up and throwing its support behind a member, Ford Motor Company employee, whom the automaker suspended after an exchange with President Trump inside a Dearborn factory. So they are going to, you know, fight for this worker. And because he's part of that union, he will have their team behind him. He will have a contract in place that says when they can and can't fire him. So if you're just an at will employee without the backing of a union, then they would let you go and not think twice about it. But they're going to have to go through a process and there'll be an investigation and he'll have people on his side to back him up.
- [16:20]
C
I didn't realize actually, that you couldn't be fired for something like this. But beyond that, the question I think, more broadly for this is here you have a UAW worker in Michigan. This is the exact demographic which the Trump people were very proud of winning over from 2016 onwards. We know that this was a problem within UAW. Even though they were very supportive of Kamala, a huge number of their ranks voted for Trump. Huge number of union households voted for Trump. This is exactly the type of demographic which you're proud of. And you can say, we're becoming a more working class party. Right? Well, the issue then becomes, if you start to have confrontations and actually you and I saw this. Do you remember when Biden went face to face with that worker? I think it was maybe even in Michigan where the guy yelled at him over the Iraq war and he told him to shut up. This was back in 2020 campaign I want to say. But it was a, it was a canary in the coal mine of like oh man, this is interesting. Like you've got people.
- [17:17]
A
The dog face, lying pony, soldier one or the look fat one.
- [17:21]
C
No, that was the fat guy. Which he was right. I'll defend Biden on. No, there was a separate confrontation but the point was that there was a union worker who was directly confronting Biden and it was interesting cuz you're like oh you know this is a traditional democratic demographic. Not really something that you were going to see in this case. You see a couple of things. Number one is just willing to like heckle which you know, I wouldn't do it in my workplace if I were an employee, but whatever. The second though is notice the Epstein story. And what do we hear consistently from the MAGA propagandists? The Epstein story is fake. It doesn't matter. What do you see right there? Like what somebody chooses to yell.
- [18:00]
A
Yeah.
- [18:01]
C
Is usually like it's got his one moment. Yeah, it's this moment. This is your moment on the stage. You probably know you're going to get fired. Okay. Cuz you're embarrassing the company. You choose like you took your one shot while the President was here and what do you say? Pedophile protector. I again point to that as evidence of how much the Epstein story matters and why I think that he got so upset because he know in fact there's all this reporting coming out now about how furious they are with Pam Bondi for humiliating them over the doj. The Epstein problem creating the Epstein files Transparency act now from Congress which passed and they ended up having to sign into law, which they're now not even in compliance of. This story will not die because they came into office, they promised to release it, they didn't release it and now the entire country thinks that they're in on a cover up. Regardless of whether they are or not, which I think we all think that they are. And so that I think proved it beyond anything how real this was. Like it was very validating because I've been saying for years, I'm like. Or for months now, I'm like, you guys just don't get it. Like what people see in the Epstein thing is that if you're willing to Lie to me about this. You will lie to me about everything.
- [19:15]
A
Well, and what it also tells you is that while maybe a lot of the press doesn't get it.
- [19:20]
C
Yes.
- [19:20]
A
Donald Trump gets it.
- [19:21]
C
Yes.
- [19:22]
A
Why? Because he understands the power of a brand more than anything. That is what he really gets. And big part of his brand was he's the outsider. He's gonna expose the corrupt elites. And so when you're seeing. And I don't even think it's like, disputable by the facts that he's a pedophile protector at this point, I mean, legally speaking. There was a law that was passed. They were supposed to release the files. They didn't do it. They were supposed to justify all of their redactions. They haven't done it. So it's just a fact what this man said. To be perfectly honest, you are a pedophile protector at this point. And Trump, clearly, it got under his skin. It got to him.
- [20:07]
C
Oh, Crystal, you haven't listened to the people who are like, well, they were teenage girls who.
- [20:11]
A
Oh, I know. Nick Fuentes, new line. Is that. Yes. It's actually a fibophilia. Is the technical.
- [20:17]
C
They were teenagers.
- [20:19]
A
You're protecting a Febophiles. How about that? So let me give you the quotes from this hero's name is TJ Sabula. And in an interview with the Washington Post, he said as far as calling him out, he had definitely no regrets whatsoever. And this is after Ford had suspended him. He said he was concerned about his job security after the incident, claiming he'd been targeted for political retribution and for embarrassing Trump in front of his friends. Correct. Quote, I don't feel as though fate looks upon you often. And when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity. And today I think I did that.
- [20:55]
C
Wow.
- [20:55]
A
Amazing.
- [20:56]
C
Sees himself as a great man of history.
- [20:57]
A
Amazing. Hey, listen, he had his moment. He took his shot, and it got under. I mean, that was the goal, right? There's now a GoFundMe that's been created for him. And let me the.
- [21:09]
D
Yeah.
- [21:10]
A
What's the latest full number? The last I saw was like $700,000, but this one now that I just pulled up says 330 and that it's been donations paused. So there might be a different one. But in any case, he has definitely. They have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for this man of grateful Americans. Grateful for his comments and wanting to, you know, wanting to make up for the fact that he may be losing his job over all of this. Although I do think There's a possibility he is able to retain his job simply because of the union protection that he has.
- [21:40]
C
Yeah, and the unions must be good because if you can do something like that and keep your job. That's wild.
- [21:44]
A
Well, that's, I mean, that's like a big part of what they do is if there is, you know, if somebody is, if there's a grievance in the workplace, then they, there's a process where they go in and they, you know, have to address that. Or if someone gets fired and it's unjust according to the contract, then they'll fight to get their job back and there'll be like a series of negotiations and arbitration on that. So that's. Yes. So there you go, people. That's why unions.
- [22:07]
C
Very impressive.
- [22:08]
A
Why unions matter.
- [22:09]
C
They're able to do that as a union like that.
- [22:11]
A
Because any other. If you, if you don't have a union and you do this, come on.
- [22:15]
C
Let'S be like, you're gonna be out, humiliated the company in front of the president. Like you caused a real problem, like at any normal workplace, you're gonna get fired. And I think he probably knew he was going to get fired. Even in that case, you're like, he.
- [22:26]
A
Understood it caused real problems, he understood the risks.
- [22:29]
C
Cuz now you got Jim Farley over there begging Trump about tariffs and he has to worry about this guy ready, yelling pedophile protector. But whatever. That's just purely from the view of the employer. I do think that the ultimate thing that this proves is how potent the Epstein story remains and how disastrous the handling of the administration has had on this. And you can see it is a real thing. Like as you said, he had one thing. He could have come up with a lot of shit. Right. He could have said something like warmonger about Venezuela. No, it wasn't that. He could have said something about inflation high prosecution. Nope. Could have said something about ice. Could have said a lot of things. He chose Epstein.
- [23:09]
A
Yeah.
- [23:10]
C
All right. And so please take that to the bank just to show you all how important the story remains.
- [23:14]
A
There's one more piece there. We've got some polling of working class voters because I think it is time to adjust a little bit of our priors on who is supporting Trump at this point. I was digging into. Put D4 up on the screen, guys. You can see what we got here. So YouGov is really useful because they do all of these different demographic breakdowns and one of the ones that they do is by income level. And so this is I know lot of numbers on the screen, but I'll break it down for you. So this is Trump's job approval and if you look all the way over there on the right, you have it by income. And his lowest ratings are with the lowest income demographics. So people who make less than 50k, which this guy is an auto worker, he probably makes more than 50k. But in any case, you know, people making under 50k, they have only a 34% approval rating. The 50 to 100k bracket has it at 46 and the 100k plus has it at 44. So I went through some of the other questions that they asked, including about his approval on the economy, his approval on inflation, his approval on taxes. In every single instance, the lowest ratings came from this class demographic. He was at 20 something percent on the economy with people who are making less than 50k and obviously a core part of his appeal and his coalition. And what Republicans have been so excited about was that they were appealing to these lower income and working class voters, totally different from the Republican Party of the past. It looks like that is where Trump has lost ground more than any other, at least income group, which I think is really important. The other place that we talked about too is with young voters where there was a lot of excitement about him making huge improvements over previous Republicans. And that is the demographic where he has fallen off maybe the hardest. But I thought that was kind of fascinating to dig into those class and income demographics. And obviously it makes perfect logical sense.
- [25:17]
C
What the political story of your in my lifetime is that coalitions are not static and that they change dramatically over very short periods of time. I mean, if you went back to the year 2000, just take a look at that electoral map and take it to today. I mean, I was literally old enough to vote under Obama in 2012. And you could see that map and then compare it just to 2016 four years later and compare that map to 2024 when Trump wins, or 2020 when Biden wins Georgia and Arizona. Right. And then four years later it flips right back over. That is literally the story of America, especially in the last 25 years, is rapidly shifting coalitions and demographics for voters, which is actually, again, I think, very inspiring because you really can't count on anybody at the time. And people are constantly, I think, especially in this day and age, very willing to shift and vote for change as they. You could make a case they've done it in every election since 2000 and that they just never really get what they want. So it's been 26 years. Probably gonna do it again here just in a year for the midterms. But I think that if you take that to the bank, maybe. Look, it's hopeful, I think, for any aspiring politician, because if you actually just do what you say you're going to do, maybe you could actually get reelected and. Or, you know, you can always find a new coalition, activate them, and bring them to the ballot box. This has been the eternal problem. This was a huge problem for Biden, who won a lot of those folks in 2020. By 2024, I think what was in the first election, people making under 100,000 voted for Trump or the significant number of those households. And a lot of that was inflation. A lot of that was culture as well. But, you know, stuff like that, people will be with you. They'll give you a short enough leash, probably six months or so before they start saying, what have you done for me lately? So that's a good thing.
- [26:59]
A
Yeah, no, that's exactly right. Democrats learned that the hard way. They thought they had their coalition. Coalition locked down forever. And it turned out, nope. People change their minds. People are like, what have you done for me lately?
- [27:11]
C
One of my favorite books on my shelf, 40 more years by James Carr.
- [27:14]
A
Oh, I read that.
- [27:15]
C
I mean, it's. It's a historical artifact. You're like, this is how arrogant they were in.
- [27:20]
A
It's amazing they still trot that guy out. Like, he's, like, he's some genius guru, you know, like, when's the last time you won an election again?
- [27:28]
C
Anyway, 96.
- [27:29]
A
He is interesting sometimes. I will give it to him.
- [27:31]
C
I have a soft spot for James. There's a.
- [27:33]
A
There's a documentary is Crotchety Ways and all that stuff. It is kind of compelling.
- [27:37]
C
I remember the name of the documentary. I think it's on HBO where they follow the Clinton campaign. I have a soft spot even. I mean, again, even in that one. The fact that he became a political genius. They won 42% of the popular vote. Okay.
- [27:48]
A
Right.
- [27:48]
C
And Ross Perot cost HW the election.
- [27:51]
A
And Bill Clinton is like a generational.
- [27:53]
C
Talent and he only won 42% of the population.
- [27:55]
A
I mean, win a majority. Same thing with the, like, Obama guys that are treated like these, like sage geniuses, etc. It's like, again, you had like a generational talent on your hands and you.
- [28:07]
C
Had a cratering economy and a more. And John McCain and Rock War.
- [28:11]
A
Bush was in power with the Clintons and all of that. That. So in any case.
- [28:16]
C
All right, sorry. Got a tr. Let's go on to gambling.
- [28:20]
B
When you feel uncomfortable, what do you put on?
- [28:23]
D
Biggie.
- [28:23]
B
You put on Biggie when you feel uncomfortable.
- [28:25]
C
Cause I want to get confident.
- [28:26]
B
This is DJ Hester Prin's Music Is Therapy, a new podcast from me, a DJ and licensed therapist that asks one simple question. Who do you want to be? And what's the song that can take you there? Music changes what you feel, and what you feel changes what you do. Right that moment where a song shifts something inside you, that's where transformation starts. This year, I'm talking to experts across every area of life, like personal finance icon Gene Chaty, New York Times journalist David Gellis, relationship legend Dan Savage, human connection teacher Mark Groves, and the man who shaped my ear more than anyone, Questlove. They'll bring the strategies. I'll pair them with the right records and will teach you how to use the music to make change stick. This isn't just a podcast. It's unconventional therapy for your entire year. Listen to DJ Hester Prynne's Music is Therapy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [29:23]
C
Okay, turning now to gambling, we've been wanting to get this story out there. Very, very important new statistic. Let's put E3 up here on the screen. Our friend Matt Stoler, who's reading through the new BLS reports, whatever data they still deign to release to the public, this one is old data. So at the very least, we're gonna trust it. And here's what he says. The second fastest growing sector in America in terms of GDP growth is now gambling between 2019 and 2024. I want everyone to sit with that. That means that outside of software, AKA AI data center, GDP growth, that the second largest growing thing in our economy is now gambling. Gambling companies have now overtaken motion picture revenue in terms of the amount that people are spending. It is by far the largest entertainment product now here in the United States. Emerged literally from a Supreme Court decision. Zero oversight, rife with problems, massive addiction, I mean, beyond corrupt. We're about to talk with Pablo Torre in which we're gonna break down this new scandal about point shaving game ringing. Who in America. What kind of degenerate are you? If you're betting on Chinese basketball games, okay, you have a problem. And yet it is completely normalized. Tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions are now moving through these companies conferences. Very little regulation. Cheating is openly, apparently allowed. You have their ability to ban winners literally. Imagine that it's a product where you get to ban liners and milk the losers. People are going driven to absolute bankruptcy. And it is now, I think a great symbol of the problems of our time. And it's. It is now. And I warned about this is. It's like you think you can just restrict it to sports. It is bleeding into every sector, not just of our economy, but of our entertainment. It already politics. Remember Poly Market? The odds all became huge. Now we have a more recent one here of the golden globes. Let's put E1 up here on the screen if you have. I didn't watch. Sorry. But as you can all see here, they're literally on the screen live. Poly Market odds for every single one which was actually featured on the Golden Globes broadcast. Then you had the Polymarket CEO, let's put the next one please, up on the screen to show you that he actually tweeted out about how Polymarket ended up calling 26 out of the 28 winners. Right. I mean this is, the issue is that this is rife for insider trading. And it's so obvious that these are all like generally lower stakes. Cause because you and I would be like, ah, whatever, you know, somebody who hap. I mean, look, these are not. There's no SEC regulation on the Golden Globes or on the Oscars. Like these are just private organizations. But being able to bet upon them then with no oversight or any of that makes it easily manipulatable, easily leakable. You know, for many of these types of cases, it's such that you are watching it all be normalized. By the way, my personal favorite that I just saw yesterday, somebody was booking a hotel and in the hotel they were being sold Insurance where pay $26. If it rains three days, you get $500 back.
- [32:37]
A
Oh my God.
- [32:37]
C
So you're basically gambling on whether it's gonna rain, Right? And then rain is defined as 0.04 inches for more than a two hour period and not at 2am or something like that. This is insanity.
- [32:48]
A
Now they're gonna start rigging it with clouds.
- [32:51]
C
No, literally, it's like, this is crazy. And you had the CEO of one of these. I think it was Kalshee. No, sorry, it was Robinhood who said instead of insurance, people are using prediction markets.
- [33:03]
D
Right?
- [33:03]
C
So, oh, don't buy insurance. Don't buy insurance. Buy our futures or all of that. It's commoditizing everything in public life.
- [33:12]
A
It just cheapens literally everything.
- [33:14]
C
It cheapens life.
- [33:14]
A
Like, you know, okay, the Golden Globes, are they the Biggest, most important thing in the world. No, but now you just have in the back of your head, oh, they just like, rigged it to, to get a payoff. All of these sports games. You're watching these games, and I watch them differently now. When a bunch of calls start going one way, I'm like, oh, somebody's on the top.
- [33:32]
C
You should be right?
- [33:33]
A
I mean, you just can't help but think that in the back of your head that, like, okay, well, where's the money being made off of what I'm seeing? None of this feels real anymore. And that's the point from Stoller, I think, is a really important one. Our whole economy is basically data centers and gambling. That's what our economy is. Which are both deeply, like predatory and exploitative.
- [33:55]
C
And actually they work together because the algorithms and the AI, what, you think that they're not using that to addict you? Of course.
- [34:01]
A
Of course they are. Absolutely. That is the case. And so they're just, you know, financially sucking you dry, sucking all of the, like, natural resources out of the ground, jacking up your electric bills, all of that. I mean, it's just the most sort of like, exploitative, predatory economy that you could possibly imagine. And yeah, it feeds deep cynicism about everything from politics to sports to entertainment, every. To the weather, apparently. I mean, literally every aspect of your life. And it's just become so embraced and normalized. You know, just to give an example, from politics, you can put E4 up on the screen. So there was this White House press briefing. This was right after the whole Venezuela kidnapping situation. And you had bets that were placed about how long this press conference would go. And Daniel Scott tweeted this out, and he said today's White House press briefing had a 98% chance of lasting plus 65 minutes until Caroline Levitt abruptly ended it with just a few seconds to spare. So the betters on the no side on Polymarket multiplied their money by 50 times in less than than 30 seconds. So she abruptly wraps it up right before that 65 minute cutoff. Now, was this intentional? Did she know? I don't know, but you have to ask the question, especially the way this comes in right under the wire and how she ends it so abruptly. You got to think in your head, you know, was this intentional?
- [35:29]
C
To be honest, I don't think. I think so, but I don't want to think about it.
- [35:32]
A
That's exactly right. The fact that you even. That it even has the appearance of that, yes. Is disgusting. Disgusting, yes.
- [35:39]
C
And then finally, to your Point. And by the way, this is 10 times worse. Can we put E6 up here on the screen? Polymarket is currently taking immense amounts of bet, and I mean serious volume in their markets on whether we're going to strike Iran. Right? They have days, various days, that you can bet on, on whether we're gonna strike Iran, which are easily manipulatable. But their Twitter feed is also rife with literal bullshit like this Iranian regime security forces have lost nearly all control of Iran's Tehran, Mashad and Sharad. Not true. Literally not true. Okay, but what is the intention crystal of that tweet? It's to get people to bet on regime change.
- [36:17]
A
That's right.
- [36:18]
C
That's why it's sick. Now, remember with the whole Venezuela thing, right?
- [36:21]
A
And then you have people who are in a position to influence the President in one direction or the other. Are they placing bets and then giving the President information that literally impacts war and peace? I mean, that's where we are. Like, that's reality, right?
- [36:36]
C
And this is why it's so rife for. So like, for example, we're journal. I've been trying to work the phones, trying to get some more info. Let's say I got some info on a specific timeline, right? As a journalist, and I bought no and I could get a huge payout that I didn't think we were gonna get an attack on Iran. Is that technically illegal? Probably not, but it's wrong because that's not what you should be doing. That's why even allowing bets like this, it's crazy. I mean, imagine then. And then if I, oh, it's not just me. I give out a taste to my friends, and then everybody starts taking the no side and then it starts to leak out, and then it becomes a national security problem. The Venezuela thing, it's so. It is clear as day. Somebody inside of the US military, probably a logistics guy, maybe the guy fueling the helicopter or something. He's like, hey, I'm making 75k a year, okay? I can triple my salary right now with a single bet. Just Yesterday, somebody put 160k bet on whether we were gonna attack Iran or not. Who knows? Who is this guy? Literally, there's no insight. There's no information. We are commoditizing our entire life and it will bleed. As I showed you with the hotel thing, that's soon. Can you imagine? You got buy now, pay later. You've got the gambling thing now. Insurance, they're gonna start coming in. Robinhood offers sports betting. Kalsheet 91% of the contracts on Kalshit are all sports. 40% of Poly Market is all sports. It's effectively legalized sports gambling nationwide. And once you legalize sports gambling, not just legalize, but normalize, then why wouldn't you gamble on everything? There's a, you know, this famous stories. I remember Rogan talking about this once. He was with a bunch of gambling addicts. They would go to a window while it was raining and they would bet on which raindrop was gonna hit the was gonna hit first. You can see this with Jordan. He used to, you know, he used to like gamble and Michael Jordan used to bet with the guys over like throwing quarters, like rolling them. Once you get that sickness in your mind, you will bet on everything. And that's what we're doing. We're normalizing it across the nation. And yeah, I mean, look, it's not to your benefit. You will lose. That's literally the way that the rules are, are written. And I just, I think it's, I genuinely think it is our biggest sickness.
- [38:37]
A
Yeah.
- [38:37]
C
Like right now and people are going broke. It's bad.
- [38:40]
A
Yeah. No, I mean, nothing will ruin your life faster than high suicide rate. Yeah. The financial losses that you sustain there. And I mean, it's a perfect pivot to talking to Pablo Torre because we just had this News break about 20 people who are indicted over game fixing, point shaving scandals. So let's go ahead and bring him in and we can get his insta reaction to what we know so far.
- [39:02]
C
Very excited now to be joined by Pablo Torre. He is the host of Pablo Torre Finds out and a great investigative journalist friend of the show. Good to see you, man. Thanks for joining us.
- [39:10]
D
Thanks. Thanks for having me back, guys. There's a lot going on right now.
- [39:13]
C
Yeah, there's so much. We originally we were gonna talk about NFL ethics and reporting. And then of course, while we have you literally moments before, we have breaking news that we'll put up here on the screen. Some 20 people have now been charged in a sweeping college basketball fixing scandal also though, involving Chinese Basketball association games in China. We have multiple names involved here. Pablo, I know you have been at the forefront of a lot of this gambling investigation here with the NBA former players now involving college basketball point shavings schemes. China. Just give us your general reaction to the story.
- [39:47]
D
Yeah, I've been waiting for this. The federal government, the Eastern District of New York, their scope has not merely been professional basketball, the NBA, it's also been, of course, college games. And in college games and in the Chinese Basketball association saga. I think there's a key important element here, which is that the incentive structure for what is to be gained if you are to participate in an alleged scheme to, you know, orchestrate the outcomes of micro events or the games themselves. Micro events inside of games or the games themselves, they're just greater. Right. As a cost benefit analysis is concerned compared to NBA players making millions of dollars. So these are always it's right to consider them the softer targets, the more logical targets, getting players to cooperate allegedly in such schemes. And so look, without saying too much, because I am processing all of this as I'm talking to you guys, just know that some of these names are familiar names from the federal indictments. You're looking at guys like Shane Hannan, who, by the way, was the subject of the last episode that I did that you guys had me on to talk about. Marvis Fairley is another name I'm just reading off of the list of names provided here, according to this indictment that was unsealed in Philadelphia. And there are some characters, including in the Chinese Basketball association, including former LSU player Antonio Blakeney, where if you were to just look at what and again, this is lame of me to do this because I didn't break this story, but if I were to show you the amount of group chatting I was doing about Antonio Blakeney last night, all of this would seem very much of a piece with the larger story that I've been talking to you guys about for months now.
- [41:26]
A
Give us a little bit of insight there. I mean, with Blake, again, we just got this. You haven't had a chance to read through what has been unsealed in this indictment, what is being alleged, but what are the sorts of things that people were sort of like chattering about with regard to these guys?
- [41:41]
D
Yeah. So it's a social network. It's a question of, I mean, look, there's not a. It is sophisticated in one sense, but also very definitionally, a bunch of guys group chatting to my earlier description of myself, on the other hand. And so the question that the federal government has been asking, that I have been trying to follow through, frankly, a lot of public records and otherwise social media profiles falling down the rabbit hole on NBA Twitter, on Instagram and all this stuff is who knows who there are a bunch of guys in the NBA indictment, a bunch of characters listed as defendants. And the question is, who in college basketball and beyond knows those guys? And so Antonio Blakeney has been circled with highlighter for me because he is in the social network among Some of these characters, and again, my reporting is absolutely still ongoing. But the fact that his name has now been mentioned as, again, a former college All American player from LSU who went to the Chinese Basketball association, who has been, for those who are paying any amount of attention to the cba, has been a character over there because of alleged rigged games. It's not exactly rocket science. But what it does require is something that I think hardcore basketball degenerates and now the federal government both have been doing, which is trying to figure out, wait a minute, is that the guy from that thing? And it turns out that in this case, allegedly Antonio Blakeney is the guy from that thing. Got.
- [43:06]
C
Pablo, the reason why we originally wanted to have you on was about this discussion of sports journalism. It struck me, you know, we talk here about journalism scandals every day, but these are political. Ultimately, that's not what most people are paying attention to. And the one I think that probably broke open into the zeitgeist more than anything is this most recent one regarding the NFL and the Jacksonville Jaguars, where a local reporter, I guess, if you will, made a very praiseworthy comment to a head coach, which ignited a scandal over sports journalism. So for those of you who haven't seen the clip in question, let's play it, and we're gonna get your reaction.
- [43:39]
B
Wanna tell you congratulations on your success, young man.
- [43:42]
D
Thank you.
- [43:42]
B
You hold your head up, all right? You guys have had a most magnificent season.
- [43:45]
E
Thank you.
- [43:46]
B
You did a great job out there today. So you just hold your head up, okay? And ladies and gentlemen, Duvall, you the one. All right, you keep it going. We got another season. Okay?
- [43:54]
D
I appreciate it.
- [43:55]
B
Take care. And much continued success to you and the entire team.
- [43:58]
D
Thank you, ma'.
- [43:58]
C
Am. So, Pablo, that clip by, again, somebody credentialed press corps went viral. It was tweeted out by the NFL, by Adam Schefter, many other journalists. He had a very sweet moment. Some other sports journalists said, hey, you're not really supposed to do this in a press conference. This ignited a huge scandal. And so I was curious whether that is generally reflective of a problem in sports media and in our culture writ large, where something like this is to be celebrated in a venue where you're supposed to be asking. Asking a question.
- [44:24]
D
Yeah, I mean, this is a story about vocabulary. What does it mean to be a reporter? And we're really bad at defining what that is and how that might be different from journalists and how that might be different from person doing interviews. Is every podcaster a journalist? Because they ask questions Is every person at a press conference a journalist, a reporter? Because they have a microphone in front of them. And I know that this is a story about the word reporter because the way that this broke open. Sagar, to your point, was Adam Schefter. I'll just quote what his tweet said because nobody was paying attention to a 22nd non question from Lyn Jones, who is a longtime, longtime employee of a black newspaper in Jacksonville. They were responding to what Adam Schefter said. Quote, this is an awesome post game exchange between a reporter and Jaguars HC Liam Cohen. And so everybody was responding. If I may be so bold as to speak for people who work in sports journalism, as I think journalism is technically defined, they're referring to what it means to celebrate this as an example of reporting as a reporter asking a question or saying anything at a presser. And it's interesting, right? Like I am old enough to remember that Bill Simmons is a Red Sox fan. I'm old enough to remember that everybody who works in sports grew up probably rooting for a team. The question is, when you do one of these specific jobs of showing up at a press conference to ask questions, are you serving something resembling truth and fact finding or the public interest, or are you there because you are a fan? And, and for Lynne Jones, by the way, who's been truly, and I get it, unapologetic about this because her view is, I'm from Jacksonville. This is my community, I serve my community. I want to say something nice to this guy. And in that way I understand it. The problem is, does that become what people think of when they use the word reporter?
- [46:34]
C
Yes.
- [46:35]
D
And guys, all reporters have, all journalists have is vocabulary, unfortunately. You know, all we can do, and let me explain what I mean by that, all we can do is express we are holding ourselves up to a higher degree of difficulty, a higher standard in which we will torture ourselves trying to get this story right because our boss, in the end is the public interest. And what that involves is a, an amount of work that goes unseen and unappreciated. And no one wants to hear, especially sports reporters complain about how annoying their job can be. But that's the reality of what it is. And then the second thing is, it involves debating people about who gets to call themselves this thing. Because all you get in return, right? All you get in return for the higher degree of difficulty and the work that goes unseen is the ability to call yourself a journalist. And so it is this thing that of course blew up, of course exploded, and of Course, by the way, Lynn Jones, who has such a great. By the way, just like in terms of her vibes, like the only thing that would have been worse for sports media, the press corps writ large, would have been for this person to have been like a kid reporter, like a make a wish child. It's just like the worst possible stand in for a problem. But the problem is vocabulary.
- [47:59]
A
Yeah, I think that's really PABA. Let me get you to respond to Pat McAfee who says that love seeing these sports journalists getting absolutely buried for being curmudgeon bums and goes on to say that people like you just actually low key hate sports. Let's go ahead and take a listen a bit of what he had to say.
- [48:16]
E
Why is this show having this? And I think it's because most of the people that have been covering sports for a long time, not most, sorry, a percentage larger than you would hope, much larger than you would hope, that chose to do sports journals. I think they don't like sports. I think these people hate sports. I think they're political journalists by nature who preyed on sports as an easier path to be able to get into the bizarre. You know, sports journalism is everywhere. Sports media, bum, bum, bum. I don't think they like sports. I think they cover sports. I don't think they like sports.
- [48:45]
C
Hmm.
- [48:46]
A
Your response, sir?
- [48:47]
D
Yeah. I want to be very clear about this. Nothing is quite like sports when it comes to having to deal with fandom as well as real serious issues, like the billions of dollars coursing through it, like the political favors granted by an administration, like race relations, like protest, like free speech, like what it means even to be a civic institution that benefits from public money, right? So a fascinating thing, right? Like movies are kind of like that. You got people who are like, you know, man, that guy's a dick. Because he keeps on criticizing these movies. He doesn't really love movies. But in this case, you also have this larger institution that happens to be the last monoculture left in America, American life.
- [49:32]
C
Yes.
- [49:32]
D
And so what I would express to anybody who doubts whether a sports journalist loves sports is gatekeeping. Fandom is, I would say it's not only childish, it's a contradiction. And I say it this way. If you're a sports journalist, two things can exist. You can absolutely love the games, have grown up loving the games, be able to give you chapter and verse naming a bunch of guys, a bunch of players, be obsessed with the games that are being gatekept. Apparently, once you express an interest in telling the Truth about something. But on the other hand, you can also, because again, I don't want to be the guy who inadvertently quotes the James Baldwin thing about America. Right. But like, like I love it so much that I must criticize it, you know, and so the fact that critique and hard questions and all of that are mutually exclusive with loving something is one of the most logical fallacies.
- [50:41]
A
Yeah.
- [50:41]
D
One of the most illogical things that can be expressed when it comes to just how you exercise your free speech.
- [50:46]
C
Very smart.
- [50:47]
D
And also the last point on this, I suppose, is journalism has a problem insofar as it comes off being the school marm. Like we're holding a ruler, rapping everybody on the knuckles. Who wants to have fun and just watch the games, bro? And the whole premise of what I love doing in sports specifically is to remind people that silly and serious, highbrow and low brow, smart and stupid can all coexist. Telling a story that is premised on truth does not need to be and exercise in scolding. Oftentimes it's really fun to find out what people, especially extraordinarily rich and powerful people who would love more Pat McAfee saying more of exactly what he just said. Right. It's really fun to find out what they don't want you to know. And in sports because they know of this fandom and how fervent it is and how your love of something can be confused for anything resembling, gosh, an allegiance to truth, which is not. It's just not the same thing. Let's just stop confusing it. You love the team. You don't care about what the team is really trying to do. You just love it. Right.
- [51:59]
C
Like illegally funnel money to a player potentially. Or.
- [52:03]
D
And to that point, when I report on the Clipper stuff, right. In sports, because it is the toy department, I want to be honest about that too. Right. Like sports reporters should acknowledge, and I do all the time, that it has the ability to touch all these other serious things, the adult sections of the newspaper. But it is still sports. And I, and I love it for that reason. But in sports, you get to have your cake and eat it too. You get the billions of dollars, often in public money, and you escape the scrutiny that attends it because it's just the games, man. Sports are meant to be fun. And so, for instance, in sports, Zagar, you're just referring to this Clippers thing. The NBA investigation is happening right now. And it's the example of sports gets to investigate itself. They get to decide, are we the bad guys?
- [52:48]
A
Right?
- [52:48]
D
Who's the turd in the punch bowl? And so it's left a lane, frankly, for me to come in and be the guy who tries to, you know, make people realize it can be fun to know the truth, but it's a lot easier and a lot more financially incentivized to just say, can we just have fun? As if there's a choice, as if there's a dichotomy between fun and truth.
- [53:13]
A
Well, and Also, I mean, McAfee says this thing like, oh, they're political journalists by nature who preyed on sports as an easier path to get into the biz. I mean, I know some people like to imagine that sports can be totally divorced from politics, but it just can't be. I mean, as you just said, like, a lot of these leagues are sponsored by public money. They get, you know, they are deeply political institutions.
- [53:34]
C
Half the owners are ambassadors.
- [53:36]
A
Yeah. I mean, and frankly, like, every facet of public is deeply political in some way, but you're dealing with very wealthy people who have a lot of power, who are benefiting from a lot of public money. Of course it's political. Like, obviously it's political. And to pretend otherwise is just, frankly, dishonest. Yeah.
- [53:53]
D
I mean, look, we exist in the real world. Like, the whole notion of a toy department is that it is, like, off to the side and it is cloistered and not having to deal with the real world issues. And then, by the way, you get into these stories that break through that everybody has to talk about, and a lot of people are all of a sudden out of depth because the thing they were pretending, which is that we don't exist in the real world, they have to engage with.
- [54:17]
A
Right.
- [54:17]
D
And when that happens, a lot of people who just say, I just want to talk about games, bro. They show their ass. And it's okay. By the way, if you want to be a person who doesn't do journalism, I want to be very clear about that. It's better for my business on some level. It is totally understandable. Maybe you just want to be. Be a movie critic. Maybe you just want to be a fan. And all I ask in that way is disclosure. Right? Just, like, be open and honest about what you're here to do. And don't try to pretend that because you've chosen that thing that the people over here who are imposing a view of difficulty on themselves, that is harder, are the people who are your enemy. It's not that way. It's just. Yeah, it's farcical, to put it in those terms. It's like a child's understanding of what the media is.
- [55:11]
C
Totally. Pablo, thank you so much for joining us, man. You're so elegant. We really, really hope everybody goes and supports your channel, subscribes and supports all of your work that you're doing. And we value you more at any time than right now. So thank you very much.
- [55:24]
A
Thanks, Pablo. Great to see you.
- [55:25]
D
I gotta read this indictment. I'll come back and talk anytime.
- [55:28]
C
See you.
- [55:29]
A
Brother would love that. Thank you. Thanks, Pavel.
- [55:31]
C
Thanks. Thanks, man. Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it. We will see you all later.
- [55:37]
B
When you feel uncomfortable, what do you put on?
- [55:40]
C
Biggie?
- [55:41]
B
You put on Biggie when you feel uncomfortable.
- [55:42]
C
Because I want to get confident.
- [55:43]
B
This is DJ Hester Prynne's Music is Therapy, a new podcast from me, a DJ and licensed therapist. 12 months, 12 areas of your life, money, love, career, confidence. This isn't just a podcast. It's unconventional therapy for your entire year. Listen to DJ Hester Prynne's Music is Therapy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [56:07]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.