Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have great show everyone today. What do we have personal?
Speaker 4: Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: Let's to get to you this morning. So our own
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense is warning Israel of a quote strategic
Speaker 1: defeat in pretty blockbuster comments. We'll bring you that as
Speaker 1: well as updates out of the Gaza Strip. Rohnda Santis's
Speaker 1: campaign seems to be in total chaos. This comes as
Speaker 1: some key donor endorsements of Nikki Haley, which is sort
Speaker 1: of crucial on that side of the race. I guess
Speaker 1: we'll break that down for you. We have also Dems
Speaker 1: in Florida acting like complete authoritarians, blocking Joe Biden's primary
Speaker 1: opponents from the ballot unilaterally. They are all speaking out
Speaker 1: so we'll bringing those details as well. George Santos expelled,
Speaker 1: gone but not forgotten, you might say, heart a movie
Speaker 1: is gonna come out about him as well, and he
Speaker 1: is threatening to spill the tea on all his colleagues.
Speaker 1: So a lot that's interesting to get into there. We
Speaker 1: also have Mehdi Hassan his show at MSNBC being canceled
Speaker 1: and a lot of debate over what exactly is going
Speaker 1: on there. I'm taking a look at a blockbuster report
Speaker 1: on exactly how Israel is waging this war differently, by
Speaker 1: the way, than the way they have approached things in
Speaker 1: the past. Will break that down for you. We also
Speaker 1: have Scott Horton from the Libertarian Institute talking about the
Speaker 1: Netanyahu doctrine. But before we get into any of that,
Speaker 1: we got a little bit of a discount for all
Speaker 1: of you folks.
Speaker 2: Yes, we got the holiday discount. We decided to extend it.
Speaker 2: I know that it's very helpful to all of those
Speaker 2: who want to be able to give the gift of
Speaker 2: Breaking Points. And also if you're on the fence, you
Speaker 2: want to go ahead and sign up, so breakingpoints dot
Speaker 2: com you can become a premium subscriber. We're discounting our
Speaker 2: yearly membership, which is what helps us most. Especially it's
Speaker 2: you know, December twenty twenty three, which means the one
Speaker 2: year that you're helping us out is going to help
Speaker 2: pay for all of our election coverage going into what
Speaker 2: is sure to be a completely insane and fun maybe
Speaker 2: wild ride. So anyway, it'll be a wild ride, let's
Speaker 2: put it that way.
Speaker 5: Fun.
Speaker 4: We can promise fun the road to know it will
Speaker 4: be wild.
Speaker 2: As as we've once famously called it here. So if
Speaker 2: you can help us out, we deeply appreciate it.
Speaker 3: And then a hard turn. What's going on in God?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's go ahead and give you the very
Speaker 1: latest coming out of the Gaza Strip. Put these images
Speaker 1: up on the screen, so as we brought to you
Speaker 1: this weekend, the temporary truth is over, the ceasefire has ended,
Speaker 1: and Israel is back to a massive bombing campaign. What
Speaker 1: you are looking at here is six residential towers in
Speaker 1: the southern Gaza Strip in Conunics that were all taken
Speaker 1: down by a massive bombing campaign. There you can see,
Speaker 1: you know, bodies being pulled from the rubble, children being
Speaker 1: pulled from the rubble. The horror on the look of
Speaker 1: horror on children's faces here as they look at the destruction.
Speaker 1: This particular video is a twelve year old little girl
Speaker 1: named Alma who is trapped under rubble as well along
Speaker 1: with her parents, her grandparents, and her siblings, and she
Speaker 1: is asking her rescuers to rescue them first, to help
Speaker 1: them first. The very latest numbers that I saw is
Speaker 1: that in the renewed bombing campaign, seven hundred Palestinians were
Speaker 1: killed in a matter of twenty four hours. So this
Speaker 1: is back and it is, you know, an all out
Speaker 1: assault as it was before, only the difference is now
Speaker 1: and we can put this up on the screen. So
Speaker 1: as you recall, in the early days of the war,
Speaker 1: the IDF told everyone to move south, you know, test
Speaker 1: telling them this was the place to go if you
Speaker 1: wanted to be safe. Well, they have now divided the
Speaker 1: entire Gaza Strip into thousands of these little compartmented neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: And for those who are just listening, what we have
Speaker 1: up on the screen is this map that's been provided
Speaker 1: with all of these little tiny areas that have been designated,
Speaker 1: and they're effectively sending out messages of hey, if you're
Speaker 1: an area eighty eight moved to Area eighty nine, moved
Speaker 1: to Area two seventy, and it's caused mass chaos and confusion.
Speaker 1: This also comes, of course, after they have effectively destroyed
Speaker 1: all of the northern Gaza Strip. I mean, Gaza City
Speaker 1: is completely uninhabitable. The majority of buildings there have been
Speaker 1: damaged or destroyed. The majority of any sort of civilian infrastructure,
Speaker 1: including hospital's, apartment buildings, et cetera, damaged or destroyed. Now
Speaker 1: they are expanding into the entirety of the Gaza strips.
Speaker 1: So listen, the south was never safe. They never completely
Speaker 1: avoided bombing the southern part of the strip. They're massively
Speaker 1: ramping up that campaign as they claim that hamas leadership
Speaker 1: is predominantly in communist right now, one of the southern
Speaker 1: cities where people fled to when they were told this
Speaker 1: was the place to go for us.
Speaker 2: What's happened over the last couple of days as both
Speaker 2: sides are claiming that each other violated the ceasefire, if
Speaker 2: not entirely clear whatever what the actual facts on the
Speaker 2: round are with that situation, but strategically things are expanding
Speaker 2: pretty significantly. So Marshall Cooslov actually was at the Reagan
Speaker 2: Defense form. He flagged this for me. He was like,
Speaker 2: this is definitely be good. Good for the show. Watched
Speaker 2: witness this live. The Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin with
Speaker 2: honestly some extraordinary comments about the Israel campaign inside of Palestine,
Speaker 2: warning it is going to lead to a quote strategic defeat.
Speaker 2: Here's what he had to.
Speaker 6: Say, that's kind of a fight. The center of gravity
Speaker 6: is the civilian population, and if you drive them into
Speaker 6: the arms of the enemy, you replace a technical victory
Speaker 6: with a strategic defeat. So I have repeatedly made clear
Speaker 6: to Israel's leaders that protecting Palestine and in civilians and
Speaker 6: ganza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.
Speaker 2: So to translate that from military speaks strategy, the center
Speaker 2: of gravity, it's like a class of its term that
Speaker 2: a lot of people use in the military. The point
Speaker 2: is is just you want to focus in on what
Speaker 2: are you actually trying to achieve whenever you're waging military campaign.
Speaker 2: So the reason that he says here the center of
Speaker 2: gravity is a civilian population is because quote, if you
Speaker 2: drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replicate
Speaker 2: a tactical victory with a strategic defeat. This is almost
Speaker 2: exactly tracks with the US campaign in Iraq. We had Shakanah,
Speaker 2: We defeated Saddam's military. It only took three and a
Speaker 2: half weeks. Admit, Bush flies on the aircraft care and
Speaker 2: it's mission accomplished. Oh wait, we have a massive insurgent war.
Speaker 2: The majority of our troops end up dying during the
Speaker 2: set insurgency and during the civil war. We have a
Speaker 2: twenty year occupation and costs two year trillion dollars. We
Speaker 2: have ISIS and all the attendant problems, and basically with
Speaker 2: Lloyd Austin, who forged his entire career in SynCAM and
Speaker 2: more and was deeply involved in most of these campaigns
Speaker 2: as well as the US campaign against ISIS is basically
Speaker 2: watching the exact same thing replicate itself in Gaza. And
Speaker 2: so that's really I mean, I think his analysis is correct.
Speaker 2: I basically a co sign most of what he's saying.
Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with going after Hamas. I
Speaker 2: just think that the way they're doing it and also
Speaker 2: bears out especially you're gonna be talking about in your
Speaker 2: monologue and the way, the actual tactical way that this
Speaker 2: is being done. We pair it with the strategic overall
Speaker 2: goal ritting the Gaza strip of Hamas. Even in the
Speaker 2: near term it seems like a nearly impossible task, especially
Speaker 2: with the way they're doing it, and the long.
Speaker 3: Term is going to be very, very difficult.
Speaker 2: We're probably gonna be covering that all throughout the week
Speaker 2: about Hamas' support and no inside of Gaza, but inside
Speaker 2: of the West Bank, with the day one after the.
Speaker 3: Campaign and all that is going to look like.
Speaker 2: But if you pair it with some of the broader problems,
Speaker 2: not only the way the Israel is conducting itself, the
Speaker 2: big fear that I think I've always had and tried
Speaker 2: to hold here is that the rest of the region
Speaker 2: is not going to stay silent as this all continues.
Speaker 2: And that's what happened yesterday. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. Commercial ships, including a US warship, were
Speaker 2: attacked by whofy drone in the Red Sea. Now, many
Speaker 2: of these commercial shipping vessels were not Israeli flagged, they
Speaker 2: were US or UK flagged. The US missile destroyer that
Speaker 2: was actually in the area ended up shooting down three
Speaker 2: of the drones. But this comes crystal after there was
Speaker 2: already that hoothy hijacking is that is really anchor. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is one of the most vulnerable places in all
Speaker 2: of global shipping. Why we have so many US naval
Speaker 2: assets in the region, and these are in the immediate term,
Speaker 2: they're drones. But don't forget you know, this same guided
Speaker 2: missile destroyer has shot down what they say are missiles
Speaker 2: that are being shot from Yemen all the way towards Israel. Now,
Speaker 2: no way to confirm whether or not it's that's true.
Speaker 2: But what we can't confirm is that they have kinetically
Speaker 2: engaged some of these hoothy assets. So just one of
Speaker 2: these things goes the wrong way, a US sailor gets
Speaker 2: killed on the high seas, it's.
Speaker 3: We're living in a different world, that's a different game.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So to start with that piece, I was reading
Speaker 1: from some shipping experts on Twitter, and as you say said,
Speaker 1: this particular area is really critical and you don't have
Speaker 1: to so far, they really haven't done any damage. You know,
Speaker 1: there hasn't been significant damage. No one has been killed.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone has been injured. So you might say, okay,
Speaker 1: what's the big deal. Well, for these shipping, for these
Speaker 1: massive you know, cargo ships. They have to be able
Speaker 1: to ensure their passage, and if you have any sort
Speaker 1: of danger in this area, then insurance rates skyrocket and
Speaker 1: then you either have them paying you know, massive rates
Speaker 1: of insurance or you have them having to reroute around
Speaker 1: this area, which makes the trip much much, much much longer.
Speaker 1: So it has a significant economic impact, even if they
Speaker 1: aren't really being that effective in doing any sort of damage.
Speaker 1: So that's on that piece, And of course it also
Speaker 1: just shows listen the Houthis and Yemen. They aren't going
Speaker 1: quietly here. You still have husblah hanging out there. And
Speaker 1: the greater the toll on civilian life that is inflicted
Speaker 1: in the Gaza Strip, the more fraught things will be,
Speaker 1: and of course the more at risk our own trips
Speaker 1: in the area will be as well. Going back to
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Defense and his statement that you can
Speaker 1: replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat by the
Speaker 1: type of war that they are waging on the civilian population,
Speaker 1: this is clear common sense. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: that anyone could really deny this. I don't think that
Speaker 1: the Israeli government is so stupid as to think that.
Speaker 4: This is not the case.
Speaker 1: You can already see in the West Bank because of
Speaker 1: the toll that has been taken on civilian life. Guess what,
Speaker 1: you're radicalizing more people's support for Hamas is skyrocketing in
Speaker 1: the West Bank. You can only imagine what's happening within
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip where you have such a massive toll
Speaker 1: on women and children and entire lives upended, the entire
Speaker 1: northern part of the strip rendered uninhabitable. What do you
Speaker 1: think people's politics are going to be after that happens
Speaker 1: to them and their kids and their family members and
Speaker 1: everything they have ever known.
Speaker 4: What do you think that is going to lead to?
Speaker 2: So that is just.
Speaker 4: Obvious common sense.
Speaker 1: Now with regard to why he's saying this, do I
Speaker 1: think it's because they're you know, genuinely putting real pressure
Speaker 1: on the Israelis And you see all these like US
Speaker 1: media reports, all the Israelis are open to the criticism.
Speaker 4: No, they're not.
Speaker 1: There is no sign that they're changing their approach whatsoever,
Speaker 1: none at all. So what is this Number One? It's
Speaker 1: for us, It's for the domestic US population, It's for
Speaker 1: the you know liberals watching MSNBC and we all see
Speaker 1: look at the Biden administration. They're really trying. They're really trying.
Speaker 1: They're really good people, they're really trying. They're not just
Speaker 1: standing by and let this ethnic cleansing and genocide happen.
Speaker 1: They're actually trying to, you know, constrain the Israelies. That's
Speaker 1: number one. And number two is so that after the fact,
Speaker 1: when this is ultimately a strategic defeat and a catastrophe
Speaker 1: for Israeli security, because you've just further radicalized and already
Speaker 1: radicalized popular and created even more militants, even more terrorists,
Speaker 1: so that they can say, look, we told you so,
Speaker 1: so they can have a sort of like ass covering moment. Those,
Speaker 1: in my view, are the two reasons for these comments
Speaker 1: from the Secretary of Defense. But make no mistake about it,
Speaker 1: until and unless the US actually wants to use our bite,
Speaker 1: our dollars condition aid say no, we're not just going
Speaker 1: to send you whatever bunk or buster bombs you want,
Speaker 1: whatever you want it. No, we're not going to provide
Speaker 1: you blanket cover at the UN diplomatic cover throughout the
Speaker 1: world anymore. Until we do that, they are going to
Speaker 1: continue to prosecute this war in the exact same way
Speaker 1: they have been prosecuting this war. And I have this
Speaker 1: in my monologue today, but I'll mention it now as well.
Speaker 1: The reason is because BB is on political fin ice,
Speaker 1: to say the least, and the population, the majority of them,
Speaker 1: some fifty eight percent, they think the IDF isn't being
Speaker 1: brutal enough. The percentage that thinks the IDF has gone
Speaker 1: too far one point eight percent of Jewish.
Speaker 4: Israelies, I should say of Jewish Israelies.
Speaker 1: One point eight percent of the Jewish Israeli population things
Speaker 1: the IDF has gone too far. This is when you
Speaker 1: have at the least a seventy percent civilian death rate,
Speaker 1: and probably much much higher than that. That's the rate
Speaker 1: of just women and children being massacred in this This
Speaker 1: is with the entirety of the Northern Gaza strip being
Speaker 1: wiped down. This is the state with a complete siege,
Speaker 1: with people starving and disease spreading. They think it hasn't
Speaker 1: been brutal enough. So, with Netanyahu trying to save his
Speaker 1: political ass, those are the people that he's listening to
Speaker 1: and the most fringe, far right parts of his coalition
Speaker 1: who he's trying to keep in line. Does he care
Speaker 1: if the US is handwringing publicly or leaking to the Prosson.
Speaker 4: No, he doesn't care.
Speaker 1: All he would care about is if we actually used
Speaker 1: the material leverage that we have, which they show no
Speaker 1: interest in doing well.
Speaker 3: I mean, I just have to go back to Darryl Cooper.
Speaker 2: Something that he said is that, look, the day after
Speaker 2: nine to eleven, I didn't want to hear about nuance.
Speaker 2: And I think that's very understandable and from their perspective
Speaker 2: to Michael Tracy has talked about this, but you know,
Speaker 2: they're basically photos of one of those babies.
Speaker 3: Who's being held by Hamas all over Israel.
Speaker 2: I mean, if that's the level of the media environment there,
Speaker 2: you can both be nuanced in terms of like, I
Speaker 2: hate Nets Yahoo for what happened, but screw all of
Speaker 2: the people who did this. And that was let's also
Speaker 2: be real, that was the predominant sentiment here in America.
Speaker 2: They wanted to bomb the crap out of Afghanistan. That was,
Speaker 2: if we had carpet bombed all of Afghanistan, the region
Speaker 2: where Bin Laden was and we'd killed one hundred thousand people,
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody in this country would have sniffed whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Now you can understand that, but you can also understand
Speaker 2: that twenty thirty years later, you can look back on
Speaker 2: some of the decisions that were made in the heat
Speaker 2: of the moment and the whole We don't want the
Speaker 2: smoking gun to be mushroom clomn and be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: it was pretty stupid and we probably shouldn't fall for
Speaker 2: that next time.
Speaker 3: So these really populous.
Speaker 2: I get it, I absolutely do, especially in the context
Speaker 2: of how we responded and thought and felt. I think
Speaker 2: after nine to eleven, however, again, you know you're talking
Speaker 2: I think at the correct point about the US and
Speaker 2: what their overall posture on this is going to be.
Speaker 2: At a certain point, I don't actually have a much
Speaker 2: of a problem with some of these comments because this
Speaker 2: buys us breathing room in the future when the Israelis
Speaker 2: are like, hey, can you guys come clean this up
Speaker 2: and do all this peace keeping, We're like, no, you built,
Speaker 2: you break it, you buy it.
Speaker 3: You are the ones who are responsible.
Speaker 2: When you have a massive insurgency on your hands five
Speaker 2: ten years from now and you block a piece process,
Speaker 2: It's like, that's your issue, man. We're not going to
Speaker 2: be going rolling our troops and humbies into the downtown
Speaker 2: Gaza City communists or any of the other So from
Speaker 2: that perspective, Crystal, I'm actually okay with the way that
Speaker 2: the secretary is saying it. Now, I don't disagree. I
Speaker 2: don't think it's necessarily a bad thing about conditioning eight and.
Speaker 3: All that, but I honestly don't think it would make
Speaker 3: any difference.
Speaker 2: The Israelis have plenty of munitions, they got plenty of bombs,
Speaker 2: they got firecar They're one of the world's most advanced militaries.
Speaker 2: Even if we didn't provide the bombs, we'd be dropping
Speaker 2: whatever they had. The US influence on this is both
Speaker 2: overstated and understated. Understated to the point of what you're
Speaker 2: saying is it doesn't necessarily match the rhetoric. But at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, like they don't need our
Speaker 2: money or our support at this point to wage war.
Speaker 2: Now in nineteen eighty that's a different story, but at
Speaker 2: this point not really even.
Speaker 4: Maybe not in the short term.
Speaker 1: But there are famous quotes of Israeli prime ministers, may
Speaker 1: have even been nine yew basically saying the only people
Speaker 1: that matter it's the US. Yeah, the only president in
Speaker 1: the world, the only world leader whose opinion I have
Speaker 1: to care about is the US. So, yeah, would it
Speaker 1: be a devastating blow to Israel if we were to
Speaker 1: withhold our diplomatic cover, if we were to stop sending
Speaker 1: them the weapons that we've been sending them, stop sending
Speaker 1: them the billions of dollars in aid that we've been
Speaker 1: sending them. Yeah, that would that would be a real blow. Now,
Speaker 1: could they continue for some time.
Speaker 4: With this war?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they have enough to continue for some time for
Speaker 1: this war. But let's not pretend like the US doesn't
Speaker 1: have leverage here that we can use. I also disagree
Speaker 1: with the idea that this is buying us some window
Speaker 1: to you know, after they do all of this damage
Speaker 1: in Gaza and we're actually going to get to this
Speaker 1: piece in a bed and are pushing us to, oh,
Speaker 1: we're we need these refugees resettled, and why don't you
Speaker 1: use your AID dollars to push these Arab countries around
Speaker 1: the region to taking these refugees. That there is no
Speaker 1: indication to me that we're going to buck anything that
Speaker 1: Israel wants us to do, because there's no track record
Speaker 1: of that whatsoever, certainly not from the Biden administration and
Speaker 1: we have new reporting. Put this up on the screen
Speaker 1: from the intercept new comments from Bib. His goal for
Speaker 1: Gaza is to quote Thinn the population to a minimum.
Speaker 1: And by the way, little noticed fact here, but Ryan
Speaker 1: Graham of course notices these things. The White House recently
Speaker 1: requested billions of dollars to support refugee resettlement from Ukraine
Speaker 1: and also from Gaza, just back in October. So let
Speaker 1: me give you a few of the details here about
Speaker 1: what Bib is up to. He has tasked his top advisor,
Speaker 1: Ron Dermer, the Minister of Strategic Confaris, with designing plans
Speaker 1: to quote Thinn the Palestinian population in the Gaza.
Speaker 4: Strip to aim minimum.
Speaker 1: According to a bombshell new report in an Israeli newspaper
Speaker 1: that was founded by the late Republican billionaire Sheldon Adelson,
Speaker 1: so this outlet is considered to be basically an official
Speaker 1: organ for Net and Yahoo. Ryan writes it reported that
Speaker 1: the plan has two main elements. The first would use
Speaker 1: the pressure of the war and the humanitarian crisis being
Speaker 1: created by Israel's war to persuade Egypt to allow refugees
Speaker 1: to flow to other Arab countries, and the second would
Speaker 1: open up Sea routes so that Israel could quote allow
Speaker 1: a mass escape to European and African countries. Drmer who's
Speaker 1: originally from Miami's and Natnyah, who confident and was previously
Speaker 1: Israeli ambassador of the US enjoys close relations with many
Speaker 1: members of Congress. Oh interesting, let's put this next peace
Speaker 1: up on the screen. US considers a plan to condition
Speaker 1: aid to regional to regional states Arab regional states based
Speaker 1: on resettlement. So this new initiative submitted to Congress calls
Speaker 1: for conditioning American aid to Arab countries on their willingness
Speaker 1: to receive refugees from Gaza and effectively assist in the
Speaker 1: ethnic cleansing that baby Natnya who is proposing here. The
Speaker 1: proposal was shown to key figures in the House and
Speaker 1: Senate from both parties. Longtime lawmaker Representive Joe Wilson has
Speaker 1: even expressed open some court for it, while others who
Speaker 1: are privoted the details have so far kept a low profile,
Speaker 1: saying that publicly coming out in favor of the program
Speaker 1: could derail it. So they go on to say this
Speaker 1: is the way they frame it. They frame this pushing
Speaker 1: Palestinians forever on of these lands that they'd already been
Speaker 1: forced into. They frame this in humanitarian terms, saying the
Speaker 1: only moral solution is to ensure that Egypt opens its
Speaker 1: borders and allows for the refugees to flee from the
Speaker 1: tyrant control of Hamas. They go on to say, Iraq
Speaker 1: and Yemen receive an approximate one billion dollars in US
Speaker 1: four and AD Turkey receives more than one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million. Each of these countries receive enough four and
Speaker 1: aid and have a large enough population and be able
Speaker 1: to accept refugees, adding up to less than one percent
Speaker 1: of their population. And they even go so far as
Speaker 1: to have done the math on how many Palestinian residents
Speaker 1: of the Gaza Strip that they want to force into
Speaker 1: these different countries to quote unquote thin out the population.
Speaker 1: So apparently there is some bipartisan support here among our
Speaker 1: lawmakers to assist net Yahoo with this process.
Speaker 2: Why I think this is just all fan fiction is
Speaker 2: that the Egyptians have already said, quote, we are prepared
Speaker 2: to sacrifice millions of lives to protect our land and
Speaker 2: to make sure that nobody is coming. I actually think
Speaker 2: this would start a general war in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: There's no question in my mind that if they tried
Speaker 2: to expel millions of Palestinians or hundreds of thousands whatever
Speaker 2: to the various one parts of these regions they would
Speaker 2: it would simply collapse, and the populations themselves would not
Speaker 2: accept it. The Jordanian population, any of the Middle Eastern
Speaker 2: populations of Saudi's would. I almost certainly have to do
Speaker 2: something just because of the way that they're trying to
Speaker 2: keep a cap right now on all the videos and
Speaker 2: all the stuff that's spreading throughout the Arab and the
Speaker 2: Islamic world. I think, really what's going to happen is that,
Speaker 2: and I think what they're really doing is an indiscriminate
Speaker 2: bombing campaign. They can think all they want till Kingdom
Speaker 2: come about, Oh, we're gonna get these people out of there.
Speaker 2: It's just not going to happen from an international community perspective.
Speaker 2: So I'm not quite so sure to take it seriously,
Speaker 2: even if it might be their overall goal. I think
Speaker 2: there's the end state of this is pretty clear. Eventually
Speaker 2: they're going to come to a point where they're going
Speaker 2: to stop bombing. They're probably going to level the vast
Speaker 2: majority the infrastructure I think the vast majority of the
Speaker 2: population will remain inside of Gaza. Actually, I don't think
Speaker 2: a large refugee settlement will come out of it, simply
Speaker 2: because the Egyptians control the only other border and they're not.
Speaker 3: Going to let it happen.
Speaker 2: And that's when you get to the old end state
Speaker 2: of insurgency of day. You know, that's when they're going
Speaker 2: to beg US and the EU to come in and
Speaker 2: peace keep Gaza City.
Speaker 3: They're going to have to deal with whatever comes next.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously I'm saying hell no to all of that,
Speaker 2: including this, by the way, because it's outrageous and have
Speaker 2: a detrimental impact on overall US security. So they can
Speaker 2: want what they have, whatever they want, And I'm certain
Speaker 2: that there are elements of the Nettanahu cabinet, but I
Speaker 2: still fall crystal on the fact is is that they're
Speaker 2: trying to just punish the hell out of the population,
Speaker 2: and they're trying to kill or let's put it two ways.
Speaker 2: Punishing the population is secondary aim number two. Killing Hamas
Speaker 2: is supposedly aim number one. They're willing to accomplish one
Speaker 2: and two at the same time, but just not really
Speaker 2: willing to care and pulling the trigger based on ten
Speaker 2: twenty percent type of intelligence, which I know you're talking
Speaker 2: quite a bit yeah in your monologue, but I still
Speaker 2: think there's a big difference between that and suppose it
Speaker 2: like ethnic cleansing and or words do mean.
Speaker 4: It's very clear that their goal is ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 2: Well, some very clear and its goal is ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 1: Bab Netna, who's goal is ethnic cleansing? Now will they
Speaker 1: accomplish that goal? That depends on the US, that depends
Speaker 1: on the US, that depends on Egypt.
Speaker 4: Is that their goal?
Speaker 1: I don't think you can deny it at this point,
Speaker 1: like that is clearly their goal. Now we can quibble
Speaker 1: over whether or not it's a genocide. I think based
Speaker 1: on the international definition and based on Israeli scholars of
Speaker 1: a Holocaust who looked at it, I think it has.
Speaker 1: But you can certainly say if you don't like those words,
Speaker 1: you can certainly say indiscriminate killing of civilians. I'm breaking
Speaker 1: down this report from nine to seventy two magazine, but
Speaker 1: just to give.
Speaker 4: You a preview of it.
Speaker 1: You know, when we're talking about okay, their goal is
Speaker 1: to kill Hamas No their number one goal is to
Speaker 1: put a quote unquote shock into the civilian population and
Speaker 1: hope that they're going to somehow turn on Hamas.
Speaker 4: We can already see that that has failed.
Speaker 1: I mean this is only increased You look at the
Speaker 1: West Bank has already only increased support for Hamas. It's
Speaker 1: only going to increase the comments from the Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense radicalization and support for terror and violent resistance within
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip. So in any case, it's important to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on what they actually want to accomplish,
Speaker 1: because these Babe is a savvy, savvy negotiator.
Speaker 4: He is a savvy politician.
Speaker 1: He thinks he can work over Joe Biden, who he
Speaker 1: says he's known for forty years and who is you know,
Speaker 1: aging and frail and doesn't have all his wits about him.
Speaker 2: I mean that's obviously true, correct.
Speaker 1: He thinks he can manipulate us public opinion, which he
Speaker 1: also has been very effective at doing as well.
Speaker 4: So I don't think it's.
Speaker 1: So preposterous to put it off the table that some
Speaker 1: version of his ideal plan could actually come to fruition.
Speaker 1: We also wanted to give you an update on a
Speaker 1: just unbelievable story coming out of Jerusalem, and the facts
Speaker 1: of the quote unquote only in democracy in the region.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen. This is disturbing.
Speaker 1: I just want you guys to know. So what you
Speaker 1: see here is and I'm going to give you the
Speaker 1: backstory in a moment. But this is in Jerusalem. Me
Speaker 1: see this man kneeling on the ground, hands up. He's
Speaker 1: saying and Hebrew, please don't shoot me, please, please don't
Speaker 1: shoot me. And he is effectively summarily executed there and
Speaker 1: allowed to bleed out from his injuries and he dies. Now,
Speaker 1: let me tell you put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is Demi Reader, who is an Israeli journalist, actually
Speaker 1: one of the co founders of that magazine nine seventy
Speaker 1: two that I just referenced.
Speaker 4: So here's the backstory.
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen, Israeli soldier executed a wounded Palestinian militant
Speaker 1: point blank on camera. He became somewhat of a hero
Speaker 1: to the far right, and the execution of wounded suspects
Speaker 1: briefly became a wedge issue in Israeli society. Briefly because
Speaker 1: it's been long accepted, at least since the Second Intifada
Speaker 1: that even if someone used a butter knife to text
Speaker 1: soldiers they might also have a suicide veus and therefore
Speaker 1: need to be finished off just in case. She says,
Speaker 1: makes no sense to me, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: it ever happened, but okay. Fastward to twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: A major cheerleader of that Israeli soldier and a convicted
Speaker 1: terror supporter himself, Itamar Benkavie, is police minister. After October seventh,
Speaker 1: he randomly begins handing out weapons to civilians, ostensibly because
Speaker 1: you need a good guy with a gun, etc. Well,
Speaker 1: this pass Friday, and this gets to the video that
Speaker 1: we just watched. Two Hamas paramilitaries shot up a bus
Speaker 1: stop in Jerusalem, killed three people, including.
Speaker 4: A pregnant teacher.
Speaker 1: The first guy to engage them is a local lawyer
Speaker 1: and former policeman. I should add durn Castleman, civilian who
Speaker 1: happens to be armed a good guy with a gun.
Speaker 1: He kills both gunmen, stops the attack before more people
Speaker 1: could be killed. Then, and this is the part that
Speaker 1: you guys just watched. IDF soldiers arrive Castleman. The hero
Speaker 1: realizes that he might be mistaken for one of the attackers,
Speaker 1: so he drops his handgun. He kneels on the road.
Speaker 1: This is what you saw in that video. He lifts
Speaker 1: his t shirt to show he's got no suicide vest on.
Speaker 1: He asks them in perfect Hebrew not to shoot, explaining
Speaker 1: who he is. One of the soldiers, a settler with
Speaker 1: a self confessed extremist background, shoots him anyway in the
Speaker 1: abdomen on camera and walks off. So that man that
Speaker 1: you just saw killed on camera, executed on camera with
Speaker 1: his hands up, that was an Israeli Hiro who had
Speaker 1: stopped these gunmen who were massacring people. These Hamas gunmen
Speaker 1: who are masacring people. When more security arrives, they assume
Speaker 1: castman was a gunman, so they let him bleed out.
Speaker 4: He bleeds to death.
Speaker 1: The settler soldier who executed him gives smug interviews, gets
Speaker 1: much kudos from other far right figures.
Speaker 4: They later erase those tweets.
Speaker 1: The army and police said they won't be investigating before
Speaker 1: you turning under pressure net and yaho, you're ready for
Speaker 1: this one. He chimes in and says, I support the
Speaker 1: policy of handing out weapons. Sometimes there's a price to pay,
Speaker 1: But say Lava, say lov.
Speaker 4: That's what he said. In Arabic. So this Hebrew, sorry
Speaker 4: in Hebrew.
Speaker 1: So this man darn Kaslman, true hero who was there,
Speaker 1: who stopped these Hamas militants, was executed by Israeli soldiers
Speaker 1: even as he was there kneeling the street. This is
Speaker 1: the reality of the quote unquote only democracy in the
Speaker 1: Middle East.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I guess it happened in the West Bank, right,
Speaker 2: look the whole or sorry, it happened in Jerusalem. The
Speaker 2: problem is that with this entire thing is that it
Speaker 2: actually demonstrates all of the worst pressures that are on
Speaker 2: Neta Yahu. Because this showed you the settler who was
Speaker 2: provided with weapons under the BEng Giver policy. Then it
Speaker 2: also showed you that Netanyahu himself has a very hard
Speaker 2: time grappling with this. He didn't even call the family
Speaker 2: until yesterday Israeli military.
Speaker 4: After there was a massive public reaction.
Speaker 2: So after there was a huge public reaction saying hey,
Speaker 2: how can you do this, he put out a tweet
Speaker 2: and said you've all castleman is the hero of Israeli.
Speaker 2: Saved many lives. Today I spoke with his father. This
Speaker 2: a wonderful family. The entire nation mourns with them now
Speaker 2: in terms of the investigation to itself. They don't know
Speaker 2: which way that they're supposed to because they initially were
Speaker 2: not supposed to have the police or the military even
Speaker 2: investigate this person, the settler, whether he should have had
Speaker 2: weapons or not, and what punishment this person will suffer.
Speaker 2: You know, the original case he talks about. I remember
Speaker 2: covering a lot of that at the time, because if
Speaker 2: anyone's seen the video, it's crazy because basically there's a
Speaker 2: wounded guy on the ground and he's just walking around
Speaker 2: and despite no orders or any of that, he just
Speaker 2: shoots him in the head. There's no other way to
Speaker 2: describe it. I've watched the video a dozen times, reported
Speaker 2: on a lot at the time because there was a
Speaker 2: big controversy around putting him through court martial and then
Speaker 2: his eventual trial, because in all Israel it was an
Speaker 2: open shutcase.
Speaker 3: It's like, there's no way this is going to happen.
Speaker 2: But he became a genuine hero and to the point
Speaker 2: where he, even by a decent segment of society, is
Speaker 2: celebrated today for what happened to him, and they're seen
Speaker 2: as a miscarriage of justice. The overall prosecution, the initial
Speaker 2: court martial it's split the IDF apart, and more importantly,
Speaker 2: it's split Israeli society apart. So that is what is
Speaker 2: downstream of a lot of the settler providing them guns.
Speaker 2: And then also when it comes to this, I think
Speaker 2: it was a big rip between secular society settler society,
Speaker 2: and then the way that people inside Israel are looking
Speaker 2: at this because as I've explained here before, you know,
Speaker 2: a huge portion of Israeli population don't even serve in
Speaker 2: the military, and this is a retired policeman, had a
Speaker 2: gun on him, did the heroic thing at the time
Speaker 2: he kills He literally kills him. He's a trained police officer,
Speaker 2: and then does everything you're supposed to do. He's like, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm in a chaotic situation. Drop the gun, put the
Speaker 2: hands up, show that I don't have a vest on
Speaker 2: because he knows. He's like, well, you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of them will shoot if they think you have a
Speaker 2: vest He did everything they were supposed to do.
Speaker 3: Then he gets executed.
Speaker 2: So that's a tragedy, and the person obviously involved should
Speaker 2: be at the very least, you know, fire from the job,
Speaker 2: removed from service, not celebrated. The fact though that it
Speaker 2: took days for the Prime Minister to have to respond
Speaker 2: to this. I think demonstrates to everyone very clearly what
Speaker 2: the pressures inside of Israel are on Netagnahu, not from
Speaker 2: the general population, from inside the coalition himself, because inside
Speaker 2: that coalition they don't want to talk about this at all.
Speaker 2: It's a tragedy, se Lav, etc. And they want to
Speaker 2: move past it. It shows you who he's really really
Speaker 2: working for. And I think that is the single broken record,
Speaker 2: single biggest problem in the prosecution of this war is
Speaker 2: that you have the overall leader of the country with
Speaker 2: some of the worst pressures on him from a fringe
Speaker 2: element of society, which is not how you should be
Speaker 2: wanting to conduct a defensive operation, a war which is
Speaker 2: supposed to bring the entire country together. It's a nightmare
Speaker 2: from a political strategic perspective. Inside is really society.
Speaker 3: I think something will break eventually. I really do you.
Speaker 1: Know one thing I want to say related to this,
Speaker 1: because I talked about, you know, the poll numbers of
Speaker 1: it's like fifty eight percent of Israeli society who thinks
Speaker 1: the IDF hasn't been brutal enough. Only one point eight
Speaker 1: percent is like, yeah, maybe they've gone too far. So
Speaker 1: you've a majority who want even more viciousness, even more brutality.
Speaker 1: And I just want to make it really clear, like
Speaker 1: I don't think that Jewish Israelis are different than any
Speaker 1: other people on the planet, but I do think that
Speaker 1: when you have for so many decades, you've had this
Speaker 1: brutal military occupation of the West Bank, and you've had
Speaker 1: this brutal blockade of Gaza, and you know, there's Israel
Speaker 1: Is doing very well as a society, relatively wealthy society,
Speaker 1: people doing well living, you know, living good lives, all
Speaker 1: of that, and just over these borders, you know, in
Speaker 1: effectively the same territory, territory that at this point is
Speaker 1: controlled by Israel, you have people who are living in
Speaker 1: these desperate conditions. I think that does something to a society. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't think that, you know, people are different in Palestine.
Speaker 4: Versus Israel, versus here versus.
Speaker 1: Anywhere else in the world. But when you live in
Speaker 1: that kind of a society, you know the level of
Speaker 1: dehumanization that you have to sort of internalize to justify
Speaker 1: this treatment of millions of people right across the border
Speaker 1: right there, You know that you could go and see
Speaker 1: with your own eyes. I do think it does something
Speaker 1: to a society. And so you know, that's why you know,
Speaker 1: someone who if this had been a Palestinian who was
Speaker 1: unarmed and posing no threat to anyone and who was
Speaker 1: executed in the street, that settler who killed him would
Speaker 1: still be a hero. You know, they would still be
Speaker 1: bragging about it. It still would be broadly supported. And
Speaker 1: you know the number of Palestinians who are you know,
Speaker 1: rounded up and arrested and no charge is filed, and
Speaker 1: in this indefinite attention, this is not really controversial within
Speaker 1: Israeli society. So I think that's where that's why the
Speaker 1: governments have for a long time now been increasingly right wing,
Speaker 1: increasingly right wing where they're very clear they don't want
Speaker 1: a two state solution. You know, they're doing everything they
Speaker 1: can to block the possibility of two state solution or
Speaker 1: openly openly talking about that. I think that's what happens
Speaker 1: over time when you have these conditions that are imposed
Speaker 1: on a population for so long.
Speaker 2: I will take a turn in trying to explain it,
Speaker 2: which is and if you know, if they ever been there,
Speaker 2: it's not it's understandable. So just bear with me, most
Speaker 2: of the people the generation of today, that people were
Speaker 2: serving the IDF grandfather or grandparents of great grandparents, like
Speaker 2: we liquidated in the Holocaust or survived, we're lucky enough
Speaker 2: to survive. You are beaten into you from day one.
Speaker 2: The state of Israel exists, that will never happen again.
Speaker 2: You have mandatory military service going back to basically the
Speaker 2: founding of the country. Your father's and or grandfathers fought
Speaker 2: in sixty seven and in the Yamkapor War where Israeli
Speaker 2: annihilation was absolutely on the table. So you have had
Speaker 2: two lessons in the span of one hundred years where
Speaker 2: you have learned, if we don't fight back with everything
Speaker 2: that we possibly have, they will wipe us off the
Speaker 2: face of the earth. And on top of that, you
Speaker 2: now live with twenty years of war with Hamas. And look,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that Hamas doesn't suffer more obviously in
Speaker 2: terms of casualties, but it's no picnic living in a
Speaker 2: country where you've got rockets coming down. You had to
Speaker 2: have iron dome, and everybody knows somebody who was affected
Speaker 2: either in that war. At the same time too, in
Speaker 2: modern society and what it's like to live in Israel.
Speaker 2: You can't even go inside of a shopping mall without
Speaker 2: getting wanded for a suicide vest because they had I
Speaker 2: think over a thousand attacks that happen inside of Israel,
Speaker 2: suicide bombing style attacks, blowing up buses, public infrastructure, all
Speaker 2: that type of thing before they eventually built the wall
Speaker 2: with Kazo. So you know, that's not that hard to
Speaker 2: That's actually not that hard to understand. Why you get
Speaker 2: to a mindset of where that's predominant inside of your
Speaker 2: society and the total separation seems necessary because it's an
Speaker 2: us er them mentality. And let's be real too, a
Speaker 2: lot of the Palestinians they would kill them if they
Speaker 2: had the chance and if they had the means and so,
Speaker 2: and they've shown that throughout decades now of bordering both
Speaker 2: Gaza and Hamasa.
Speaker 3: I understand it completely.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I'm not saying I like it or
Speaker 2: I'm even justifying it.
Speaker 3: But it's a.
Speaker 2: Different set of circumstances than we live here in the West,
Speaker 2: just completely and utterly different. And it's one of those
Speaker 2: where you know, when you're saying in Crystal, I think
Speaker 2: the dehumanization all that that is just inherent to what
Speaker 2: it's like to live in an active war zone, and
Speaker 2: what it's like to also have a generation at war today,
Speaker 2: your father's generation at war, grandfather, and to have and
Speaker 2: know and have the knowledge and probably ninety percent of
Speaker 2: your descendant or ancestors were liquidated by the Nazis. That's
Speaker 2: just a deep cultural imprint that's not going to go away,
Speaker 2: I think for a long time.
Speaker 3: And they spend all their time in society.
Speaker 2: They don't let you forget that either when you're in school,
Speaker 2: whenever you're coming up. It's a part of the culture
Speaker 2: which is I think goes to the very core of
Speaker 2: what it means to be Israel, even if you are
Speaker 2: a Sephardic Jew or any of that. It's beaten into
Speaker 2: you that over the you know, the two thousand years
Speaker 2: of persecution, the Pelgrams, a large portion of Israeli societies.
Speaker 2: Also Russian suffered horribly under the Soviet Union, under this
Speaker 2: are before that. So I think culturally I understand it completely.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to justify it. I'm just like you
Speaker 2: have to try and put yourself in the mind of
Speaker 2: what it is like to live in that state for
Speaker 2: the last seventy five eighty years and also to suffer,
Speaker 2: you know, a society wide level terror bombings which America
Speaker 2: would never tolerate even ten percent of what Israel has
Speaker 2: had to go through.
Speaker 1: To the number one song in Israel right now, is
Speaker 1: this like rap song that calls for annihilating everyone in
Speaker 1: assassinating specific celebrities who have supported the Palestinian cause.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the state of the society.
Speaker 1: And part of what I have found so wrenching and
Speaker 1: sickening and disturbing, because again I don't I don't think
Speaker 1: Israeli Jews are any different than other people around the world.
Speaker 1: Is how quick there is a justification of things that
Speaker 1: should be moral atrocities that should be completely morally off
Speaker 1: the table, certainly among a nation that considers itself, you know,
Speaker 1: develop part of the first World democracy quote unquote, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And that's what to me is so disturbing. And you know,
Speaker 1: every basically group of people who justifies these sorts of
Speaker 1: horse and atrocities against their fellow human beings, they all
Speaker 1: have that sense of it's us or them.
Speaker 4: They all have that sense of like we're the victims.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Nazi Germany same thing, like the
Speaker 1: sense of victimization and it's us or them and we're
Speaker 1: under threat, et cetera, et cetera. Like that is the
Speaker 1: feeling that is used to justify absolute horse and so
Speaker 1: to watch that unfold in real time has been, you know,
Speaker 1: has been absolutely stunning. There was a journalist who posted
Speaker 1: this long threat I don't know if you saw it
Speaker 1: on Twitter about like I want you to understand that
Speaker 1: when you are posting pictures of dead Palestinians like I
Speaker 1: don't care, I do not care at all, posting this
Speaker 1: publicly again a journalist in Israeli journalists posting this publicly,
Speaker 1: and so that to me has been one of the
Speaker 1: things that has been so shocking to watch unfold is
Speaker 1: how quickly and how quickly even people here in the
Speaker 1: US who haven't experienced all this trauma and don't have
Speaker 1: that you know, general like generational wound and aren't experiencing
Speaker 1: the suicide attacks and the you know, sirens going off
Speaker 1: and the you know, quote unquote rocket fires, et cetera,
Speaker 1: who are also like, yeah, justifying the annihilate them all,
Speaker 1: wipe them out, et cetera, et cetera. So, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: disturbing I guess that's all I can say.
Speaker 2: I understand, I understand where you're coming from. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, we should all just try and put ourselves
Speaker 2: in the minds of both of these people.
Speaker 3: I'm not I can put it from a Palestine perspective too.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's crazy. Darryl Cooper, I think, does the
Speaker 3: best job of that.
Speaker 2: He's like, look, we tried everything you know going this
Speaker 2: in our lifetimes and our grandfather's lifetimes.
Speaker 3: I've met plisy excuse me, I.
Speaker 2: Met housing people who still have the key to their
Speaker 2: house that that was taken away from them in nineteen
Speaker 2: forty eight. Yeah, and that gets passed down even though
Speaker 2: that woman's mom is dead, it was passed down to
Speaker 2: the mom. They still have that key mounted above their door.
Speaker 2: So don't forget to that too.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 2: On the other side, they remember, and they remembers deep.
Speaker 2: It goes into the kids, it goes into their grandkids.
Speaker 2: So these are these things don't heal easily. Let's move
Speaker 2: on to domestic politics. There's absolute craziness going on here
Speaker 2: with Paul Ryan, with Ron De Santis and Nicki Haley.
Speaker 2: But I think the major story of this is the
Speaker 2: absolute downfall of Ron de Santis, not necessarily in the polls,
Speaker 2: although some of that too. But amongst the donor set,
Speaker 2: who have done the hardest pivot of all time, they're
Speaker 2: going all in on Nicki Haley after her Star Debate performance.
Speaker 2: The best examplified by this is Paul Ryan, the leader
Speaker 2: the donor class, hero himself, coming on CNBC identified as
Speaker 2: an investor, Okay to go ahead and endorse Haley.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8: Do not discount the Americans for Prosperity endorsement of Nicki
Speaker 8: Haley two days ago.
Speaker 3: That's actually a really big deal.
Speaker 5: The reason that that's.
Speaker 8: Really big deal is you could say that Ron DeSantis's
Speaker 8: big advantage over Nikki Hally was his ground game in Iowa,
Speaker 8: which is impressive. Americans Prosperity has an extremely impressive ground game.
Speaker 8: This is the COC Networks ground game. They just gave
Speaker 8: that to Nicki Haley. So not only does that level
Speaker 8: her up in Iowa with Monte Santas, that gives her
Speaker 8: a ground game in all these other states, and the
Speaker 8: calendar place to her advantage. So I'm not saying I'm
Speaker 8: all for Nicki Haley. I'm for beating Donald Trump. I'm
Speaker 8: for any Republican who can beat Donald Trump, but I
Speaker 8: think if you had to pick a growth stock, I
Speaker 8: think Nicky's the growth stock. And the fact that she
Speaker 8: got this endorsement I think matters a lot. So the
Speaker 8: question is, since more than about half Republicans do not
Speaker 8: want Donald Trump to be our nominee, I'm among those half,
Speaker 8: can someone consolidate the sporting time to win? And the question,
Speaker 8: I think, I think that's that's possible.
Speaker 5: I think that's possible, is it.
Speaker 1: He's got sixty six percent in the Bulls though against
Speaker 1: the other candidates he's.
Speaker 8: I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I
Speaker 8: think it's still plausible because things can still happen.
Speaker 5: She's got a lot of momentum.
Speaker 2: If one person can quickly consolidate the non Trump field,
Speaker 2: then they'll have thirty percent. Okay, yeah, that math checks out.
Speaker 2: This is the Iowa fan fiction is driving me crazy,
Speaker 2: and somehow people like Paul Ryan, Ron DeSantis, and now
Speaker 2: the Coke Network have seemingly bought into this. Put this
Speaker 2: up there. I know Ryan and Emily cover this, but
Speaker 2: it's still very important. Way in on, the Coke Network
Speaker 2: endorsed Nicky Hayley to push the GOP past Trump. This
Speaker 2: is significant for two reasons. Obviously, the Coke network has
Speaker 2: boatloads of money. They have some of the biggest consultant
Speaker 2: infrastructure in all of Washington. They've got Americans for prosperity,
Speaker 2: they have super packs, they got five oh one c threes,
Speaker 2: five fours that they're all throwing behind her. They've got
Speaker 2: polling ad buys, all these things. This is potentially hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions of dollars that she's now added.
Speaker 3: To her war test.
Speaker 2: Now, the big question for them is around what are
Speaker 2: you trying to do Iowa? It seems to be the
Speaker 2: consolidation dream. What people seem to forget Crystal about twenty
Speaker 2: twenty twenty sixteen, Donald Trump didn't win Iowa. He didn't
Speaker 2: even get second in Iowa. He got third in Iowa.
Speaker 2: You know what did happen?
Speaker 7: Though?
Speaker 2: He won New Hampshire, Then he won South Carolina, Then
Speaker 2: he won the majority of the states on Super Tuesday,
Speaker 2: and he won Florida, and he won Shall I go
Speaker 2: on the point is that Iowa itself is actually not
Speaker 2: all that indicative of anything. The only reason that this
Speaker 2: myth persists is really because of.
Speaker 3: The Obama campaign.
Speaker 2: When Obama winning Iowa was genuinely impactful because it showed
Speaker 2: to a lot of black voters in the Democratic Party. No, no, no,
Speaker 2: like white people actually would vote for this guy. Therefore,
Speaker 2: we now have permission, which is why he went on
Speaker 2: to win South Carolina. He ended up cleaning up it,
Speaker 2: basically wrapped up the majority of it on Super Tuesday.
Speaker 2: But Hillary also did very well in New Hampshire the
Speaker 2: next time. The thing is where Trump is. It's about
Speaker 2: the states that come afterwards. And for all the media,
Speaker 2: you know, tension and all of that, no one is
Speaker 2: going I'll put it right here. I'll eat a sock
Speaker 2: again if I have to. Nobody will beat.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump in the state of New Hampshire. Period.
Speaker 2: It is Trump Country, has been since twenty sixteen. The
Speaker 2: idea and the polling, a lot of this stuff bears
Speaker 2: it out. And the problem too, is that these donors
Speaker 2: are trying to play pick me with all of these
Speaker 2: different candidates like DeSantis or any of the Tim Scott
Speaker 2: or any of these others when they're facing a structural
Speaker 2: problem of the voters don't like them. Put this up
Speaker 2: there too, because this is a part of this, the
Speaker 2: DeSantis campaign is a complete free fall. Their big money
Speaker 2: the super pac has completely imploded. The new chief executive
Speaker 2: has been fired, a new one has run brought on.
Speaker 2: Several of the major strategists who work for the organization
Speaker 2: called Never Back Down have either been fired or have left.
Speaker 3: They appear to be.
Speaker 2: Running out of money on a pretty long timescale, and
Speaker 2: their majority of their support, which was told to them
Speaker 2: from the beginning. If you'll recall crystal Ken Griffin, the billionaire,
Speaker 2: was like, I'll give him as much money as he needs,
Speaker 2: and then the first line of trouble, He's like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I didn't mean it like this. And there's how many
Speaker 2: of those are out there. The campaign itself is now
Speaker 2: blaming its own superpack. If we can put this Politico
Speaker 2: tear sheet up there, because this is hilarious. They are
Speaker 2: now blaming their own super pack for leaking against them
Speaker 2: and for bad television advertising. They wrote in a memo
Speaker 2: to their donors that Never Back Down and their field
Speaker 2: organization all that is not up to snuff, and that
Speaker 2: they are leaking about their own problems whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to polling, that their TV advertising didn't end up.
Speaker 3: Helping them out.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is not the sign of a healthy
Speaker 2: overall organization, and it just shows you how quickly I
Speaker 2: think that these establishment folks can move from one to another,
Speaker 2: which at the end of the day is a complete fantasy.
Speaker 2: As you know. At least get credit to that CNBC
Speaker 2: anchor who was like, he's got sixty six percent of
Speaker 2: the vote, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a basic math problem here. I just pulled
Speaker 1: up the National Republican primary polling.
Speaker 4: We're going to show you the IOW in New Hampshire in.
Speaker 1: A minute, But there has not been a poll. I
Speaker 1: don't know when every single poll in here has Trump
Speaker 1: over fifty percent. So even if you do, in some
Speaker 1: fantasy world consolidate all of the other voters, that still
Speaker 1: doesn't add up to a victory. So okay, you know
Speaker 1: it is. I mean, I'm just watching with amusement at
Speaker 1: the whole run a Santas Nicki Haley thing, because the
Speaker 1: Coke Network endorsing Nikki Haley. I mean that must have
Speaker 1: just been brutal for Ron because he really he was
Speaker 1: running his campaign in this unusual way of relying on
Speaker 1: that super pack much more extensively than campaigns you usually do,
Speaker 1: and that's because you can take in these unlimited contributions.
Speaker 1: So he felt like, Okay, I've got these few billionaires
Speaker 1: who say they're all in for me Ken Griffin and co.
Speaker 1: And so I can take it unlimited funds there. And yeah,
Speaker 1: they don't get us good ad rates and I don't
Speaker 1: have drug control, et cetera. But since we can get
Speaker 1: so much money there, that's the way to go. And
Speaker 1: now you can see that strategy as the donors are
Speaker 1: fleeing him and they're instead I mean, they have no loyalty.
Speaker 1: They're picking Nikki for whatever reason. She's the flavor of
Speaker 1: the moment, and Ron is kind of underwhelmed and underperformed
Speaker 1: and doesn't seem like he's got the juice. And so
Speaker 1: now he's left in this really dire situation. My sense
Speaker 1: is basically that if he doesn't win Iowa, he's going
Speaker 1: to drop out, and he could possibly drop out even
Speaker 1: before that. But I think what's going to happen if
Speaker 1: I had to make prediction he drops out after Iowa.
Speaker 1: There are some big, you know, effort to unify behind
Speaker 1: Nikki and try to make her the anti trump, like
Speaker 1: the one to beat trump Et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But it's already way too late.
Speaker 1: It's already way too late for that to have any
Speaker 1: prayer of succeeding.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh no, you are absolutely correct on that. And
Speaker 2: actually some of that comes through from the DeSantis campaign
Speaker 2: itself in a more recent interview with Meet the Press
Speaker 2: that happened just on Sunday, where he's like, we are
Speaker 2: going to win Iowa. And when you start making benchmarks
Speaker 2: like that, I think, like you're right, Crystal, which is
Speaker 2: they're laying it so that they can make that case
Speaker 2: to the donors, this is what we're going to happen.
Speaker 2: But then it puts you in a precarious situation where
Speaker 2: they can rug pull you almost immediately whoever is left
Speaker 2: if you don't end up winning a stake.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to what he.
Speaker 8: Said, Well, let's talk about the stakes on caucus night.
Speaker 8: If you don't come in at least second, would you
Speaker 8: then drop out of the race?
Speaker 4: How critical is Iowa?
Speaker 9: Well, we're gonna win the caucus. We were doing everything
Speaker 9: that we need to do it.
Speaker 10: But what if you don't.
Speaker 5: If I said from the.
Speaker 9: Beginning, we are we are, We're gonna win we're gonna
Speaker 9: win the We're gonna win the caucus.
Speaker 4: Bottom line is Iowa, do or die for you, Governor.
Speaker 9: We're gonna win Iowa. I think it's gonna help propel
Speaker 9: us to the nomination, but I think we'll have a
Speaker 9: lot of work that we'll have to do beyond that.
Speaker 9: I don't think you'd take anything for granted, and I
Speaker 9: do I do recognize that there have been people that
Speaker 9: have wanted who have not gone on to win the nomination.
Speaker 9: I think this year is a little bit different.
Speaker 3: This year is a little bit different.
Speaker 7: Mm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, anytime you have to say that qualifier, it's no boy. Oh,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there, just in in case wondering
Speaker 2: about what Iowa actually looks like. Here we have our
Speaker 2: own custom graphic from the Real Clear Politics average.
Speaker 3: Oh look at that.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump at forty seven percent currently in the Iowa
Speaker 2: Republican caucus.
Speaker 3: He barely is even campaigning there.
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis, who let's remember this, has the endorsement of
Speaker 2: the sitting governor of the state, is only at seventeen percent.
Speaker 2: NICKI Haley at fourteen, Tim Scott at six, Vivike Ramaswami
Speaker 2: at five percent, forty seven I mean, you just can't.
Speaker 2: It could barely compete with that in any other normal
Speaker 2: race that the media is covering. This is a complete
Speaker 2: open and shutcase. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: you should cancel or anything like that. I support it,
Speaker 2: but you can't say with a straight face that you're
Speaker 2: going to win Iowa. Let's take a little bit of
Speaker 2: turn over to New Hampshire, where the Nicky Haley dream
Speaker 2: is currently going on.
Speaker 3: Oh Trump forty.
Speaker 2: Five percent, Nicki Haley nineteen, Chris Christy eleven, Ron DeSantis eight,
Speaker 2: Vivike Ramaswama Hale. To be fair, Christoferssy always did particularly
Speaker 2: well in New Hampshire. He had a big moment there
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen. It's definitely because of proximity and all
Speaker 2: these other things. It's definitely more favor to somebody like
Speaker 2: him and to Nicki Haley as well.
Speaker 1: Also, Independence vote in New Hampshire, so independent vote in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire it can be a little bit different.
Speaker 2: That said forty five percent, like you're not getting over
Speaker 2: that hump. And also if you factor in a media
Speaker 2: bump whenever you win like you do in Iowa and
Speaker 2: quick secession, you have something like New Hampshire. Come, what
Speaker 2: is that really going to account for in a multi
Speaker 2: field scenario. It did not work for Ted Cruz, who
Speaker 2: won the Iowa caucuses in twenty sixteen. He got the
Speaker 2: media bump that you hope to get from actually winning
Speaker 2: didn't matter. Marco got second, same thing, It didn't matter.
Speaker 2: Jeb Bush, I believe, came in fifth, maybe six in
Speaker 2: New Hampshire. It just demonstrates that money, all of that,
Speaker 2: even winning Iowa the bump whenever you're going against someone
Speaker 2: like Trump who has such a loved is such a
Speaker 2: beloved figure in the Republican Party, and now after he's
Speaker 2: already won the presidency, it's just an impossible task. It
Speaker 2: probably always was. And if I could go back, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure DeSantis should have run ever in the first place.
Speaker 2: Although there's a whole shoot your shot, there's a shoot
Speaker 2: your shot argument I think that you should always make.
Speaker 3: But I don't know. I think this is irreparably hard,
Speaker 3: is his ploy?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, I just also feel like DeSantis just doesn't
Speaker 1: have just doesn't have it, whatever it is, it just
Speaker 1: doesn't have it. And so whether it was this time
Speaker 1: that he was going to lose or next time, when
Speaker 1: he's going to lose to like Don Junior or whoever
Speaker 1: comes next, or Ted Careers or whoever. I think is
Speaker 1: probably just not in the cards for him. The other
Speaker 1: big issue among many that they have is DeSantis and
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley and everybody else. They don't actually want to
Speaker 1: go directly at Trump that much and his policy or
Speaker 1: like you know, say, certainly the things that are obvious
Speaker 1: that were problems with him, like January sixth, they don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about that. And so the best argument
Speaker 1: has always been about electability. But who could believe at
Speaker 1: this point that Donald Trump's not electable? Think Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is probably electable.
Speaker 2: I don't like it, but I think.
Speaker 4: It probably is.
Speaker 1: When you look at Joe Biden as approval rating, the
Speaker 1: fact young people are abandoning him in droves, and you know,
Speaker 1: Arab Americans and Muslim Americans and the economy is trash
Speaker 1: and all of these things, and he's you know, super
Speaker 1: old and can barely formulate a sentence, then yeah, I
Speaker 1: think Donald Trump probably can beat that guy. So to
Speaker 1: argue at this point, oh, there's no way Trump can win,
Speaker 1: and I'm the winner. And if you want to defeat
Speaker 1: Joe Biden you got to go with me. I just
Speaker 1: don't think that that is a compelling point at this
Speaker 1: point whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we were going to cover this last week.
Speaker 2: But Sean Trendy at Real Clear Politics, who's one of
Speaker 2: my favorite election analysts, he wrote a piece called not
Speaker 2: only can Trump win right now? He is the favorite
Speaker 2: to win, and that describes it as a Republican best
Speaker 2: set to win the election since George W. Bush in
Speaker 2: two thousand and four, which the last time a Republican
Speaker 2: won the popular vote in this country. So people should
Speaker 2: really let these circumstances sink in now. It's a long
Speaker 2: time till election day. All of that, you know, eleven
Speaker 2: months ago. But as where things stand right now, I
Speaker 2: would hell of a lot be rather Trump not only
Speaker 2: the primary in the election as opposed to Joe Biden
Speaker 2: or any of the other people he's running against.
Speaker 1: You know who else needs to have that sink in
Speaker 1: from them is the Democratic Party?
Speaker 4: Saga?
Speaker 2: Oh, well that's not because that's a perfect turn to
Speaker 2: where we are right now. In an inexplicable and yet
Speaker 2: totally explicable move, the Florida Democratic Party has now officially
Speaker 2: put Joe Biden on the ballot in Florida, canceling their
Speaker 2: primary and effectively making it so that there will be
Speaker 2: no democracy in the state of Florida for Democrats. Put
Speaker 2: this please up there on the screen so you can
Speaker 2: see them chanting four more years. The thing is is
Speaker 2: that they changed it before there was ever going to
Speaker 2: be a primary. So let's put this please up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. I love the political headline here, Florida
Speaker 2: Democrats plan to cancel presidential primary, enraging Dean Phillips campaign.
Speaker 2: Not just Dean phillips campaign, as we will show you,
Speaker 2: but I love.
Speaker 1: How they only mentioned him when he's not even the
Speaker 1: leading Democratic whatever contender.
Speaker 2: Anyway, let's move past what they are doing, and Nikki Freed,
Speaker 2: the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, says that the
Speaker 2: party is quote followed its standard process and says that
Speaker 2: it is dismayed now by Dean Phillips's conspiratorial and inappropriate
Speaker 2: comments comparing the state of Florida to an Iranian regime
Speaker 2: as part of his knee jerk reaction to long established procedures.
Speaker 2: This comes to the delegation selection plan that they basically
Speaker 2: sped through the Democratic Convention, where through bureaucratic means they
Speaker 2: just canceled the presidential primary completely.
Speaker 3: Here is what Dean Phillips had to say about that.
Speaker 11: Hey, everybody, what happened in Florida yesterday is a tragedy
Speaker 11: and a travesty. The Florida Democratic Party decided, just a
Speaker 11: handful of people decided to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters
Speaker 11: in Florida by saying We're not going to have a
Speaker 11: presidential primary. I'm running for president. There are others running
Speaker 11: for president as Democrats, and this is the kind of
Speaker 11: stuff that happens in Tehran, not in Tallahassee. We've got
Speaker 11: to do something about this. I've been a lifelong Democrat,
Speaker 11: you know, that supported our party since I was in
Speaker 11: my twenties, been a member of Congress for three terms,
Speaker 11: and was a member of House Democratic leadership. I've never
Speaker 11: seen something so absurd, so disenfranchising, and so suppressive of
Speaker 11: Democratic voters.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he's right, Crystal, and unlike political
Speaker 2: will mention, some of the other candidates who are in
Speaker 2: the race, Jake Huger and Marian Williamson also sounded off.
Speaker 2: They had a press conference on the subject. Here's what
Speaker 2: they had to say.
Speaker 10: Mary Ann's at twelve percent, she would be what tied
Speaker 10: with DeSantis, above Nikki Haley. She would be second among
Speaker 10: the Republicans, let alone the fact that she's second among
Speaker 10: Democrats on which planet is not? Is that not a
Speaker 10: valid candidate? It's so absurd, it's kafka esque. Oh, a
Speaker 10: person polling higher than almost any challenger on the Republican
Speaker 10: or Democratic side doesn't exist.
Speaker 12: It's worth noting as well, there's one person who could
Speaker 12: put an end to all this craziness, and that's President Biden.
Speaker 12: President Biden should simply make a phone call, say this
Speaker 12: isn't right, make sure it's changed.
Speaker 5: And it would be.
Speaker 10: Such a great point. If I was a president, I'd
Speaker 10: be like, Oh, Marianne and Deina running against me, great,
Speaker 10: no problem, let's hear it out.
Speaker 12: It is hurting the Democratic Party and the chances for
Speaker 12: twenty twenty four that they are acting this way. Jank,
Speaker 12: Deine and I are not hurting the Democratic chances in
Speaker 12: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5: They are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, she's obviously right, and all the candidates
Speaker 2: should be outraged at this crystal. And yet I think
Speaker 2: this barely dented mainstream coverage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the only reason a dented at all is
Speaker 1: because of jan Phillips, and so that's why I'm glad
Speaker 1: he's in the race, because you have this like centristy
Speaker 1: member of Congress, you know, has the right credentials for
Speaker 1: the media to pay attention to and whatever helps to
Speaker 1: elevate the just brazen undemocratic nature of this process. And
Speaker 1: of course it goes without saying the irony and the
Speaker 1: hypocrisy of a democratic party that claims to be quote
Speaker 1: unquote saving democracy by literally canceling democracy in the state
Speaker 1: of Florida is quite something. And I think Jenk's comment
Speaker 1: there that is cough, gas, like that's the best word
Speaker 1: you could possibly use for this.
Speaker 4: Because so in the state of Florida, just.
Speaker 1: To get into some of the nitty gritty of this,
Speaker 1: in the state of Florida, under state law, it's left
Speaker 1: up to the party socide who gets put on the ballot.
Speaker 1: Now that already to me is like there should be
Speaker 1: some sort of like a formal process outside of the
Speaker 1: parties that you know, you get this money, put signature
Speaker 1: is on the petition or whatever, like it is in
Speaker 1: many states, but there are other states that also have
Speaker 1: it in their law that basically the party decides, and
Speaker 1: in those instances in other states, they looked, okay, who's eligible.
Speaker 1: You know, some of them said, okay, jenk he's not
Speaker 1: you know, he's not a natural born citizen, so he's
Speaker 1: not going to be on the ballot. But they looked
Speaker 1: at it and they just put okay, these are the contenders,
Speaker 1: They're the ones that have filed, were putting them on
Speaker 1: the ballot. In Florida, they really did an end run here.
Speaker 1: Dean Phillips says. They were reaching out to the Florida Democrats, Okay,
Speaker 1: what's your process, how do we get on the ballot,
Speaker 1: et cetera. They were supposed to submit their list of
Speaker 1: approve candidates on I think last Thursday. They did it
Speaker 1: before then, on November first, and just put Biden on there,
Speaker 1: didn't give anyone a heads up about how this was
Speaker 1: all going to go down, and just completely canceled the
Speaker 1: primary in the.
Speaker 4: State of Florida.
Speaker 1: It's it's truly outrageous and exposes how, you know, how
Speaker 1: hollow the Democratic Party's words about how much they care
Speaker 1: about democracy ultimately are.
Speaker 4: It's preposterous.
Speaker 1: And again at a time when they claim Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is this you know, threat to democracy, which I accept
Speaker 1: after January six, I think that's accurate. I think he
Speaker 1: is a genuine threat to democracy and that everything's on
Speaker 1: the line, and this is existential, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But you're doing everything to guarantee that this profoundly weakened
Speaker 1: candidate in Joe Biden, is the only guy that anyone
Speaker 1: has an opportunity to vote for. The Other thing I
Speaker 1: was thinking about soccer is like Biden is way ahead.
Speaker 1: You know, Marian's at like twelve percent, like Jank said.
Speaker 1: Dean Phillips is at like eight percent. You know, Jinks
Speaker 1: at like one or two percent in the polls that
Speaker 1: he's been put on at this point.
Speaker 4: So you got a really, really large lead here.
Speaker 1: But I think they feel that their position is precarious,
Speaker 1: and whether it is or not, it's hard to say,
Speaker 1: but they're looking at the polls, the fact that so
Speaker 1: many Democratic voters are very anxious about Joe Biden, how
Speaker 1: many Democratic voters are very upset with Joe Biden, how
Speaker 1: many Democratic voters.
Speaker 4: Really hate his policy on Israel.
Speaker 1: His policy on Israel is more popular with Republicans than
Speaker 1: it is with Democrats, And they feel a sense of
Speaker 1: vulnerability whether that is actually real or not, and so
Speaker 1: they're worried that, you know, somebody could catch fire in
Speaker 1: this moment and really take off and make a run
Speaker 1: at it, even though you know, from the outside you
Speaker 1: look at it and it seems like he's got this thing
Speaker 1: sewing up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, it's so obvious.
Speaker 2: Whenever look they are trying to rate they are they
Speaker 2: are not trying. They are rigging it completely for Biden's benefit.
Speaker 2: In a certain sense, though, Crystal, I think that is
Speaker 2: probably a good thing because they can own the decision
Speaker 2: one hundred percent should he eventually lose to Trump, and
Speaker 2: then maybe they will have a total reorganization and re
Speaker 2: examination of their priorities. Although that already did happen and
Speaker 2: none of that ended up happening, right.
Speaker 1: Instead, they just blamed Bernie Sanders in Russia and whatever.
Speaker 3: I wonder we'll get to blame this time. Well, I mean,
Speaker 3: you can't blame him.
Speaker 2: You can't blame primary people this time, because this time
Speaker 2: around they didn't even get to run against him for real.
Speaker 4: There wasn't blame the third party candidates.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 3: They'll blame our RFK.
Speaker 1: Jill Stein Cornell West That's who they'll that's how they'll
Speaker 1: blame this down.
Speaker 4: This general election is going to be wild.
Speaker 1: I mean, the primaries are like very anti democratic and
Speaker 1: there's not much drama on the Republican side either, But
Speaker 1: the general election is going to be really wild. If
Speaker 1: you have RFK, if you've got Cornell, Jill Stein, Joe
Speaker 1: Manton or whoever, this is going to be a different
Speaker 1: landscape I think than we've ever seen before. And it
Speaker 1: could be, uh, you know, it could be kind of
Speaker 1: total chaos in terms of who actually comes down on
Speaker 1: top and whether anyone's able to get to undred seventy
Speaker 1: electoral votes.
Speaker 2: It's going to be really Yeah, we've been reading about
Speaker 2: tingent elections here to prepare. If anybody's interested, go and
Speaker 2: google that term before we tell you all about it. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go and move on to George Santos. Santos, who
Speaker 2: will always be Congressman in our Hearts, was officially expelled
Speaker 2: from the House of Representatives after the ethics report. America's
Speaker 2: congressman delivered an ethics report from the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: that accused him of using campaign funds for a variety
Speaker 2: of persono talks, reasons only fans Botos and Onomens being
Speaker 2: the most egregious examples, but many, many, many others can
Speaker 2: be broad and lying about his background, deceiving the voters
Speaker 2: of the district from New York that he eventually ended
Speaker 2: up representing. Here was the final votally against him.
Speaker 13: The yea's are three hundred eleven, the nays are one
Speaker 13: hundred and fourteen, with two recorded as present, two thirds
Speaker 13: voting in the affirmative. The resolution is adopted under Clause
Speaker 13: five D of Rule twenty. The cheer announces to the
Speaker 13: House that, in light of the expulsion of the gentleman
Speaker 13: from New York, mister sand To's, the whole number of
Speaker 13: the House is now four hundred and thirty four.
Speaker 2: That makes George Santos the sixth person ever to be
Speaker 2: expelled from the House of Representatives. Interestingly enough, he is
Speaker 2: the only congressman to ever be expelled from the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives who was not actually convicted of a crime,
Speaker 2: which is what the justification of many of the people
Speaker 2: who voted to save Santos said is.
Speaker 3: They were like, look, he hasn't actually been convicted of this.
Speaker 2: Matt Gates, who also has an ethics complaint, against him
Speaker 2: regarding some of shenanigans going on with the girls and
Speaker 2: potential hookers down in the state of Florida. Is actually
Speaker 2: well the one who really made that point, because I
Speaker 2: believe a report is coming I got against him.
Speaker 3: Although he to.
Speaker 2: Be very he was exonerated, you know, by the Department
Speaker 2: or not exonerated. He was at the very least not
Speaker 2: prosecuted by the Department of Justice. So he's tried to say, like, look,
Speaker 2: just because you have a bad ethics complaint against you,
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that if you're unless you're convicted, then really
Speaker 2: that's the only case where you should be expelled. Santos though,
Speaker 2: as we had previously shown, people is going out with
Speaker 2: a bang almost certainly is with the police up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. So Santo says he will now be
Speaker 2: filing official complaints. Let's go and keep these up there.
Speaker 2: He says, Monday, I will be filing an official complaint
Speaker 2: with the Office of Congressional Ethics against a New York
Speaker 2: congresswoman regarding her questionable stock trading since joining the Ways
Speaker 2: and Means Committee. He says the same thing about Mike Lawler,
Speaker 2: who was one of those people who have campaigned against
Speaker 2: mister Santos in the Republican Party. He says, Congressman Lawler
Speaker 2: owns portions of Checkmate strategies and he uses the same
Speaker 2: firm he is the beneficiary of to pay for services
Speaker 2: related to his campaign. Says it is yeah, I mean it,
Speaker 2: says of Rayla Lota. He says it has been raised
Speaker 2: in local media that the congressman obtained his ID attending
Speaker 2: Hofstra in day school while he was supposed to be
Speaker 2: working at the board of his Board of Elections, sorry
Speaker 2: at the JD, attending the attending Hofstra in day school
Speaker 2: when he was supposed to be working at the Board
Speaker 2: of Elections. And then on Congressman Menendez, saying, while Congressman
Speaker 2: Menendez has not been invoked by the diligent investigation of
Speaker 2: the DJ into his father, there remains a question.
Speaker 3: Of what he did know and when did he know it.
Speaker 2: Basically, he's being a troll on all these but it
Speaker 2: does hit home a point of this.
Speaker 3: What is Santos really guilty of.
Speaker 2: Santos is guilty of just taking it a little bit
Speaker 2: too far outside of the officialdom. As he points out,
Speaker 2: like with Congressman Mike Lawler, there are all kinds of
Speaker 2: legal ways to be totally corrupt. And I'm not saying
Speaker 2: Lawler himself is corrupt. It's about a system where you
Speaker 2: can work for a firm. You're allowed to work part
Speaker 2: time for a law firm which can get business, which
Speaker 2: literally has business before the House of Representatives, and you
Speaker 2: can still do that when you're an elected representative. As
Speaker 2: he also points out, whenever it comes to campaign funds,
Speaker 2: I remember seeing reports that it was Eric Canter, the
Speaker 2: guy who lost here in Virginia, who was the House
Speaker 2: He had spent more on steak at a high quality
Speaker 2: stake restaurant here in Washington, DC than his primary opponent
Speaker 2: had spent in the primary race against him, Which is
Speaker 2: only just to show people like, if you're on campaign business,
Speaker 2: they can pay for a hell a lot of steak
Speaker 2: and alcohol that people are all consuming. As long as
Speaker 2: you're talking about they pay for your travel, they can
Speaker 2: pay for your else to travel, they can pay for
Speaker 2: your spouse's clothes. I mean, as long as you file,
Speaker 2: you know, dot the eyes and cross the t's and
Speaker 2: file the requisite paperwork and all that, you can get
Speaker 2: away with a lot.
Speaker 3: Of sketchy stuff.
Speaker 2: Whenever it comes to campaign finance, of course, sandals took
Speaker 2: it to a whole other level, committing outright fraud and
Speaker 2: also also spending you know, items on personal spending money
Speaker 2: on personal items that have nothing to do with campaign business.
Speaker 3: But to me, it's only a step or so.
Speaker 2: Removed from a lot of the legalized corruption that already
Speaker 2: exists in the.
Speaker 1: Electoral His fraud and his lies were of like uh tacky, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: and also very repeated.
Speaker 4: And undeniable nature.
Speaker 1: I saw there was another Republican congressman who was accusing
Speaker 1: him of like stealing their credit card, yeah, and his mom,
Speaker 1: and charging wasn't his mom or his mom? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and charging campaign max ount campaign contributions to it. And
Speaker 1: then we know from this report allegedly that he was
Speaker 1: then using those campaign contributions as his own personal piggy bank.
Speaker 1: So you know, I mean, that makes it pretty hard
Speaker 1: to deny that. The repeated lies, the fact that it
Speaker 1: was everything, the fact that it was you know, things
Speaker 1: he didn't even need to lie about, every single thing
Speaker 1: that came out of his mouth.
Speaker 4: Even his name is in doubt, like his.
Speaker 1: You know, is whether or not he's really gay, as
Speaker 1: in dever, memory's married to a woman, like, everything about
Speaker 1: this man is up for debate and nothing is as
Speaker 1: it seems, which is part of what I'm just so
Speaker 1: fascinated by him because I can't. I just I'm not
Speaker 1: wired like that, you know. I don't know if I
Speaker 1: guilty conscience or what. But the fact that he could
Speaker 1: just anything that he thought this person wanted to hear
Speaker 1: in the moment. He would tell them, you know, oh
Speaker 1: you were a volleybaster. I played volleyball. Oh you went
Speaker 1: to this college. I went to that college. What you know, Oh,
Speaker 1: you're looking for like a token gay conservative who doesn't,
Speaker 1: let you know, is critical of trans rice.
Speaker 2: I'll be that guy.
Speaker 1: Like, I'll be that guy, no problem, let me lean
Speaker 1: into that. Oh you're looking for, you know, someone to speak.
Speaker 4: At your Jewish event. I'm Jewish. Sure I'll speak at
Speaker 4: your event.
Speaker 1: It's wild to me, and and I guess that many
Speaker 1: other people are also interested in such character because there's
Speaker 1: a movie.
Speaker 4: That's going to be made about him. Put this up
Speaker 4: on the screen.
Speaker 1: The meteoric political rise of George Santos and the web
Speaker 1: of fabulous tales that was built on are getting a
Speaker 1: movie treatment. HBO Films is optioned the rights to a
Speaker 1: new book Mark Tusano.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm going to go with the Fabulous.
Speaker 1: The book is called The Fabulous, The lying, hustling, grifting,
Speaker 1: stealing and very American legend of George Santos, which was
Speaker 1: published on November twenty, twenty twenty three. He has sort
Speaker 1: of a uniquely American character, as like uniquely American like
Speaker 1: con artist Charlatan's Nakohil salesman, the fake it till you
Speaker 1: make it all the way to becoming a member of Congress.
Speaker 1: There's some Trump esque qualities here, but Santos doesn't quite
Speaker 1: have the uh, the talent to pull off what Trump
Speaker 1: has beneving.
Speaker 3: He doesn't have the Riz.
Speaker 2: Crystal Riz, by the way, is the Oxford Dictionaries word
Speaker 2: of the year. Oh really, so I will be incorporating
Speaker 2: it more. Thank you to the gen zs for popularizing it.
Speaker 3: But I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean, Santos is actually not just an American character.
Speaker 2: He's a throwback to some of the original House of
Speaker 2: Representative members and during a totally rigged process and the
Speaker 2: way the snake oil and all that. What do you
Speaker 2: think the modern West in the American economy was built on?
Speaker 2: In the Gilded age and all at that time. So
Speaker 2: in many ways he reminds me of that. I'm sad
Speaker 2: to see him go, but we will. Of course, he's
Speaker 2: not gonna go out with a bang. We just saw
Speaker 2: a report that came across that no television networks are
Speaker 2: hiring George Santos unfortunately. Honestly for us, I would love
Speaker 2: to see it go at it now that he's totally unchanged.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll have him here on the show's being.
Speaker 3: Yeah, fair enough. I'm gonna send him an invite.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna send him my god, if I can.
Speaker 3: That'd be fun.
Speaker 2: All right, Just tell me by yourself, mister Devalder. We'll
Speaker 2: start there. What's your actual name? Who are you and
Speaker 2: what are you alleging? So anyway, it's gonna be fun.
Speaker 4: Indeed.
Speaker 1: All right, so you brought up TV news. We got
Speaker 1: some TV news updates here. MSNBC major shakeup of their
Speaker 1: weekend lineup, including the cancelation of Medi Hassan show. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He confirmed it in
Speaker 1: a tweet. Yes, the Mehdi Hassan Show has ended on
Speaker 1: Peacock that's their streaming service, and we'll be ending on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Next month, still a few weeks left. Thank you all
Speaker 1: for watching over the past three years. Going forward, I
Speaker 1: will serve as guest anchor across prime shows and beyond
Speaker 1: and as an on air political analyst. Goes on to say,
Speaker 1: thanks for the impouring of love and support, Thanks of
Speaker 1: course to my team. Humbled and appreciative. Not going anywhere,
Speaker 1: and you'll hear from me lots in twenty twenty four. Interesting, so,
Speaker 1: Mehdi is one of three Muslim anchors at MSNBC who
Speaker 1: have come in for quite a bit of scrutiny and
Speaker 1: criticism because of their descent in Israel's war on Gaza.
Speaker 1: We reported this, you know, this happened a while ago
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the war. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen from semaphore. All three of those Muslim hosts
Speaker 1: were sidelined one after another, after the ADL had criticized
Speaker 1: them and after they had again expressed sort of dissenting
Speaker 1: views on the Israeli war on Gaza. MSNBC, they say,
Speaker 1: has quietly taken three of their Muslim broadcasters out of
Speaker 1: the anchor chair since Hamas's attack on Israel last Saturday,
Speaker 1: amid America's wave of sympathy for Israeli terror victims. And
Speaker 1: it also comes immediately after Mehdi did an interview with
Speaker 1: a NETNYA Who spokesperson that listen if you guys aren't
Speaker 1: familiar with him, he's kind of famous for being a
Speaker 1: really aggressive questioner grilling people in power. He's got done
Speaker 1: famous interviews with like John Bolton, et cetera. And so
Speaker 1: he had one of those interviews with a NETNA Who
Speaker 1: spokesperson that we actually covered here because it revealed a
Speaker 1: few new details about what happened and unfolded on October seventh.
Speaker 1: In particular, here's a little bit of a taste of that.
Speaker 12: Have you seen one picture of a single did Kamas
Speaker 12: terrorist in the fighting in Gaza?
Speaker 10: Not one? Is that.
Speaker 14: US can control Kamas can control the information question?
Speaker 3: And you said you would be brief.
Speaker 5: I have haven't.
Speaker 14: You're right, but I have seen lots of children with
Speaker 14: my own lying eyes being pulled from the.
Speaker 5: Robber because the pictures come.
Speaker 14: US wants you to see exactly there also people.
Speaker 5: Your government has killed.
Speaker 14: You accept that right, you've killed children? Or do you deny?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 6: I do not.
Speaker 5: I don't. I don't. First of all, you don't know
Speaker 5: how those people died those two.
Speaker 12: Wow.
Speaker 4: First of all, we.
Speaker 5: Don't want to see as you do.
Speaker 14: Okay, say I agree with you.
Speaker 3: I agree with you.
Speaker 14: We shouldn't blindly believe anything Hamas says. But why should
Speaker 14: we believe what your government says either. Your military spokesman
Speaker 14: on Monday pointed to an Arabic document in the basement
Speaker 14: of a Gaza hospital and claimed it was a guardian
Speaker 14: list on which every terrorist writes his name.
Speaker 5: But that was false.
Speaker 14: It was just a calendar with the days of the
Speaker 14: week on it. Your colleague in the Prime Minister's Office,
Speaker 14: Orphia Gendelman, posted behind the scenes footage from a Lebanese
Speaker 14: short film and claimed it was Palestinians in Gaza faking
Speaker 14: their own injuries. That tweet is still up a week later.
Speaker 14: That is endless disinformation from your government, is it not?
Speaker 15: So?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 1: These clips frequently went viral on Twitter. But his show,
Speaker 1: like many other AMAZONBC shows, was not getting you know,
Speaker 1: exceptionally high ratings, was not doing all that well in
Speaker 1: the ratings. And so that's what Amasamy c is basically saying,
Speaker 1: is it's ratings issue. It's a cost cutting issue. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you you know what I'm hearing from people is
Speaker 1: you know, the descent on Israel is part of the picture,
Speaker 1: but the bigger picture is that he's also very like
Speaker 1: aggressive on social media in a way that is uncomfortable
Speaker 1: for NBC executives as well. So do I think that
Speaker 1: they're sending a bit of a message by canceling Medi's
Speaker 1: show and you know, so publicly demoting him. Yes, do
Speaker 1: I think it's like a variety of factors that went
Speaker 1: into this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's probably true.
Speaker 2: I think that is true. I will not cry for
Speaker 2: Mehdi Hawson. I think he is a complete blowhard. He
Speaker 2: was a rush a Kate fanatic whenever he's on his
Speaker 2: various shows, COVID freak whenever it came to going against
Speaker 2: the lab leak theory and all this. I will quote
Speaker 2: again from my good friend zed Jalani, having worked with Mehdi,
Speaker 2: this is a pattern. He learns very little about a topic,
Speaker 2: goes one hundred percent full throttle with no nuance. He
Speaker 2: plays to a partisan crowd and frequently makes elementary errors
Speaker 2: like claiming that black people cannot vote.
Speaker 3: Enjoy.
Speaker 2: Now that said, I don't support him being canceled for
Speaker 2: his views on Israel and Gaza My biggest problem that
Speaker 2: comes from Mehdi is exactly this is he is a
Speaker 2: fundamentalist in everything that he believes.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 2: Is he a talented interviewer, Yes, But there's also a
Speaker 2: very famous clip that people can go in can watch
Speaker 2: of him talking about his at that time fundamentalist Islamic
Speaker 2: views and how he viewed other people. Has he evolved
Speaker 2: or not. I have no idea, but it just is
Speaker 2: demonstrative of the way he carries himself in public. And
Speaker 2: what comes and hits for me was a video here
Speaker 2: that he did with Matt tayev on the Twitter files
Speaker 2: where he attempted to go after him. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen your.
Speaker 14: Own words, Matt, you crossed that line and must castle.
Speaker 15: The hilarity of this coming from MSNBC, which did nothing
Speaker 15: but vomit up fake Russia Gates stories that came straight
Speaker 15: from the FBI for six consecutive years that you guys
Speaker 15: still haven't apologized for.
Speaker 10: In that period.
Speaker 14: So I've got nothing to apologize. I'm asking you your words.
Speaker 2: So Christal as I understand it, I'm on, how do
Speaker 2: you say it? Amen?
Speaker 3: Amen?
Speaker 2: Will continue to be on the air. He will, I
Speaker 2: think he still have a prominent role with the network.
Speaker 2: I think he's a far more responsible person whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to this conflict.
Speaker 3: And I understand.
Speaker 2: Look, you can think he's done a good job on
Speaker 2: Gaza and all of that, but he is not a
Speaker 2: person that I would want on my side, even in
Speaker 2: terms of debating and holding up the record of the
Speaker 2: Biden Administration's pushed some of the most ridiculous propaganda.
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: This is not somebody who I think should be spoken
Speaker 2: up for as some sort of like paragon of being
Speaker 2: truly independent I think on Gaza and on Israel specifically. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's an issue where he may be quote unquote courageous
Speaker 2: whenever it comes to his colleagues, although I guess the
Speaker 2: only fair rebuttal is that he's no worse than many
Speaker 2: of his other msls.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the thing is, are we better off with
Speaker 1: Mehdi Hassan on MSNBC or not? And I think undoubtedly
Speaker 1: the aspect of the job of interviewing powerful people and
Speaker 1: actually challenging them he is very good at. He is
Speaker 1: very good at and I do think that that is
Speaker 1: a major part of the reason and the fact that
Speaker 1: those clips of him pushing power for people go viral
Speaker 1: on Twitter is a major part of the reason that
Speaker 1: he's main canceled. And it's not just on Israel and
Speaker 1: Palestein I went back. I actually just googled like many
Speaker 1: grills on YouTube because that's his thing.
Speaker 5: Ye.
Speaker 1: He grilled John Bolton on Iraq and on war crimes.
Speaker 1: He grilled the US American US ambassador on hypocrisy with
Speaker 1: regards to war crimes in Yemen. He grilled Cedric Richmond
Speaker 1: a biden aid on healthcare failures. He grilled Bernie on
Speaker 1: build back better. He stood up for Julian A. Sane,
Speaker 1: very unusual in the cable news landscape. He pressed Koreean
Speaker 1: Jean Pierre over Biden miministration failures. He pressed one of
Speaker 1: those Lincoln Project ghules about their failures as well. He
Speaker 1: criticized identity politics of hiring Lloyd Austin as the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense after he had served on the Raytheon as
Speaker 1: a board member.
Speaker 4: So I'm not saying I agree with many on everything.
Speaker 1: Lennie and I have had plenty of differences and have
Speaker 1: many disagreements that he would attest to as well. But
Speaker 1: is he being fired because he's bad at the job. No,
Speaker 1: he's being fired because of the part of the job
Speaker 1: that he's actually good at, and also because he's apparently
Speaker 1: not boring enough on Twitter. Now they're using Amen, who
Speaker 1: I have known for a long time and respect very
Speaker 1: much as a journalist, and especially in Israel and Palestine,
Speaker 1: where he has a depth of knowledge, they're using him
Speaker 1: to basically be like, see, it's not about the fact.
Speaker 4: That he's Muslim.
Speaker 1: But you don't think that people get the message about
Speaker 1: how loud and aggressive you're allowed to be, how far
Speaker 1: out of line you're allowed to step, especially when you're
Speaker 1: not a Rachel Maddow or you're not like their number
Speaker 1: one star or ratings skeetter. People are definitely getting that
Speaker 1: message loud and clear. And you know, it also isn't
Speaker 1: lost on me that you had that adl dude go
Speaker 1: on Morning Joe and accuse him and Aimin and Alan
Speaker 1: Belchi of like hamas talking points in this absolutely arrangeous thing.
Speaker 1: So I think that they felt like they needed to
Speaker 1: do something to appease people who were accusing them of
Speaker 1: being like Hammas propagandist.
Speaker 3: I think I think that's fair.
Speaker 2: I guess it's just you know what I think the
Speaker 2: fundamental difference is is that he is somebody who assumes
Speaker 2: the absolute worst faith of every single person who does
Speaker 2: not agree with him.
Speaker 1: That's a gist that has not been my experience because
Speaker 1: many US disagree with me on Twitter and said it
Speaker 1: in an actually very respectful way of but especially it
Speaker 1: was on you know, this fraught thing about like, you know, economic,
Speaker 1: what was the thing that people economic insecurity that this
Speaker 1: was part of electing Trump. And he very much disagreed
Speaker 1: with that. He was like, no, it's the racism. And
Speaker 1: I'm like, listen, it's complex and you can't look at
Speaker 1: it economics and say and that's a very fraught issue.
Speaker 1: And he disagreed with me very respectfully without attacking my
Speaker 1: personal character.
Speaker 2: That has been my experience with the opposite, where I
Speaker 2: basically had to mute him because he constantly blew up
Speaker 2: me and zed for exactly actually on the same topic.
Speaker 2: So I think his orientation on whether you're a fellow
Speaker 2: liberal or like a fellow traveler or somebody who's opposed
Speaker 2: to him, and especially the type of what I perceive
Speaker 2: is identity politics and Islamism that he likes to justify
Speaker 2: and push here in America that stuff drives me absolutely.
Speaker 4: Give me an example.
Speaker 2: I mean the video that he is that the video
Speaker 2: that shows him virally Okay, who cares?
Speaker 3: From how long?
Speaker 4: He's never opposi No, So it has nothing to do
Speaker 4: with it.
Speaker 2: This is about the character, about the person who we
Speaker 2: are disagreeing with. I Actually, I'm pretty sure the disagreement
Speaker 2: him and I had was even before he was on MSNBC.
Speaker 2: But my point that remains here is about the way
Speaker 2: that I think that he has approached most of his detractors,
Speaker 2: including people like Zed who actually also had to block him.
Speaker 2: So look, maybe all of this is a little bit
Speaker 2: too personal, but some of what Glenn Greenwell is brought up,
Speaker 2: let's go and put this up there, please up on
Speaker 2: the screen is and he makes this point. I think
Speaker 2: what you're saying MSNBC anonymously is denying that Mehdi's criticism
Speaker 2: of Israel had anything to do with his firing, insisting
Speaker 2: instead that it was due to.
Speaker 3: His almost invisible ratings.
Speaker 2: And Mehdi will not say Go to the next part,
Speaker 2: And this is where I'm curious what you think he says.
Speaker 2: It could be anything one would expect a journalist to provide.
Speaker 2: The explanation. But I guess Mehdi doesn't want to anger
Speaker 2: the corporate bosses, so he is staying quiet and then
Speaker 2: surmises that people would self respect would quit. So what
Speaker 2: is it like in this situation having worked inside the beast?
Speaker 2: Where like, what are the strictures that he would have
Speaker 2: around him? Where it like what is his non compete?
Speaker 2: Look at what is he allowed to do? What is
Speaker 2: he allowed to say?
Speaker 1: I mean, he definitely if he was going to speak
Speaker 1: out and quit right now, he would definitely have at
Speaker 1: the very least illegal fight on his hands. Okay, So
Speaker 1: it's not just about like I mean, listen, I think
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to stay if he's indeed been canceled
Speaker 1: for effectively doing his job. Well, I do think that
Speaker 1: that is a difficult thing. I do think Meddi. You know,
Speaker 1: he was at the Intercept, then he moved over to AMSNBC.
Speaker 1: I think he wants to be in mainstream press and
Speaker 1: so that may factor into his decision making too.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's they put you in a bind
Speaker 1: to make it so that it is very difficult to.
Speaker 4: Speak out against them.
Speaker 1: If you left, you'd have this long non compete, or
Speaker 1: you couldn't do anything for some period of time, or
Speaker 1: like I say, you have this huge legal battle on
Speaker 1: your hands, and you know, Tucker basically told Fox News
Speaker 1: to shove it. But Tucker also has a lot more money,
Speaker 1: is a lot more famous.
Speaker 2: I support Meddi going independent, I think is noncompetes or
Speaker 2: bs even if I don't like the guy. I think
Speaker 2: it's crazy that if he was canceled for this particular reason,
Speaker 2: but it also is a little bit of nature of
Speaker 2: the beast in terms of when you're working for this organization.
Speaker 1: You know, what I would say is, ironically, I actually
Speaker 1: think that Mehdi would do a lot better independent, no question,
Speaker 1: because totally right the things he's doing at MSMBC, like MSNBC,
Speaker 1: audience is not all uninterested in holding Biden officials to
Speaker 1: a calendar standing up for Juliana Sange, So in that way,
Speaker 1: he may have been an awkward fit there, just based
Speaker 1: on this sort of small sycophantic audience that they've cultivated.
Speaker 1: And his clips do routinely go viral online, so he's
Speaker 1: sort of better at that game than he is necessarily
Speaker 1: at the cable news game. So I think if he
Speaker 1: did step out on his own. I think he could
Speaker 1: be successful.
Speaker 2: I think that maybe the reason why is, as you said,
Speaker 2: he's famous for interviews.
Speaker 3: But Karine Jean Pierre is not going.
Speaker 4: On independent use that's right, That's exactly right.
Speaker 3: Or the Israeli president, it's not going. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 2: So if he wants to remain famous for his interviews
Speaker 2: and all that, it is going to be tough. But
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess that just comes down to the
Speaker 2: nature of the beast for what he's doing. This, by
Speaker 2: the way, is why Cable was flawed and also inherently
Speaker 2: bad model.
Speaker 3: Yes, Bristol, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: Well, we may never again see a headline that so
Speaker 1: perfectly encapsulates the US policy toward Israel's total war on Gaza.
Speaker 1: US sends Israel two thousand pound bunker buster bombs for
Speaker 1: Gaza war. After sending massive bombs artillery shells. US also
Speaker 1: urges Israel to limit civilian casualties. What a sick joke
Speaker 1: this all is at this point leaking to the US
Speaker 1: press how concerned you are about civilian deaths while expediting
Speaker 1: shipments of the very weapons that Israel is used to
Speaker 1: slaughter innocence on a scale that we have not seen
Speaker 1: from a developed country in modern history. Every day, practically
Speaker 1: every hour, we learn of some new fresh whore. Here
Speaker 1: is one of the very latest. A journalist allowed into
Speaker 1: a hospital that had been forcibly evacuated by the IDF
Speaker 1: makes the most grizzly of discoveries. Four premature babies in
Speaker 1: a state of unimaginable decay, their bodies eaten by worms
Speaker 1: and mulled by stray dogs, after doctors were forced to
Speaker 1: evacuate that facility. Now, the nurse responsible for their care
Speaker 1: described the wrenching decision to leave them behind. In an
Speaker 1: interview with The Washington Post. He said, quote, I felt
Speaker 1: like I was leaving my own children behind. That nurse
Speaker 1: took the baby he considered to be the strongest and
Speaker 1: most able to survive without oxygen with him when they
Speaker 1: were all forced to flee. That baby was then taken
Speaker 1: to Al Shiva Hospital, which was rated mere days later. Now,
Speaker 1: I want you to understand these atrocities and the many
Speaker 1: others we've witnessed in Israel's assault on Gaza.
Speaker 4: They are not normal.
Speaker 1: They are not the unavoidable cost of war. These babies
Speaker 1: and the other untold thousands of innocents who have died
Speaker 1: are not collateral damage, tensional targets, and a new expos
Speaker 1: by nine seventy two magazine lays out the exact strategy
Speaker 1: that lies behind what can only be called a campaign
Speaker 1: of all out terror. In this war, civilians and civilian
Speaker 1: infrastructure of things like hospitals are targeted directly with the
Speaker 1: explicit goal of shocking the population, and in a dystopian
Speaker 1: flourish AI is being used to accelerate the carnage. Here
Speaker 1: is that piece from nine to seven to two, a
Speaker 1: mass assassination factory inside Israel's calculated bombing of Gaza. Now
Speaker 1: when you look at today's videos of children buried under rubble,
Speaker 1: entire residential neighborhoods destroyed, lifeless bodies of babies in the
Speaker 1: arms of grief stricken parents, keep these words in mind
Speaker 1: from one of nine seven to two sources quote, nothing
Speaker 1: happens by accident. When a three year old girl is
Speaker 1: killed in home in Gaza, it's because someone in the
Speaker 1: army decided it was not a.
Speaker 4: Big deal for her to be killed.
Speaker 1: Israel's periodic wars on Gaza have never been the beacon
Speaker 1: of humanitarian war fighting that Israel's presented to the world,
Speaker 1: but some of the minimal guardrails that did prevent mass
Speaker 1: civilian death have been lifted in this current assault. This
Speaker 1: is evident in Israel's overwhelming focus on two types of targets,
Speaker 1: private residences and so called power targets, which are things
Speaker 1: like hospitals, apartment buildings, infrastructure, and other key centers of
Speaker 1: civil society. During the first five days of this war,
Speaker 1: half of the targets that were bombs were quote unquote
Speaker 1: power targets, and the goal of this bombing campaign was
Speaker 1: not to eradicate Hamas, as Israel has claimed. Instead, the
Speaker 1: goal was to quote create a shock that, among other things,
Speaker 1: will reverberate powerfully and lead civilians to put pressure on
Speaker 1: Hamas as. One source put it to nine seven to two.
Speaker 1: Another source explained that the buildings only needed the most
Speaker 1: remote connection to Hamas or Islamic Jihad to be targeted
Speaker 1: for complete destruction. Quote if they would tell the whole
Speaker 1: world that the Islamic Jihad offices on the tenth floor
Speaker 1: are not important as a target, but that its existence
Speaker 1: is a justification to bring down the entire high with
Speaker 1: the aim of pressuring civilian families who live in it
Speaker 1: in order to put pressure on terrorist organizations. This would
Speaker 1: itself be seen as terrorism, so they do not say it.
Speaker 1: In other words, terror is the explicit goal here. It's
Speaker 1: the very same goal, by the way as Hamas on
Speaker 1: October seventh, except in this instance it's terror by a
Speaker 1: supposedly civilized nation state, armed to the teeth by the
Speaker 1: world's superpower, and given diplomatic cover with zero red lines.
Speaker 1: The attacks on these power targets have also stood out
Speaker 1: for our unprecedented scale of civilian death. According to nine
Speaker 1: seven to two. In prior wars, civilians were more consistently
Speaker 1: warned ahead of bombings. The IDF would leaflet, they would
Speaker 1: send messages. They would use a quote unquote roof knock
Speaker 1: to warn the building was about to be attacked. They
Speaker 1: would use drones then to even monitor civilian departures to
Speaker 1: make sure people were living leaving. Not so in this war,
Speaker 1: where many buildings have been bombed with no warning and
Speaker 1: with hundreds of civilians still inside. Another major focus of
Speaker 1: Israel's bombing campaign has been the private residences of low
Speaker 1: level Hamas operatives. As one source who was unhappy with
Speaker 1: this practice said quote. In the majority of cases, military
Speaker 1: activity is not conducted from these targeted homes. I remember
Speaker 1: thinking that it was like if Palestinian militants would bomb
Speaker 1: all the private residences of our families when Israeli soldiers
Speaker 1: go back to sleep at home on the weekend. The
Speaker 1: blanket assault on these private homes, where many families were
Speaker 1: still located, has been aided by a new AI tool
Speaker 1: which uses algorithms to produce targets. According to the Guardian,
Speaker 1: this has dramatically accelerated the IDs target generating capability from
Speaker 1: fifty per year to one hundred per day.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 1: MOSS members who don't really mean anything live in homes
Speaker 1: across Gaza, so they mark the home and bomb the
Speaker 1: house and kill everyone there. Taken together, these reports thoroughly
Speaker 1: demong the already preposterous idea that Israel was surgically targeting
Speaker 1: Hamas No. Idaspokesperson Daniel Hagari was closer to the truth
Speaker 1: when he said this quote. The emphasis is on damage,
Speaker 1: not on accuracy. These are the tactics that the US
Speaker 1: government is meekly protesting as the bombing campaign now moves
Speaker 1: to the south, where most of Gaza's two point two million.
Speaker 4: Residents have been forced to flee.
Speaker 1: Already hundreds of Palestinian has been killed in that renewed assault.
Speaker 1: If this bombing of six residential high rises and communists
Speaker 1: is any indication, the focus on destroying power targets to
Speaker 1: terrorize the entire population remains firmly in place. And the
Speaker 1: truth is, the Israeli government can't be so stupid as
Speaker 1: to think that any of this is actually in the
Speaker 1: long term security interests of Israel. To think that massacring
Speaker 1: children by the thousands is going to lead the palastating
Speaker 1: population to turn on Hamas, It will not lead the
Speaker 1: population to turn on Hamas. It will certainly lead some
Speaker 1: of the population to turn into Hamas or to embrace
Speaker 1: other groups advocating violent armed resistance. No, the real goal
Speaker 1: is to put on a show for the Jewish Israeli public,
Speaker 1: fifty eight percent of whom do not believe the idea
Speaker 1: has been brutal enough, and only one point eight percent
Speaker 1: of whom believe that they have gone too far. The
Speaker 1: real goal is a last ditch attempt by Bibi to
Speaker 1: stay in power by showing just what a monster he
Speaker 1: can be, to satisfy a monstrous public appetite for death
Speaker 1: and destruction. As one source explained to nine seven two,
Speaker 1: there is a feeling that senior officials in the army
Speaker 1: are aware of their failure in October seventh, and they
Speaker 1: are busy with the question of how to provide the
Speaker 1: Israeli public with an image of victory that will salvage
Speaker 1: their reputation. Apparently, that sought after image of victory is
Speaker 1: that of decomposing babies left to suffocate and starve in
Speaker 1: a power target also known as a hospital.
Speaker 4: Real tough guys, and so soccer.
Speaker 2: These are the details, and if you want to hear
Speaker 2: my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today
Speaker 2: at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk a little bit more about bb
Speaker 1: Neetnahun what he might be thinking in this moment. So
Speaker 1: excited to welcome Scott Horton. He's with the Libertarian Institute
Speaker 1: and also Anti War dot Com.
Speaker 2: Great to see you, sir, Good to see you man.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much for having me both of you.
Speaker 1: So let's start with this. Put this news article up
Speaker 1: on the screen. We mentioned this early from the intercept.
Speaker 1: They're reporting Netanyahu's goal for Gaza quote thinn population to
Speaker 1: a minimum. He has apparently tasked one of his top
Speaker 1: advisors with coming up with a plan to quote unquote
Speaker 1: thin the population and pressure of the US to go
Speaker 1: along with this plan. Scott, I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you because you have sort of studied net Nyahu and
Speaker 1: his political ideology and how he's operated for.
Speaker 4: A long time.
Speaker 1: So when you see a headline like that, what is
Speaker 1: your reaction to it? And you know how does this
Speaker 1: dovetail with net Nyaho's political ideology throughout his career.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean, just with the last thing first there,
Speaker 7: I think this represents the complete failure of the net
Speaker 7: Nyahu doctrine in his Panic He has to keep the
Speaker 7: war going as long as he can to stay in office,
Speaker 7: and he has to try to figure out how to
Speaker 7: make his legacy as the longest serving prime minister in
Speaker 7: Israeli history be anything other than the catastrophe of October
Speaker 7: the seventh, and so he's got to come up with something.
Speaker 7: And this is his brilliant idea is he's going to
Speaker 7: cleanse the Gaza strip.
Speaker 5: All this talk about targeting.
Speaker 7: Hamas you've been talking out of both sides of their
Speaker 7: mouths for two months now, right, Eh, maybe we'll just
Speaker 7: get rid of all the Palestinians. And then they go, no,
Speaker 7: we're just targeting the bad guys, and we're real sorry
Speaker 7: if some medicine civilians getting the way, but not that sorry,
Speaker 7: but it is what it is.
Speaker 5: And then they go, not, but we really want to kick.
Speaker 7: Them all out into the Sinai Peninsula or then I
Speaker 7: can't even believe this.
Speaker 5: This is just this alone is world history.
Speaker 7: That the Wall Street Journal published an article by two
Speaker 7: Israeli ministers saying you take them yep, And I mean.
Speaker 5: This is just incredible.
Speaker 7: And they've leaked all various kind of trial balloons saying, yeah,
Speaker 7: we'll give twenty five thousand to all different countries all
Speaker 7: around the world. You say, love the Palestinians so much,
Speaker 7: why won't you help us cleanse them off of their land?
Speaker 7: And so this is I guess supposed to be Net
Speaker 7: Nyahu's big accomplishment. So you can go down in history
Speaker 7: as anything other than the guy who's doctrine, the official
Speaker 7: Net and Yahoo doctrine completely blew up in that society's face.
Speaker 5: On October the seventh.
Speaker 2: Scott Darryl Cooper, our mutual friend, recommended that I talked
Speaker 2: to you, and whenever Daryl tells me that you're a
Speaker 2: guy who's gone really deep on this, I'm like, he
Speaker 2: knows the ins and outs and so something. I'm curious,
Speaker 2: as you talked about the Netanyahoo doctrine, if you could
Speaker 2: take a step back about Netta Yahoo, his relationship to
Speaker 2: hamas to Palestinian statehood going back throughout his career, and
Speaker 2: how a lot of it had culminated not only with
Speaker 2: October seventh, but with the policy that they're moving towards
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So, I mean, what the heck.
Speaker 7: I'll go back to nineteen ninety six when he first
Speaker 7: was Prime Minister, a guy who ended up being Dick
Speaker 7: Cheney's guy, David Wormser, along with Richard Pearl, probably the
Speaker 7: most powerful of the neo conservatives of the first w
Speaker 7: Bush term era. These guys in Douglas fight, they wrote
Speaker 7: a plan called a clean Break and it was for
Speaker 7: net Yahoo and what it said was, we want regime
Speaker 7: change in Iraq in order to weaken Iran, Syria and
Speaker 7: has Bala so that we don't have to live up
Speaker 7: to the Oslo Accord and give the Palestinians their state.
Speaker 5: And the thinking is completely crazy.
Speaker 7: But the idea was that if Israel and or America
Speaker 7: could do a coup or ultimately a war in Iraq,
Speaker 7: that Jordan and Turkey would be dominant in Syria, and
Speaker 7: then they would force the Shiai clergy in Najaf to
Speaker 7: force Hasbala to stop being friends with Iran and be
Speaker 7: nice to Israel instead, and then once the pressure on
Speaker 7: Israel's northern front is relieved, then they won't have to
Speaker 7: deal in good faith with the Palestinians and negotiate over
Speaker 7: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so as in
Speaker 7: the deal and their sworn promises. So this is the
Speaker 7: whole point of the Iraq war, of a Rock War
Speaker 7: two was to help Israel so they wouldn't have to
Speaker 7: give justice to the Palestinians.
Speaker 5: And so you know Netnyahu was and in.
Speaker 7: Fact, he later was caught on candid camera and anyone
Speaker 7: can watch this on YouTube bragging about how he fooled
Speaker 7: Bill Clinton at why and had promised he's going to
Speaker 7: make these concessions toward a Palestinian state. But haha, area
Speaker 7: see is two thirds of the whole thing, sucker, and
Speaker 7: all this he talks all about it, and he says Americans,
Speaker 7: eighty percent of American support US. It's absurd. America is
Speaker 7: easily moved. They'll do whatever I tell them. And so
Speaker 7: then Sharon was Prime minister from I guess two thousand
Speaker 7: or very early oh one or very late two thousand
Speaker 7: through five when he had his stroke, or late o
Speaker 7: five when he had his stroke. So Sharon had this doctrine.
Speaker 7: He was also lakued with net Yahou, although they ended
Speaker 7: up splitting and he created his own party, Kadema. But
Speaker 7: he had a policy which avowedly at the time, was
Speaker 7: sabotage of the peace process.
Speaker 5: They called the disengagement.
Speaker 7: And you'll hear pro israel Hawks all the time say, gee,
Speaker 7: we gave him a Palestinian state and the Gaza Strip
Speaker 7: and all we got in return is rockets. Well that's
Speaker 7: just not true. They withdrew, but they didn't end the occupation.
Speaker 7: Israel kept complete and total control of the Gaza Strip. Essentially,
Speaker 7: they just took the warden and the prison guards and
Speaker 7: moved them to the outer perimeter, but still a prison
Speaker 7: as nothing like a sovereign state.
Speaker 5: Is kept total control over their.
Speaker 7: Airspace, their borders, their taxation, the revenue, their fishing, rights offshore,
Speaker 7: every single thing the occupation didn't end. And in fact,
Speaker 7: I'll urge your audience to google these terms. That'll come
Speaker 7: right up. There's no mistake in it. It's aerial Sharon
Speaker 7: for maldehyde. And that's of course the preservative that you
Speaker 7: use for corpses right when you're preparing them for burial.
Speaker 7: And so the quote is from Dove Weist Glass. It's
Speaker 7: Dove with no e, Dove Weissglass, and he worked for Sharona,
Speaker 7: an advisor to Sharona, and he's explained to Hiretz. The withdrawal,
Speaker 7: this is again the two thousand and five so called disengagement.
Speaker 7: The withdrawal is for maldehyde. It puts the peace process
Speaker 7: in for maldehyde. It means that with the Palestinians divided
Speaker 7: and conquered, those in charge in Gaza, they can't resort
Speaker 7: to participation in any international organizations or any kind of negotiation.
Speaker 7: And we can say, in fact, he says, with the
Speaker 7: blessing of the Congress and the President, we got a
Speaker 7: no one to talk to certificate, you know, like they
Speaker 7: always say that.
Speaker 5: We just have no partner for peace.
Speaker 7: Well, we have no one to talk to certificate, and
Speaker 7: we won't have to talk to them until Gaza becomes Norway,
Speaker 7: meaning I guess a very polite and harmless and non
Speaker 7: violent society.
Speaker 5: In other words, never. And then so.
Speaker 7: Ahud Olmert was in there in the meantime between Sharon
Speaker 7: and net Yahoo, and he was a bit less worse
Speaker 7: than the two of them, although he was Sharon's guy,
Speaker 7: But he didn't really make any progress, you know, while
Speaker 7: he was in there toward any real negotiations. And then
Speaker 7: when Netanyah who came in the Net and Yahoo doctrine
Speaker 7: basically goes like this. He was coming into a situation
Speaker 7: where all of the Sunni kings of the Arabian Peninsula,
Speaker 7: all them sock puppets of the American Empire. Essentially, they
Speaker 7: had promised that they would never normalize relations with Israel
Speaker 7: until the Palestinians got an independent state, and the Saudis
Speaker 7: had put forward their peace plan a very reasonable one
Speaker 7: in two thousand and two and had repeatedly suggested that
Speaker 7: I think in two thousand and seven it was the
Speaker 7: basis of the Annapolis talks, possibly anyway, very reasonable proposals
Speaker 7: for a two state solution. But then Donald Trump's son
Speaker 7: in law, Jared Kushner figured out that no, everybody's got
Speaker 7: a price, and the American people can afford to borrow
Speaker 7: enough from South Korea or somebody to pay it. And
Speaker 7: so what we're going to do is we're going to
Speaker 7: give bahrain F sixteen's, we're going to give uae F
Speaker 7: thirty five, We're going to forgive Sudanese a debt, and
Speaker 7: we're gonna the Trump administration is going to recognize Morocco's
Speaker 7: seizure of northern western Sahara. And with these bribes and
Speaker 7: then they're work on Saudi Arabia. These are called the
Speaker 7: Abraham Accords. And with these bribes, what they did was
Speaker 7: they succeeded in getting the Sunni sock puppet GCC kingdom
Speaker 7: regimes to go ahead and normalize relations with Israel, which
Speaker 7: on the surface is great. That's what we want is
Speaker 7: every nation to get along, open trade, lower and lower tariffs,
Speaker 7: and more and more commercial relationships and fewer and fewer
Speaker 7: political relationships so that everybody in the world can get along.
Speaker 7: That's fine, but what it was really about was screwing
Speaker 7: the Palestinians. It was saying, you're not going to get
Speaker 7: your independent state and you are not going to get
Speaker 7: independent citizenship in one state or in any kind of
Speaker 7: bi national state. You lose and people can go and
Speaker 7: look at Nettyanhu's speech that he gave to the United
Speaker 7: Nations just two weeks before the October seventh attack, where
Speaker 7: he holds up a piece of paper, he shows the map.
Speaker 5: He's always got some visual aid.
Speaker 7: This time he shows the map of one state from
Speaker 7: the river to the sea. There's no carved out piece
Speaker 7: of the west Bank or Gaza there.
Speaker 5: And what he's saying is that's it we want.
Speaker 7: The Netnyahoo doctrine has proved that I do not have
Speaker 7: to negotiate with the Palestinians. I do not have to
Speaker 7: concede citizenship rights or independence to them, and I can
Speaker 7: get what I want anyway. And the Palestinians they're just
Speaker 7: going to have to get used to living on their bellies.
Speaker 1: And can you talk a little bit about these quotes
Speaker 1: that have been attributed to Nannyahoo talking about Hamas, where
Speaker 1: he says anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of
Speaker 1: a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring
Speaker 1: money to Hamas. He also said reportedly this is part
Speaker 1: of our strategy to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from
Speaker 1: the Palestinians in the West Bank. Can you put those
Speaker 1: quotes in context for us?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean that's the other half of the Ntnyahu
Speaker 7: doctrine right there. So the first part is we want
Speaker 7: to essentially get over the hurdle of dealing with the
Speaker 7: Palestinians in order to make a deal with the Sunni
Speaker 7: Arab states. And then the other half was making sure
Speaker 7: that mackmood A Boss, who you know Donald Trump talked
Speaker 7: about like, oh, he's such a nice old grandpa. He
Speaker 7: doesn't come across like Yasir Arafat even much less Hamas right,
Speaker 7: And so that's a real problem from La Koud's point
Speaker 7: of view.
Speaker 5: They don't even care as much about gossip.
Speaker 7: They want that West Bank, that land, and the Palestinians there,
Speaker 7: they're just in the way. We're gonna have to figure
Speaker 7: that out later. Right now, it's facts on the ground.
Speaker 7: But if the consensus in America and Europe and what
Speaker 7: passes for the left in Israel is that no, we
Speaker 7: have to deal with mackmood A Boss and the Palestinian
Speaker 7: authority and give them a two state solution like in
Speaker 7: the promise, then that ruins the net and Yahoo doctrine.
Speaker 5: They want that land.
Speaker 7: So in order to prevent that, Net Yahu essentially accelerated
Speaker 7: that aerial Sharon policy. Now, just for time, I'll skip this,
Speaker 7: but I'll drop a great footnote for you, okay, that
Speaker 7: everybody knows there was the election of six where Hamas
Speaker 7: want a plurality, not a majority, seventeen years ago. And
Speaker 7: then there's a great article called the Gaza Bombshell.
Speaker 5: You got to read.
Speaker 7: It has quotes from David Wormser telling the truth about
Speaker 7: it in there Eden.
Speaker 5: It's incredible.
Speaker 7: It's the Gaza Bombshell by David Rose, and it's about
Speaker 7: how they tried to do a coup against Hamas after
Speaker 7: the election in favor of the PA, but that blew
Speaker 7: up and failed, and that was how Hamas took over
Speaker 7: the strip. And that was, of course before Netnyahu came back.
Speaker 7: That was during a hoot Olmert. But then when net
Speaker 7: Yahoo came back, he decided, this is great, just like
Speaker 7: with formaldehyde, and the Palestinians divided and conquered. Now they're
Speaker 7: divided and conquered. Plus now not only are they divided,
Speaker 7: geographically in this way. But now you have Hamas in
Speaker 7: control of Gaza and the PA in the West Bank.
Speaker 7: And so if anyone ever says it's time for you
Speaker 7: guys to negotiate with the PA, they can point at
Speaker 7: Hamas in Gaza and say, nope, we have no partner
Speaker 7: for peace.
Speaker 5: You don't expect us to negotiate with these terrorists, do you.
Speaker 7: And so there's the one famous quote that you just
Speaker 7: read there, Crystal, comes from Net Yahoo briefing the leaders
Speaker 7: of the Likud party in the Knesset. And again the
Speaker 7: quote is we have to bolster Hamas. He says, transfer
Speaker 7: them money, and that means pressure and cutter to transfer
Speaker 7: the money basically, and in order to what to quote,
Speaker 7: to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state. And now
Speaker 7: here's what you do. You go to antiwar dot com
Speaker 7: slash Scott because I collect these quotes like hot wheels, okay,
Speaker 7: and I got about ten or twelve of them for
Speaker 7: you from not just Net and Yahoo, but Bezileel Smatrich,
Speaker 7: who is his finance minister, who says the PA is
Speaker 7: a liability, Hamas is an asset. He says, in this
Speaker 7: game of de legitimization. Hamas is an asset. They can't
Speaker 7: go to the UN, they can't go to the International
Speaker 7: Criminal Court. They we can't put us in a situation
Speaker 7: where we might need the US to come and veto
Speaker 7: a resolution against us.
Speaker 5: They can't do nothing.
Speaker 7: And the more we have Hamas to point at, then
Speaker 7: the better situation we're in. And he even was the
Speaker 7: question even was, yeah, but isn't Hamas dangerous?
Speaker 5: And he ends with yeah, I don't think we need
Speaker 5: to worry about that.
Speaker 7: Just like net and Yahuu in that quote that you
Speaker 7: read there, Crystal ends with don't worry.
Speaker 5: We control the height of the flames.
Speaker 7: And because of this imperial hubris, that's what reached out
Speaker 7: and got them on October the seventh. They thought that
Speaker 7: they had this perfectly in hand, as long as we
Speaker 7: have these good little pet terrorists in Gaza to point
Speaker 7: at and scapegoat and say we have no partner for peace.
Speaker 7: Everybody repeat after me, we have no partner for peace.
Speaker 7: See the alliteration. There are two p words. You know
Speaker 7: it's true, we have no partner for peace. And you
Speaker 7: can memorize it and you can repeat it so you
Speaker 7: know it's right. And it's some of the most successful
Speaker 7: hasbara probably in history in fact.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so true, man, drop a knowledge here, Scott Horden,
Speaker 2: You've given us an incredible amount of background here sir.
Speaker 2: Where can people find out more about your work? Just
Speaker 2: anti war dot com slash Scott.
Speaker 7: Yes, so that's my latest piece and my latest two
Speaker 7: pieces about the current war at anti ward dot com
Speaker 7: slash Scott, and I do have all of all the
Speaker 7: best quotes of Lakud talking about why they really deliberately
Speaker 7: pursued this policy of supporting Hamas. It's called net Yahu's
Speaker 7: support for Hamas backfired. And I'm also the director of
Speaker 7: the Libertarian Institute and it happens to be our fund
Speaker 7: drive right now. If you like what you hear, folks,
Speaker 7: libertariansuit dot org slash donate And I'm the author of
Speaker 7: the book enough already Time to end the war on terrorism?
Speaker 3: Excellent.
Speaker 2: We will have a link to all those in the description.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate you taking your time, and I don't
Speaker 2: think this is the last we we'll see if you, sir,
Speaker 2: So thank.
Speaker 4: You, Thanks Scott, great, appreciate our pleasure.
Speaker 2: Okay, we'll see you guys later. We got a great
Speaker 2: show for everybody Tomorrow,