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.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do many things
Speaker 1: to tackle this morning.
Speaker 4: So we've got a whole bunch.
Speaker 1: Of Trump comments about abortion and Israel and immigrants and
Speaker 1: bloodbaths that will and we've got to break down all
Speaker 1: of these very revealing as we really turn to the
Speaker 1: general election here. Both of them have Biden and Trump
Speaker 1: of now son up their nominations and are the presumptive nominees.
Speaker 4: So get into all of that.
Speaker 1: We also have some Trump legal news. It seems that
Speaker 1: his luck on the legal front continues. We're now facing
Speaker 1: prospect that it is very possible he may not face
Speaker 1: any of these criminal charges in front of a jury
Speaker 1: before election day, so we'll talk about that. We also
Speaker 1: have new comments that we wanted to tell you about
Speaker 1: a friend of that Boeing whistle blower who was found
Speaker 1: dead speaking out about some of the things that that
Speaker 1: whistleblower had said to him. You will find this very
Speaker 1: very interesting. We also have Chuck Schumer and netnya who
Speaker 1: really going to war. Schumer had called for a new
Speaker 1: government in Israel, Ntnaho responding he is very upset. We
Speaker 1: don't interfere in your politics, lol, So why should you
Speaker 1: inter fear?
Speaker 4: And ours will break all of that down for you.
Speaker 1: We've got some new APAC talking points that are also
Speaker 1: quite revealing that we can bring to you today as well.
Speaker 1: And this new Scotus ruling that is quite consequential about
Speaker 1: when and how public officials are allowed to block their
Speaker 1: constituents on social media. So some major First Amendment implications
Speaker 1: here be relevant for the TikTok thing as well.
Speaker 3: Possibly, Yeah, certainly, it's going to be a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: I'm also doing a monologue as well, talking about census
Speaker 2: data before we get to that.
Speaker 3: For two things.
Speaker 2: Number one is we apologize there was a major technical
Speaker 2: malfunction in our studios, so we're getting started a little
Speaker 2: bit late this morning. We preemptively apologize to our of
Speaker 2: our premium subscribers, and number two, you should go ahead
Speaker 2: and sign up for Premium today and very soon in
Speaker 2: the coming weeks, because we have a major, major announcement
Speaker 2: that we'll be coming to all of you. Our premium
Speaker 2: members in particular are going to get a real boost
Speaker 2: and there's going to be big plans that will be announced.
Speaker 2: They will of course be the first hear about it.
Speaker 2: So Breaking Points dot com we still can have our
Speaker 2: discount going on. You can take advantage and become a
Speaker 2: premium subscriber there. But as Krystal said, it really is
Speaker 2: the official start of the general election. And I know,
Speaker 2: you know it's been happening now for a while. The
Speaker 2: presumptive nominees. We lived through the fake primaries, but this
Speaker 2: has largely been you know, we've known where things are going.
Speaker 2: But now that it is and these two candidates have
Speaker 2: officially sewn up their nominations, we have to pay very
Speaker 2: close scrutiny to where and what they that these candidates
Speaker 2: are choosing to highlight what they're choosing to turn to,
Speaker 2: what the media is doing and all that. So first
Speaker 2: and foremost on the topic of abortion. It is going
Speaker 2: to be the most difficult topic for Donald Trump. He's
Speaker 2: been all over the place and his positioning on the issue,
Speaker 2: and he spoke about it at length in a Fox
Speaker 2: News interview. Coming out now for a sixteen week abortion.
Speaker 2: Ban's curious to hear what Crystal thinks of this as well.
Speaker 3: Let's hear what he had to say.
Speaker 5: It's like fertilization. On fertilization, you so, I took the
Speaker 5: lead on that, and it's actually now our subject. It's
Speaker 5: a positive. We want to help women, and that could
Speaker 5: have been a very negative thing. We want to help
Speaker 5: women with rowe. You take a look at what was
Speaker 5: going on abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth month.
Speaker 5: One thing that you say is nobody want to say
Speaker 5: killing of a baby after the baby's born. That was
Speaker 5: the governor, the ex governor, last governor prior to this one.
Speaker 5: By the way, it's good guy, the last governor of Virginia.
Speaker 5: He said, you put the baby aside and you discussed
Speaker 5: with the mother whether or not essentially you want to
Speaker 5: kill the baby. They are the radicals. There'll be a
Speaker 5: certain there's a certain spot if you look at France,
Speaker 5: if you look at different places in Europe, if you
Speaker 5: look at a lot of the civilized world, they have
Speaker 5: a period of time. But you can't go out seven
Speaker 5: months and eight months and nine months. And if the
Speaker 5: Republicans spoke about it correctly, it never hurt me from
Speaker 5: the standpoint of elections, and it'd hurt a lot of Republicans.
Speaker 5: I think you have to have you have to have
Speaker 5: the three exceptions.
Speaker 2: So he says we have to have the three exceptions.
Speaker 2: He's talking there about late term abortion. But really what
Speaker 2: strikes me, Crystal is still he just does not know
Speaker 2: how to position himself on the issue. He's coming out
Speaker 2: for IVF there at the top, then adopting more of
Speaker 2: a pro life talking point there about late term abortion,
Speaker 2: coming out also for a sixteen week pan. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is just one of those where his lack of
Speaker 2: confidence on the issue is very untrump Like, and I
Speaker 2: think that shows you how difficult it's going to be
Speaker 2: for him the election.
Speaker 1: I don't think that this is an issue problem that
Speaker 1: he can message his way out of.
Speaker 4: He's not the.
Speaker 1: First Republican to try this, Like, let me flip the
Speaker 1: script and talk about the areas where Democrats could be
Speaker 1: perceived as extreme on abortion. That's a playbook that's worked
Speaker 1: well for Republicans at different points in the past. I
Speaker 1: don't think it works for them now because that's just
Speaker 1: not the landscape that people are facing.
Speaker 4: Post Row, post Dobbs.
Speaker 1: That's not the battleground that is being fought on right now.
Speaker 1: So you can tell he looks very political, trying to
Speaker 1: search for an answer that's going to be at least
Speaker 1: acceptable to his face.
Speaker 4: But I think at this point, you know.
Speaker 1: Even if you had if you had pulled previously, you know,
Speaker 1: a fifteen week or a sixteen week ban, it actually
Speaker 1: would have been relatively popular with sort of like a
Speaker 1: centrist moderate position. At this point, I think that the
Speaker 1: folks who are very concerned about the erosion of rights
Speaker 1: that has already occurred and potential additional erosion of rights,
Speaker 1: just hearing that you're open to any sort of additional
Speaker 1: restrictions and bans is is you know, a major red
Speaker 1: flag and incredibly motivating in terms of coming out and voting.
Speaker 1: So I do continue to think this is a major
Speaker 1: problem for him. And listen, he's the guy, as he's
Speaker 1: said many times, who put these justices on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court that you know, made the decision with regard to
Speaker 1: overturning Roe versus Wade, and that's not really something that
Speaker 1: you can run away from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the late term abortion talking point
Speaker 2: and debate is easier whenever there's Roe versus Wade is
Speaker 2: a status quo, because then you're arguing from a position
Speaker 2: of where the status quo is and then how far
Speaker 2: things should go. That's a very different conversation than where
Speaker 2: we are right now with abortion literally illegal in several states.
Speaker 2: And then the topics here of national bands and fear,
Speaker 2: I think honestly justified by some Democrats and other voters
Speaker 2: who are like, hey, what are they going to do
Speaker 2: whenever they have power, Like what's actually going to look
Speaker 2: like at an overall federal level, because clearly at least
Speaker 2: some of the Republicans Mike Pence and others, as to
Speaker 2: extent what they'll be influential or not have advocated for it,
Speaker 2: leave it to the states, but actually have a federal standard.
Speaker 2: The second topic too, where Trump, again all over the place,
Speaker 2: both wants peace, wants an early end of the war,
Speaker 2: never would have had a war. Also going after the
Speaker 2: Democrats is Israel. I've been watching him flail now on
Speaker 2: a couple of topics, the abortion, it's TikTok, and is
Speaker 2: this one.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to what he said on Israel.
Speaker 5: They're very bad for Israel. The Democrats are very bad
Speaker 5: for Israel. Israel sticks with him. I guess Israel's loyal,
Speaker 5: maybe to a fault, because they stick with these guys.
Speaker 5: Biden is so bad for Israel. They should have never
Speaker 5: been attacked. If Biden were good to Israel, they wouldn't
Speaker 5: have been attacked by.
Speaker 6: President Biden has been a strong supporter of Israel because
Speaker 6: of the terrorist attack.
Speaker 5: If he were, If he were a supportive of Israel,
Speaker 5: the Iran nuclear deal would have never been signed and
Speaker 5: Israel would have never been attacked.
Speaker 6: Well, Schumer is of course the top Jewish democrat in Washington,
Speaker 6: and he says that Natanyahu is too willing to tolerate
Speaker 6: the civilian toll in Gaza, and that he's orchards over
Speaker 6: with his own political survival, and that that could make
Speaker 6: Israel a pariah.
Speaker 7: Your reaction, well.
Speaker 5: They lost a lot of people on October seventh. To
Speaker 5: people have to remember that.
Speaker 6: People should never they've totally.
Speaker 5: Well, I think maybe he's forgotten it. He doesn't forget it.
Speaker 5: He looks at where do I get more votes? And
Speaker 5: I guess he's seeing the Palestinians and he's seeing the
Speaker 5: marches and they are big. Then he says, I want
Speaker 5: to go that way instead of Israel. I don't know
Speaker 5: how Israel stays with these people. I just don't know.
Speaker 5: But he obviously said I see a lot of people
Speaker 5: protesting out there, and they happen to be Palestinians or
Speaker 5: wherever from the Middle East, and he was probably shocked
Speaker 5: to see it, and all of a sudden he dumped Israel.
Speaker 5: That's what he's doing. He dumped Israel.
Speaker 7: Well he's not walking away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he dumped Israel. Later on in the interview Crystal,
Speaker 2: he does say, though, but I want peace very very quickly.
Speaker 2: He's like, we got to wrap things up. So he's
Speaker 2: trying to do the pro Israel position there. It also
Speaker 2: never would have happened under him, but some flashes of
Speaker 2: the Trump who moved the embassy to Jerusalem in that
Speaker 2: interview for sure.
Speaker 4: Of course.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the idea that Biden hasn't stood strongly enough with
Speaker 1: Israel is absolute lunacy. But this is the position that
Speaker 1: the Republican Party has by and large moved to. That's
Speaker 1: their criticism of Biden at this point. If you listen
Speaker 1: to Fox News or other conservative media outlets, it's that
Speaker 1: he's abandoning them. Of course, the policy continues to be
Speaker 1: shipping arms, giving them unconditional support, drawing no real red lines,
Speaker 1: letting them do what they want, trying to pressure them
Speaker 1: into doing little pr moves so that they have more
Speaker 1: time to prosecute the war. But by and large it's
Speaker 1: just been consistent unconditional support with a little bit of
Speaker 1: rhetorical flourishes in the direction of human rights. So that's
Speaker 1: the position Trump has landed on. I mean, the reality
Speaker 1: is that it would be hard to discern a difference
Speaker 1: between the two substantively from a policy perspective, viz A
Speaker 1: vi Israel.
Speaker 4: You see that with Biden.
Speaker 1: You know, he continued the Trump policy, basically continue to
Speaker 1: further the direction of normalizing relations with other Arab and
Speaker 1: Gulf states. You saw this with the Saudi Arabia normalization attempts.
Speaker 1: And the truth of the matter is that part of
Speaker 1: the context that triggered October seventh, and this is not
Speaker 1: to deny agency of Hamas, not to let them off
Speaker 1: the hook for the horrific atrocities they committed. But part
Speaker 1: of the context was that normalization of relations that began
Speaker 1: under President Trump and was continued under President Biden, where
Speaker 1: they basically shared this perspective of we're just going to
Speaker 1: pretend the Palestinians don't exist. We're just going to push
Speaker 1: forward and look out for everybody else's economic interest and
Speaker 1: give them those sorts of carots to just ignore the
Speaker 1: Palestinian people and allow this problem and this humanitarian crisis
Speaker 1: to fester for decades.
Speaker 4: And October seventh was.
Speaker 1: Appears to have been an almost direct response to that direction,
Speaker 1: in that sense that the door was completely closing on
Speaker 1: any sort of dignity or self realization for the Palestinians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting too, because watching him, he is often
Speaker 2: sliding back and forth. He actually gave him recent comments
Speaker 2: on TikTok as well, where he's like, well, as long
Speaker 2: as we also forced Facebook to sell, then yeah we
Speaker 2: should allow that. I was like, wait, what, you just
Speaker 2: came out against it and now you're here. He really
Speaker 2: is torn from what I can tell, where he's always
Speaker 2: trying to look at where things are moving for his
Speaker 2: own coalition, how to keep it together on Israel, It's
Speaker 2: obvious you know where he is and pretty much has
Speaker 2: been there for the whole time. A lot of people
Speaker 2: were coping during the previous administration saying that it was
Speaker 2: all Jared and you know, it was always very clear
Speaker 2: that I think Trump himself he doesn't care necessarily, but
Speaker 2: he thinks that there's obviously.
Speaker 3: Quite a lot of political benefit.
Speaker 2: I think you'll obviously be rewarded for it as well
Speaker 2: in terms of APAC donations, and perhaps the Republican Jewish
Speaker 2: Coalition as well, which has been very, very influential at
Speaker 2: least so far post October seventh.
Speaker 3: The final part that we did want to come to, though,
Speaker 3: was Mike Pence.
Speaker 2: And this is the big question is how many people
Speaker 2: who did previously support Trump and who are willing to
Speaker 2: vote for him even serve with him now in the
Speaker 2: Pence cap category. Are they going to stick with him
Speaker 2: in the general election. I mean, I vote for Biden,
Speaker 2: but they may not vote for Trump either. So Pence
Speaker 2: at least trying to stake out a position here saying
Speaker 2: that he will not endorse the forem president take a
Speaker 2: listen to the reasons why.
Speaker 8: Well, Martha, I appreciate the question, and it should come
Speaker 8: as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald
Speaker 8: Trump this year. Look, I'm incredibly proud of the record
Speaker 8: of our administration. It was a conservative record that made
Speaker 8: America more prosperous, more secure, and saw conservatives appointed to
Speaker 8: our course in a more peaceful world. But that being said,
Speaker 8: during my presidential campaign, I made it clear that there
Speaker 8: were profound differences between me and President Trump on a
Speaker 8: range of issues, and not just our difference on my
Speaker 8: constitutional duties that I exercised on January the sixth. I mean,
Speaker 8: as I have watched his candidacy unfold, I've seen him
Speaker 8: walking away from our commitment to confronting the national debt.
Speaker 8: I've seen him starting to shy away from a commitment
Speaker 8: to the sanctity of human life. And this last week
Speaker 8: is his reversal on getting tough on China and supporting
Speaker 8: our administration's effort to force a sale of bite Dad's TikTok.
Speaker 3: Why do you think he did that?
Speaker 9: Why do you think he had that reversal on that
Speaker 9: before we go there?
Speaker 8: Well, I can't I can't speculate on it. What I
Speaker 8: can tell you is is that in each of these cases,
Speaker 8: Donald Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is
Speaker 8: at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on
Speaker 8: during our four years.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So it's because he's not too pro life and he's
Speaker 2: not too pro band TikTok. This is always the thing,
Speaker 2: you know with Mike Pence, where look his constituency and
Speaker 2: his support within the Republican Party. He didn't even make
Speaker 2: it really to any real primary. But but I do
Speaker 2: have to wonder, Christal, I'm curious what you think is
Speaker 2: this going to be an important enough, you know effect
Speaker 2: in the overall election. There are at least thirty some
Speaker 2: percent of those Nikki Haley people who still came out
Speaker 2: to vote for her, So who knows. I mean, I
Speaker 2: always have to remember that, because this is all a
Speaker 2: game of margins, that these people who are upset about Gaza,
Speaker 2: these people who are upset here Republicans about Trump, they
Speaker 2: really could be the deciding voter. It's really about who
Speaker 2: you know and what and where and in particularly in
Speaker 2: which states.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll see, I mean, in theory, in a normal
Speaker 1: political world, with any other political figure, your former vice
Speaker 1: president coming.
Speaker 3: Out and say he's crazy.
Speaker 1: I am not endorsing you. I don't think you should
Speaker 1: be president again. It should be an earthquake, right, it
Speaker 1: should be incredibly consequential. Do I think that this is
Speaker 1: incredibly consequential?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I do not, and I mean listen, I don't want
Speaker 1: to parse whatever he's got his reasons, but it also
Speaker 1: feels very dishonest to me. Donald Trump is not significantly
Speaker 1: different today than he was when you ran with him
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen or when you ran with him in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. He's the same dude, right, He's you know,
Speaker 1: predominantly just did the bidding of the established conservative think tanks,
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation, whatever was sort of cued up for him,
Speaker 1: Incredibly erratic off and all over the place. In terms
Speaker 1: of what he says he wants from a policy perspective,
Speaker 1: you can point to little issues where he said something
Speaker 1: different in the past and says something different now, like
Speaker 1: TikTok is a prime example. But fundamentally he's the same dude.
Speaker 1: The reality is he wanted you basically dead on January sixth,
Speaker 1: and that's a reasonable reason for explaining why you might
Speaker 1: not support him in the future.
Speaker 4: I think that if he.
Speaker 1: Was more direct and honest about that, I would have
Speaker 1: a bit more respect for him. Like I said, I
Speaker 1: think it's entirely reasonable to feel like the guy who
Speaker 1: was cool with supporters running around the Capitol and saying
Speaker 1: hang you while your family was there and in danger too,
Speaker 1: by the like, I think it would be fine for him.
Speaker 4: To explain it that way.
Speaker 1: But in his mind, I believe this is more a
Speaker 1: rationalization for himself than it is for the American people,
Speaker 1: because he has to explain to himself why he was
Speaker 1: the loyal foot soldier for all those years, even though
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was the same dishonest, you know, politically expedient
Speaker 1: man who had many principles that were always in conflict
Speaker 1: with the you know terrain that Mike Pence had staked
Speaker 1: down as this sort of like very traditional Reagan style conservative.
Speaker 1: So I personally think this cope is more for his
Speaker 1: benefit than the American people.
Speaker 4: Do I think that the.
Speaker 1: Overwhelming number of former Trump officials who have come out
Speaker 1: against him, do I think that has an electoral impact.
Speaker 1: It's my personal view that probably the kind of like
Speaker 1: suburban college educated types who would be turned off by
Speaker 1: Trump and the way he is and the people who
Speaker 1: react against him. I feel like that realignment has already occurred,
Speaker 1: but it's a question mark, and there are some warning
Speaker 1: signs for him in the primary results, and we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about his legal troubles. Things seem to the
Speaker 1: ball seemed to be balancing in his direction, but that
Speaker 1: continues to be a cloud that hangs over him, which
Speaker 1: could you know, further depress the number of people who
Speaker 1: are willing to stick with him and willing to embrace
Speaker 1: his chaos after all of these years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's well said. I think you're right.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously it is personal.
Speaker 2: He has to come up with his what conservative reason
Speaker 2: or whatever for not endorsing him, But it all comes
Speaker 2: back in terms of the realignment. It probably is, you know,
Speaker 2: baked in already, and then it's just a question of,
Speaker 2: like the margin, whether Trump Act can have some turnout.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next part here.
Speaker 2: As we said, it is the official start of the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four race, which means it is also the
Speaker 2: official start of Trump said X news cycle. One of
Speaker 2: the things that he said was definitely headline worthy. The
Speaker 2: other one was twisted and turned into a little bit
Speaker 2: we put those two together so we can react.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: If I had pretty that we're teeming with MS thirteen
Speaker 5: and all sorts of people that they've got to take
Speaker 5: care of for the next fifty years, right, young people,
Speaker 5: they're in jail for years. If you call them people,
Speaker 5: I don't know if you're call them people. In some cases,
Speaker 5: they're not people in my opinion, But I'm not allowed
Speaker 5: to say that because the radical left says that's a
Speaker 5: terrible thing to say. They say you have to vote
Speaker 5: against them because did you hear what he said about humanity.
Speaker 5: I've seen the humanity, and these humanity. These are bad.
Speaker 5: These are animals, okay, and we have to stop it.
Speaker 5: We can't have another lake. And we have so many people,
Speaker 5: we have so many people being hurt so badly and
Speaker 5: being killed. They're sending their prisoners to see us. They're
Speaker 5: sending and they're bringing them right to the border and
Speaker 5: they're dropping them off and we're allowing them to come in.
Speaker 5: And these are tougher than anybody we've got in the country.
Speaker 5: These are hardened criminals. Mexico has taken over a period
Speaker 5: of thirty years, thirty four percent of the automobile manufacturing
Speaker 5: business in our country, think of it went to Mexico.
Speaker 5: China now is building a couple of massive plants where
Speaker 5: they're going to build the cars in Mexico. And think
Speaker 5: they think that they're going to sell those cars into
Speaker 5: the United States with no tax at the border. Let
Speaker 5: me tell you something to China. If you're listening, Presidency,
Speaker 5: and you and I are friends, but he understands the
Speaker 5: way ideal those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're
Speaker 5: building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going
Speaker 5: to get that, you're going to not hire Americans and
Speaker 5: you're going to sell the cars US. Now, We're going
Speaker 5: to put a one hundred percent tariff in every single
Speaker 5: car that comes across the line, and you're not going
Speaker 5: to be able to sell those because if I get elected, Now,
Speaker 5: if I don't get elected, it's going to be a
Speaker 5: blood bath for the whole that's going to be the
Speaker 5: least of it. It's going to be a blood bath
Speaker 5: for the country. That'll be the least of it.
Speaker 2: All right, So, Christal, those were the two controversial things
Speaker 2: that Trump said. One of them he's actually said before.
Speaker 2: He said, I remember who he said it whenever he's president.
Speaker 2: The other about the bloodbath comment, though this is how
Speaker 2: some of our media out let's cover it. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put these up there on the screen. Here's the
Speaker 2: major takeaways. At least CNN ironically did end up writing
Speaker 2: it correctly. They say Trump warns about blood bath for
Speaker 2: the auto industry and the country if he loses the election.
Speaker 2: That's actually accurate Politico, though, Trump says country faces bloodbath
Speaker 2: if what Biden wins. In November New York Times, Trump
Speaker 2: says non migrants are not people and then predicts a
Speaker 2: bloodbath if he loses. NBC News, Trump says there will
Speaker 2: be a bloodbath if he loses the election. Bloodbath now
Speaker 2: being seized upon, even though it was clear, you know,
Speaker 2: if you watch it, it's obviously in the context of
Speaker 2: the US auto industry. Even the New York Times only
Speaker 2: half of their headline correct. And you know, Ryan mcgraham
Speaker 2: made a point on whenever he was following this. Trump,
Speaker 2: prior to going on stage, had talked about how he
Speaker 2: wants all of his people to snap to attention the
Speaker 2: way that they do in North Korea with Kim Jong un,
Speaker 2: and Ryan was like, guys, he says enough actually crazy
Speaker 2: shit that you don't need to invent news cycles about
Speaker 2: the things that he said to go after. But they
Speaker 2: were so desperate, you know, for the blood bath comment.
Speaker 1: That's how I feel about it as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you listen to the whole context, he throws in
Speaker 1: that thing at the end of leg and that'd be
Speaker 1: the least of it, you know, which kind of like
Speaker 1: muddles the comments and gives them a little bit of
Speaker 1: something to stand on of legs.
Speaker 4: He's talking about the country as all.
Speaker 1: But obviously, if you're an ordinary person, you're reading those headlines,
Speaker 1: you hear Trump, you know, says it's going to be
Speaker 1: a bloodbath if he loses. You're thinking about January sixth,
Speaker 1: you're thinking about political violence. You're not assuming that he was,
Speaker 1: you know, building up to this with this whole long
Speaker 1: rant about the auto industry and China taking our jobs,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So I do think that's very misleading. And
Speaker 1: you know, we played the comments that he just said
Speaker 1: about immigrants, which are horrifying and disgusting on their own.
Speaker 1: So when you mess around with the other comments that
Speaker 1: he made and you muddle, intentionally muddle the meaning of them,
Speaker 1: it gives you less credibility to talk about the things
Speaker 1: that he says that, in my opinion, really should be
Speaker 1: out of bounds, and just to address that drive. And
Speaker 1: I do think that watching what's unfolding and Gaza has
Speaker 1: made me perhaps more sensitive to this type of directly
Speaker 1: dehumanizing language than perhaps I would be otherwise, because we
Speaker 1: can see in real time what the potential atrocities and
Speaker 1: results and horrors that unfold when you, you know, routinely dehumanize
Speaker 1: a group of people. But you know it's fine, as
Speaker 1: we do to have an argument about what the appropriate
Speaker 1: immigration policy should be and what that should look like.
Speaker 4: You shouldn't have to lie to.
Speaker 1: Do that, which he is lying when he talks about, oh,
Speaker 1: they're emptying their prisons and paints the entire immigrant migrant
Speaker 1: population as a bunch of criminals and lunatics. The overwhelm
Speaker 1: majority of people who are coming here, they're fleeing violence,
Speaker 1: they're coming for economic reasons against You can debate how
Speaker 1: many of those individuals have legitimate asylum claims and how
Speaker 1: many should be let in what we should do, but
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have to rely on lies to make the case.
Speaker 1: And also you shouldn't have to rely on stoking false
Speaker 1: fears of this existential threat of you know, this overwhelming
Speaker 1: wave of criminal migrants in order to make your case either.
Speaker 1: And so I do think that that is disgusting. I
Speaker 1: think it's condemnable, and I think it's dangerous.
Speaker 3: I think it's fair for you to say that.
Speaker 2: I look, and I'm not going to defend what he said,
Speaker 2: but I will at least like the political point.
Speaker 3: What Trump's genius is always is he says the most
Speaker 3: outrageous thing, and he gets people to say, no, no, no, no, actually,
Speaker 3: some criminals are whatever, you know.
Speaker 2: And then now you're actually talking within the frame of
Speaker 2: migrant criminality and or the murder as you said of
Speaker 2: Lake and Riley, which is what he was trying to raise.
Speaker 3: I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I personally would like it if people debated things the
Speaker 2: way that we do here and we can talk about
Speaker 2: it in a respectful manner. But that's not how politics works, right,
Speaker 2: you know, Everything is about seizing upon the most outrageous
Speaker 2: and extreme example and using that in order to cast
Speaker 2: your enemy. So I mean, personally, what I do think
Speaker 2: at least is again I'm not defending it, but I
Speaker 2: can only analyze in the politics of this is that
Speaker 2: if you have a media outrage people being like, hey,
Speaker 2: Trump says like migrants are not people, people are gonna
Speaker 2: be like, well, hold on a second. You know, if
Speaker 2: you watch the clip we're talking here about people who
Speaker 2: are MS thirteen gang members, how you can again, you
Speaker 2: can go and you can analyze and the number of
Speaker 2: people who actually do commit crime or whatever. But you know,
Speaker 2: in general, people do feel a certain different way about
Speaker 2: people who are here illegally committing crime versus legal citizens,
Speaker 2: because people are illegally shouldn't.
Speaker 3: Have been here in the first place. And in general,
Speaker 3: I think I.
Speaker 2: Would say probably to his political benefit given the way
Speaker 2: that people feel about the immigration crisis, regardless of whether
Speaker 2: you think, well, he's.
Speaker 4: Telling you to that, that's why he does it. That's
Speaker 4: why he does it.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about the political benefit or optics or
Speaker 1: whether it's good for him or bad for him. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about the morality of it. And you know, I
Speaker 1: do think it's absolutely condemnable. You know, he catches you
Speaker 1: in a trap because, on the one hand, if you
Speaker 1: ignore the things that he is saying, right, if you
Speaker 1: then that sort of rhetoric and you know, really disgusting,
Speaker 1: dehumanizing rhetoric becomes normalized and almost accepted if you cover
Speaker 1: it and you talk about it, and you say this
Speaker 1: is condemnable and we should in fact condemn it, and
Speaker 1: this shouldn't you know, listen, you have your first speech,
Speaker 1: First Amendment speech rights, but you know it's decent moral people.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be in the business of dehumanizing immigrants. We
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in the business, as he's also done, of
Speaker 1: dehumanizing like leftists as vermin. We shouldn't be talking about
Speaker 1: immigrants using Nazi language, which he doubled down again when
Speaker 1: that Howard Kurtz interview that we played part of saying yes,
Speaker 1: you know, they're poisoning the blood of the country, that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be doing that. Then you are sort of
Speaker 1: playing on his turf because now, oh, what are we talking.
Speaker 4: We're talking about immigration, and.
Speaker 1: That's the issue where he's strong and where Biden's approval
Speaker 1: ratings are the lowest. So he does politically catch you
Speaker 1: in a trap, which, yeah, you're right, that's exactly why
Speaker 1: he does it. But you also can't ignore the fact
Speaker 1: that he has some you know, really hard line immigration
Speaker 1: restrictionists in his circle, and that some of the policies
Speaker 1: that he implemented last time around, you know which some
Speaker 1: of them which, by the way, Biden continued, but he
Speaker 1: is he is at least positioning himself to be even
Speaker 1: more hardline this time. So it is legitimate to talk
Speaker 1: about the way the rhetoric informs the actual policy decisions
Speaker 1: as well. But I mean, you're right, Soccer, it is
Speaker 1: definitely like a well laid political trap, and that's precisely
Speaker 1: why he does it.
Speaker 4: There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember watching it because it was there was
Speaker 2: some meaning. I think it was something about MS thirteen.
Speaker 2: This is the first time I ever did the animal's comment.
Speaker 2: It was in front of Nancy Pelosi. It sparked this
Speaker 2: whole thing, and I just remember, like, man, they fall,
Speaker 2: They go for it every time. In terms of how
Speaker 2: it generally works out for him on this one, we
Speaker 2: will see that. By the way, it's possible why that's
Speaker 2: why the Biden administration decided to seize not necessarily on
Speaker 2: the migrant comment, but on the quote unquote bloodbath thing,
Speaker 2: to try and turn it into a thing. Here is
Speaker 2: a perfect example of how the media ran with it.
Speaker 2: We have Jensaki, the former Press secretary, on our new
Speaker 2: MSNBC show, with the Biden campaigns communications director, both of
Speaker 2: them trying to turn the blood bath thing into a
Speaker 2: conversation around political violence, which is definitely ground where they
Speaker 2: have benefited in the past.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 10: What I heard was a continuation of the same rhetoric,
Speaker 10: the same endorsement of political violence that we've seen from
Speaker 10: Donald Trump four years. As you pointed out, it goes
Speaker 10: even farther back, right. This is the same guy who,
Speaker 10: after Nazis marched on Charlottesville and killed a woman, said
Speaker 10: there were very fine people on both sides. Is the
Speaker 10: same guy who in twenty twenty told the Proud Boys,
Speaker 10: a white supremacist group, to stand back and stand by.
Speaker 10: And now every single day on the stump, he is
Speaker 10: championing and praising the insurrectionists who he encouraged to violently
Speaker 10: storm the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow our democracy.
Speaker 10: So it's not simply one comment. This is exactly who
Speaker 10: Donald Trump is, and this is exactly the threat that
Speaker 10: he poses to our democracy every single day. I think
Speaker 10: the problem for Trump, though, is that the American people
Speaker 10: saw what happened on January sixth, and they've responded consistently since.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 10: They responded in twenty twenty Twomocrats had the most successful
Speaker 10: midterm cycle for democratic incumbent since FDR. They continued to
Speaker 10: respond last year in states like Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia
Speaker 10: and the fall elections then, and they're continuing to respond
Speaker 10: right now. That's why we're on our front foot heading
Speaker 10: into this general election because the American people fundamentally understand
Speaker 10: a what Joe Biden has done to fight on behalf
Speaker 10: of the American people over the course of the last
Speaker 10: three years. But they see every single day now the
Speaker 10: threat that Donald Trump poses if he's able to regain power.
Speaker 10: He is talking every single day about tearing down the
Speaker 10: fabric of our democracy and enacting political revenge if he's
Speaker 10: able to serve on a dictator on day one, as
Speaker 10: he is promising to do so.
Speaker 3: That was Michael Tyler.
Speaker 2: He's the communications director very much trying to turn the
Speaker 2: blood back, the blood bath thing into a major story.
Speaker 2: So any and final thoughts here, Crystal in terms of
Speaker 2: the media handling and all this, well, just.
Speaker 1: To reiterate, I mean, Trump does talk all the time
Speaker 1: about how he's going to pardon the people that were
Speaker 1: there on January says, who we're convicted of crimes or whatever. Really,
Speaker 1: you don't have to invent a context that didn't exist
Speaker 1: for the bloodbath comments in order to make the case
Speaker 1: that he's making there, and it undercuts your credibility in
Speaker 1: the long run.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's move on to the legal part then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a few key developments that continue to benefit
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in his push to not necessarily beat the
Speaker 1: charges against him, but just delay them until after the election,
Speaker 1: which has always been his goal. So first we have
Speaker 1: an update out of Georgio. He can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. So we recall there were a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about potential conflict of interest after it was
Speaker 1: revealed that Fanny Willis was having a personal relationship with
Speaker 1: Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had a point in,
Speaker 1: who had also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: in the context of this prosecution.
Speaker 4: So basically what a judge.
Speaker 1: Found here was that the evidence presented did not fully
Speaker 1: meet the bar of a conflict of interest, but said, nevertheless,
Speaker 1: and this is you know, my layman's version or re
Speaker 1: of what he had to say, This looks bad enough
Speaker 1: that one of y'all needs to go. So Nathan Wade
Speaker 1: has now resigned, allowing the Fulton County DA Fanny Willis
Speaker 1: to move ahead with this Trump case. This resignation came
Speaker 1: hours after a judge rule that either he or District
Speaker 1: Attorney Fanny Willis had to withdraw from the prosecution of
Speaker 1: Trump to move forward. Wade tendered his resignation in a
Speaker 1: letter to Willis. It is still possible to see my
Speaker 1: cat in the background. Both the animals are in here,
Speaker 1: so this could get a little wild, but it is
Speaker 1: still possible that the Trump side could appeal, so this
Speaker 1: could get dragged down either even further. Given sager how
Speaker 1: bad this all looked, this is perhaps the best result
Speaker 1: that Fanny Willis could have expected at this point that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't fully rule that it was completely a conflict
Speaker 1: of interest that they would allow it to continue if
Speaker 1: you just have one or the other of them resigned,
Speaker 1: so that is you know, indeed where we are with this.
Speaker 1: But again calls into question when this trial is going
Speaker 1: to get going, when this is going to get moved forward,
Speaker 1: and is yet another delay in a key case for him.
Speaker 2: Yes, as you said, so the Trump team can still
Speaker 2: decide whether to appeal this decision or not.
Speaker 3: It's probably for the benefit.
Speaker 2: I think that mister Wade has gone big question though
Speaker 2: about whether and what happened to some of that money
Speaker 2: that he was paid by the state, nearly seven hundred
Speaker 2: or so thousand dollars, and then the reimbursement questions that
Speaker 2: surround Fanny Willis herself. Nonetheless, I can't help but think
Speaker 2: you know this is going to be I mean, let's
Speaker 2: say it does go to trial, and assuming it will
Speaker 2: go to trial, at least sometime before the election, you
Speaker 2: were going to hear quite a bit about this from
Speaker 2: the defense in terms of their argument about political prosecution.
Speaker 2: And I don't think you can at least deny that,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of what was going on behind
Speaker 2: the scenes there with her own personal affairs and conduct,
Speaker 2: isn't at least going to factor into the public and
Speaker 2: then the private case where Trump and his lawyers would
Speaker 2: make to a jury about why there should be some
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt into why he was being prosecuted. Another thing
Speaker 2: that happened while you were gone, Crystal, I'm not sure
Speaker 2: if you saw is that the legal charges had been
Speaker 2: dropped or had been forced out by the judge, specifically
Speaker 2: relating to that Jeff phone call, which is the most
Speaker 2: memorable part. Now, remember the lawyers in the DA's office
Speaker 2: said that they were going to regrant jury those charges
Speaker 2: to try and reissue them to fall within the scope
Speaker 2: of RICO and of the case. But a point that
Speaker 2: Ryan and I were trying to make is that if
Speaker 2: you couple this, you have the appeals and then you
Speaker 2: have the regrand jury process that they all have to
Speaker 2: go through. This is months and months and months on end,
Speaker 2: which gets us to the question, and I think a
Speaker 2: reasonable question at this point is this thing even going
Speaker 2: to go to trial before November. I honestly, I would
Speaker 2: probably at this point bet money against it, just because, look,
Speaker 2: you do have the former president. You have all these
Speaker 2: crazy legal questions that have to get resolved at the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, where even when they're on an expedited timeline,
Speaker 2: it takes forever. Here we have this state law case
Speaker 2: which is a total mess now gone awry, with her
Speaker 2: own personal conduct and with all the appellate and the
Speaker 2: money that they are able to throw at this, they're
Speaker 2: going to try and drag it as long as possible,
Speaker 2: and I honestly think they'll probably.
Speaker 3: Be victorious at least in pushing this particular case, which at.
Speaker 2: The beginning was the strongest against him, one of the
Speaker 2: very strongest actual election cases, not the document's case that
Speaker 2: was against Trump that.
Speaker 3: He was facing.
Speaker 1: It caused some of the biggest legal hurdles for him
Speaker 1: because it's a state case.
Speaker 4: So I mean there's two pieces there.
Speaker 1: At number one, he can't if he is elected president
Speaker 1: just you know, pardon himself for these charges.
Speaker 4: Because of state. And second, because.
Speaker 1: States are by and large passed.
Speaker 4: With running elections.
Speaker 1: The fact that this was a state criminal charges gave
Speaker 1: it some strength where some of the federal charges, especially
Speaker 1: with regard to January sixth, the Jacksmith prosecution there, you know,
Speaker 1: it is a little more of a novel interpretation of
Speaker 1: the law, etc. But I agree with you at this
Speaker 1: point the layser stacking up entirely possible that this one
Speaker 1: doesn't go to trial before November, and the case in
Speaker 1: New York with regards to hush money has now also
Speaker 1: been delayed.
Speaker 4: AND's put this up on the screen. So this is weird.
Speaker 1: There was apparently this like last minute massive document jump,
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand pages of records that just came into
Speaker 1: play here, and so even the prosecution said, we got
Speaker 1: to delay this thing at least thirty days. So you
Speaker 1: can see the New York Times headline here, judge delays
Speaker 1: Trump's Manhattan trail until at least mid April. The judge
Speaker 1: scheduled hearing from March twenty fifth, the day the trial
Speaker 1: had been scheduled again to consider Donald Trump's requests to
Speaker 1: further delay or dismiss the case. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: questions here about why these documents were so late in coming.
Speaker 1: These tens of thousands of pages of documents came from
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. They had investigated the same hush money situation
Speaker 1: with regards to Michael Cohen. That was the investigation that
Speaker 1: led to his guilty please, so they had all this
Speaker 1: relevant stuff. I don't know why it took so long
Speaker 1: for it to be requested or turned over, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But you know, this case, which is the weakest I
Speaker 1: think most people agree, of the cases, and has the
Speaker 1: lowest level of charges felony charge associated with it, it
Speaker 1: looked like it was going to be the first one
Speaker 1: to go. It looked like that was going to start imminently.
Speaker 1: And now big question Marcus, so whether when that one
Speaker 1: begins as well. So even this what's been called like
Speaker 1: the stepchild case, even this one has now been significantly
Speaker 1: pushed back and don't know when it's going to start.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I mean, with all of these cases, it's just the validation.
Speaker 2: This is where I almost am sympathetic to the resistance
Speaker 2: libs who are screaming at Merret Garland.
Speaker 3: They're like, why don't you indict him?
Speaker 2: I'm like, look, and I have the boast world, world,
Speaker 2: why didn't you indict him? Why didn't you indict him
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty one, that's when it was on the
Speaker 2: public's mind. That's when you can resolve this question. They
Speaker 2: didn't resolve that. Whether they waited for three years even
Speaker 2: file charges, and even when remember whenever those charges were filed.
Speaker 2: I think you can even go back and look, some
Speaker 2: of us, I know, we even mentioned that, we're like, hey,
Speaker 2: these cases take a long time, Like it's a big
Speaker 2: question mark whether you're going to get this stuff before
Speaker 2: the court in November, you're going to prosecute a president,
Speaker 2: specifically the Jack Smith case for example, right, that has
Speaker 2: all these crazy constitutional questions about presidential immunity and what
Speaker 2: does it mean.
Speaker 3: Already had two Supreme Court cases on that question.
Speaker 2: We're going to have even more likely in the future.
Speaker 2: Not to mention Appella cases. Even though there is a
Speaker 2: conviction here in Georgia, it was the same thing they
Speaker 2: took forever. That's where I have to come back to
Speaker 2: the grand jury thing. I mean, do you remember Christal
Speaker 2: when we played the four women of that grand jury?
Speaker 3: That was like a year ago.
Speaker 2: That's how long ago that the grand jury process had taken.
Speaker 2: We're still not at a point where the case is
Speaker 2: even thinking about going to trial anytime in the interim,
Speaker 2: and now you have this stormy Daniels like you know,
Speaker 2: the hush money case, same thing, they're running into legal troubles.
Speaker 2: It really does validate a lot of the early criticisms
Speaker 2: there where if they were going to charge them, they
Speaker 2: should have a long time ago, because now not only
Speaker 2: does it look political because it is, but then you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of the legal timeline, you've set this country
Speaker 2: up for a nightmare. What the hell are we going
Speaker 2: to do when this man goes if he is elected
Speaker 2: president elect of the United States and his ass is
Speaker 2: on trial, what.
Speaker 3: Are we going to do? I mean, it will be madness,
Speaker 3: literal madness.
Speaker 2: If he's about to go and take the oath of
Speaker 2: office coming from a damn courtroom, or if he's in handcuffs.
Speaker 1: I mean, at this point you're just looking at chaos
Speaker 1: because now, at the earliest you could actually have some
Speaker 1: of these cases unfolding right as people are literally voting.
Speaker 1: So I mean, the delay in pointing Jack Smith to
Speaker 1: me is the most mind boggling. I also don't understand
Speaker 1: why this Georgia prosecution took so long to spin up,
Speaker 1: but you know, state bureaucracy, whatever, who knows why it
Speaker 1: took so long, But that one did as well. And
Speaker 1: then with Jack Smith, you know, on the January sixth stuff,
Speaker 1: we all saw it happen. If you thought there were
Speaker 1: criminal charges, you should have got right on that. The
Speaker 1: document's case a little more understandable because that one was
Speaker 1: unfolding and they had to wait for him to commit
Speaker 1: the crimes and refuse to comply and you know, obstract
Speaker 1: et cetera. Before you could put that case together, but
Speaker 1: it does give credence both to you know, those who said, listen,
Speaker 1: you should have gone after him from the jump, and
Speaker 1: I think also those who say you were waiting to
Speaker 1: see if he was going to run, and then once
Speaker 1: he did, that's when you're like, all right, well, then
Speaker 1: we got to slap the charges on you that it
Speaker 1: was like a very directly political decision, which it's hard
Speaker 1: to explain the delay without assuming that that was at
Speaker 1: least part of the calculation that was going on. So
Speaker 1: just to you know, put put a pin on or
Speaker 1: underscore some of the comments you were making about the
Speaker 1: various cases, we pulled this article. You can put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen about the way that delays are
Speaker 1: racking up in all of the different cases. So you've
Speaker 1: got they say neither of Trump's two federal prosecutions in
Speaker 1: Florida and DC are guaranteed for trial this year, in
Speaker 1: part because of his efforts to all the procceins. Well,
Speaker 1: of course he's going to do that. That's obvious, right,
Speaker 1: that's his right to do it too. By the way,
Speaker 1: Georgia election interference trial has not been scheduled. That case
Speaker 1: was rocked Friday by judges ruling, prompting and Special Prosecutor
Speaker 1: Nathan Wade to step aside.
Speaker 4: That's what we're just discussing. Trump's trial in Florida.
Speaker 1: That's the document's case had been set for May twentieth,
Speaker 1: but it's been clear for months that date would not hold,
Speaker 1: as the judge has waged multiple challenges to the indictment
Speaker 1: of various evidentiary disputes.
Speaker 4: That's the judge, Aileen Cannon.
Speaker 1: Who seems to be sort of most favorable towards him,
Speaker 1: most inclined to hear him out and accede to his
Speaker 1: wishes with regards to delays, they say, we very much
Speaker 1: believe a trial that takes place before the election is
Speaker 1: a mistake and should not happen. That's the Trump team.
Speaker 1: The easy solution is to start this trial after the election.
Speaker 1: That's the case they're making there. Trump's DC case, those
Speaker 1: are the ones involving allegations he plotted it over from
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election had been seen as the most
Speaker 1: likely one to reach trial first, but that is no
Speaker 1: longer the case. US District Judge Tanya Chutkin had scheduled
Speaker 1: to trial from March fourth, but that was upended by
Speaker 1: Trump appeal contending he was immune from prosecution for official acts.
Speaker 4: Take it in the White House.
Speaker 1: That is the piece at the Supreme Court has said
Speaker 1: they are going to take up now. They're going to
Speaker 1: take that up on a somewhat expedited timeline, but that
Speaker 1: is still going to take some significant time. We don't
Speaker 1: know exactly how much to resolve. And then it will
Speaker 1: take a further amount of time after that, as the
Speaker 1: judge has indicated.
Speaker 4: To go ahead and schedule the trial start date.
Speaker 1: So you know, in every single instance, he seems to
Speaker 1: be having a lot of success in pushing these trial
Speaker 1: dates back and back and back. And I guess it
Speaker 1: shouldn't be surprised, just knowing the way that our justice
Speaker 1: system works like.
Speaker 4: It's not speedy, it does take time.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of appeals, There are a lot
Speaker 1: of objections you can throw up if you want to
Speaker 1: muck up the works, and you know, push things off
Speaker 1: and push things off and push things off. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of avenues, especially if you're a former president
Speaker 1: with you know, a large amount of money to throw
Speaker 1: at these legal challenges. There are a lot of avenues
Speaker 1: you can pursue to try to push things off into
Speaker 1: the future.
Speaker 4: So it's what it looks like right now.
Speaker 1: And I do think that perhaps Democrats are starting to
Speaker 1: reckon with the fact that these prosecutions are not going
Speaker 1: to save them. They're not going to be the silver
Speaker 1: bullet that perhaps some of them may have imagined that
Speaker 1: they're going to have to actually defeat Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: so they're seizing on bloodbath comments and whatnot.
Speaker 4: To try to make that case.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you DEM's bloodbaths and legal it ain't
Speaker 2: going to save you. At the same time, wanted to
Speaker 2: give everybody an update on the Boeing whistleblower situation. We
Speaker 2: brought everybody the news previously that the major Boeing whistleblower
Speaker 2: in the midst of an investigation into the company, had
Speaker 2: been found dead in an alleged suicide. We are now
Speaker 2: getting some information though, to possibly expand this into a
Speaker 2: criminal investigation. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: According to the Boeing whistleblower, a close family friend of
Speaker 2: the job of John Barnett said that he predicted that
Speaker 2: he would wind up dead and that a story would
Speaker 2: surface that he had killed himself. At the time, he
Speaker 2: told his friend not to believe it. He says, quote
Speaker 2: she says, quote I know he did not commit suicide.
Speaker 2: There is no way, and that he had told her
Speaker 2: allegedly quote if anything happens, it is not suicide. She
Speaker 2: says that she has known him for a long time
Speaker 2: over the years, get togethers, etcetera, etcetera, for more than
Speaker 2: thirty years, that she had followed his career, and that
Speaker 2: one day, whenever he needed help and he came to
Speaker 2: see her, they had talked specifically about his upcoming deposition
Speaker 2: in Charleston where he was found dead, and said that
Speaker 2: she after he had filed an extremely damaging complaint, he
Speaker 2: had specifically raised the possibility that he could have been murdered.
Speaker 2: So this is pretty extraordinary testimony there, Crystal. And this
Speaker 2: has expanded into major inquiry across the nation as we've
Speaker 2: seen a spate of more recent incidents with Boeing. Would
Speaker 2: just our team put together graphic, let's put it up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. I mean, this is donning. This
Speaker 2: is just in the last few months. So it started
Speaker 2: January fifth, after the Alaska Airlines door plug blew out,
Speaker 2: but even just look at you know, the last week
Speaker 2: or week and a half or so on March fourth,
Speaker 2: United Airlines an engine burst into flame right after takeoff
Speaker 2: from Houston, forcing an emergency landing.
Speaker 3: All of these involved going.
Speaker 4: By the way.
Speaker 2: March seventh, a tire fell off Fromancis and San Francisco
Speaker 2: International Airport and returned to the San Francisco Airport. March eighth,
Speaker 2: a plane rolled off the taxiway into the grass during
Speaker 2: its landing. March eleventh, there was a midair hydraulic leak
Speaker 2: which forced takeoff come back to Sydney. March eleventh, there
Speaker 2: was a major incident where a number of passengers were injured.
Speaker 2: Latamp Airlines where there was a nose dive in the
Speaker 2: movement of a flight deck seat, and then on March thirteenth,
Speaker 2: a tire blew out taking off from DFW Airport.
Speaker 3: Now, some of these.
Speaker 2: May appear more routine, and maybe they're just getting increased scrutiny,
Speaker 2: but nonetheless the scrutiny is well deserved because of the
Speaker 2: current criminal investigation into Bone and now the death of
Speaker 2: this whistleblower who we played previously video of him noting
Speaker 2: all of the problems inside of the Boeing company that
Speaker 2: led to the quality setbacks. Not only that we saw
Speaker 2: in the previous investigation, but now the current investigation to
Speaker 2: what the hell happened with the last airlines Crystal.
Speaker 4: It's mighty convenient for Boeing that this man is dead.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 4: That's all I'll say.
Speaker 1: Mighty convenient for them because think of how much they
Speaker 1: have to lose. And John Barnett was very credible. In fact,
Speaker 1: some of the previous allegations that he had made had
Speaker 1: been backed up by investigations. For example, he had said
Speaker 1: that sometimes they would pull hearts that had been deemed nonconforming,
Speaker 1: you know, that were defective in some way.
Speaker 4: They would pull parts off.
Speaker 1: Of the scrap heap, and they would install them, and
Speaker 1: lo and behold. When they did an investigation, Boeing was
Speaker 1: unable to locate dozens of non conforming arts.
Speaker 4: That are supposed to be specifically tracked.
Speaker 1: For exactly this reason, we're now seeing with regard to
Speaker 1: the incident of the door plug coming out mid air
Speaker 1: and endangering the lives of every single person on board
Speaker 1: that plane. Oh, the surveillance footage of you know, the
Speaker 1: maintenance that occurred on that is gone.
Speaker 4: It's been taped over.
Speaker 1: And oh, somehow we can't locate the records about the
Speaker 1: maintenance that happened with that door plug. So this is
Speaker 1: an incredibly preperious moment for Boeing, for their executives, for
Speaker 1: everyone who has been involved in recent decision making. And
Speaker 1: you know, some of those problems are becoming increasingly manifest
Speaker 1: from a business perspective, put this up on the screensat
Speaker 1: where you really flag this as quite significant. United has said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're out stop making these max tens.
Speaker 4: We don't want them right now.
Speaker 1: The plane maker has agreed to build mac nines instead.
Speaker 1: The airline confirms it's in talks to substitute some Airbus
Speaker 1: A three twenty one's instead. So I mean this is
Speaker 1: quickly escalating into a It's already a massive issue for them.
Speaker 1: And because John Barnett had such specific knowledge, because he
Speaker 1: had worked there for so many years, because some of
Speaker 1: his claims had already checked out, I think he in
Speaker 1: particular was a real problem for them, And there needs
Speaker 1: to be a fulsome and independent investigation into the circumstances
Speaker 1: surrounding his death.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this also what jumps out to mean from
Speaker 2: reading about Barnett is he loved the company and he
Speaker 2: worked there for a long time. He was a whistleblower
Speaker 2: because he was so upset at the cost cutting maneuvers
Speaker 2: that were taking place that he felt was undermining safety
Speaker 2: for the aircraft and for their customers and ultimately for passengers.
Speaker 2: And we know, let's not a RaSE too. This is
Speaker 2: becoming a major business problem already. The United Airlines CEO
Speaker 2: has had to issue like auneral call to all passengers.
Speaker 3: He's like, don't worry.
Speaker 2: I know we've had a lot of problems recently. Everything's
Speaker 2: going to be okay. Don't worry about it. Even if
Speaker 2: you're flying on a Boeing aircraft, everything will be fine.
Speaker 3: I personally am seen.
Speaker 2: I've had friends who've been flying on the seven thirty
Speaker 2: seven Max, nines and tens and you know, posting on
Speaker 2: Instagram being like, that's it, everybody, I'll see you later.
Speaker 3: I guess this is my last flight.
Speaker 2: I mean, this has really entered into the public consciousness
Speaker 2: and to the flying public, where previously, I mean, who
Speaker 2: the hellill even knew. Most people don't even know what
Speaker 2: type about aircraft that they're stepping onto. They just get
Speaker 2: on the plane and they go where they're supposed to.
Speaker 2: Anytime you're entering that way in a negative association is
Speaker 2: really terrible for your company.
Speaker 3: The other thing I want to come.
Speaker 2: Back to is that what this is again is exposed,
Speaker 2: which we talked about previously, is exactly what Barnett warned about,
Speaker 2: which is that the Boeing pursuit of shareholder profit has
Speaker 2: dramatically undermined the performance at a hardware level of the company.
Speaker 2: Is that they sold off Spirit Aerosystems, which is the
Speaker 2: supplier that made that door plug. Here's that there was
Speaker 2: a problem both on the Spirit aero System's side and
Speaker 2: on the Boeing side in terms of quality checks. We've
Speaker 2: had a complete lack of government regulation where Boeing is
Speaker 2: allowed to self certify its own planes for safety, which
Speaker 2: is insane.
Speaker 3: I mean, how can you possibly have assistems like this?
Speaker 3: You know, we were.
Speaker 2: Thinking Christal, We were like, hey, has the Secretary of Transportation,
Speaker 2: Pete budage Edge, you know, said or done anything about
Speaker 2: this beyond the cursory No, not really, So where the
Speaker 2: hell is Pete?
Speaker 3: That's another big question too.
Speaker 1: That's a constant question for me. He's in power, which
Speaker 1: is very unfortunate. That's where he is. I also have
Speaker 1: to highlight this psychotic really truly sociopathic headline from the
Speaker 1: New York Times about this whole situation. Listen to this
Speaker 1: is from January thirtieth. But nonetheless, I wanted to highlight
Speaker 1: the way that these things are thought of. Boeing faces
Speaker 1: tricky balance between safety and financial performance.
Speaker 4: Tricky balance, right, do we keep people alive or do
Speaker 4: we maximize our shareholder returns? I don't know, so hard
Speaker 4: to say. It's a tricky balance that we have to strike.
Speaker 1: And of course, the unfortunate reality soccers we see that
Speaker 1: they were not striking that balance at all. They were
Speaker 1: moving explicitly in the direction of financial performance. That's how
Speaker 1: a nicky Haley gets on the board there. You know,
Speaker 1: Boeing moved a significant part of its airline assembly to
Speaker 1: South Carolina because of their you know, their right to
Speaker 1: work status and the fact that they were so anti labor.
Speaker 1: That was a big part of drawing them to the state.
Speaker 1: That is where John Burnett worked and you know, was
Speaker 1: observing these failures in terms of safety and making sure
Speaker 1: that every plane was assembled incredibly precisely, in making sure
Speaker 1: that it was really safe. And then you're right to
Speaker 1: point too, also, this isn't this is a Boeing issue.
Speaker 1: Of course, it is an industry wide issue in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways, and it is a government regulatory issue
Speaker 1: because you can't let the fox guard the Henhouse. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it happened here over years and for
Speaker 1: bipartisan administrations. Trump did push through some a further FAA deregulation,
Speaker 1: but this has been a trend multi decades in the making.
Speaker 4: It is you're right, absolutely insane.
Speaker 1: That Boeing would be able to self certify the safety
Speaker 1: of their planes. But that's precisely the way that many
Speaker 1: of these agencies have the direction that many of these
Speaker 1: agencies have gone over the neoliberal era where they outsource expertise.
Speaker 1: They no longer have either the funding or the technical
Speaker 1: know how to really do these functions themselves, and so
Speaker 1: they just assume industry is going to be honest, with
Speaker 1: sometimes completely catastrophic consequences.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: So huge developments with regards to a war really now
Speaker 1: between BB Netanyahu of Israel and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 1: Schumer had suggested in comments that will show you a
Speaker 1: portion of in a moment that there should be a
Speaker 1: new government in Israel, really condemning BB and citing him
Speaker 1: directly as an obstacle to peace. Bob do take too
Speaker 1: kindly to this, but he was pressed on those comments
Speaker 1: on CNN over the weekend.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to this exchange.
Speaker 9: That's what I really want to focus on here is
Speaker 9: Senator Schumer not calling to sort of topple the government,
Speaker 9: but specifically says, when the war winds down, will you
Speaker 9: commit to calling new elections? That's my question, will.
Speaker 7: You Donna two thirds? First of all, what you said
Speaker 7: is wrong. The vast majority of Israelis oppose early elections
Speaker 7: until the war doesn't end. We've just had many polls
Speaker 7: on that. Look a lot of the polls are you
Speaker 7: know are twist L.
Speaker 9: Twelve says Channel twelve says sixty percent of Israelis, but actions.
Speaker 7: Show that's not.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 7: I'm afraid that they asked them the question do you
Speaker 7: supported during the war and they said no.
Speaker 9: That's not what he's calling for new elections when the
Speaker 9: war winds down.
Speaker 7: Well, we'll see when we win the war. And until
Speaker 7: we win the war, I think Israelis understand that if
Speaker 7: we were to have elections now before the war is won.
Speaker 7: Resoundedly one, we would have at least six months of
Speaker 7: national paralysis, which means we would lose the war. If
Speaker 7: we don't win the war, we lose the war, and
Speaker 7: that would be not only a defeat for Israel, but
Speaker 7: a defeat for America too, because our victory is your victory.
Speaker 7: We're fighting these barbarians.
Speaker 9: Commit to new elections when the war wint down.
Speaker 7: That everything that we hold dear together.
Speaker 9: Will you commit to new elections?
Speaker 7: I think that's something for the Israeli public to decide.
Speaker 9: And the reason why the world is shifting in public
Speaker 9: sentiment is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Organizations call what
Speaker 9: they are seeing near famine in Gaza. So why won't
Speaker 9: you allow more food trucks to drive through the border
Speaker 9: crossings into Gaza to feed starving civilians while you continue
Speaker 9: to take out the terrorists in hamas.
Speaker 7: Well. Our policy is to do exactly that, and in fact,
Speaker 7: we've been abled our policies do not to have famine,
Speaker 7: but to have the entry of humanitarian support as needed
Speaker 7: and as much as is needed.
Speaker 1: He is such an incredible liar there in that last part.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen that babies and young children are
Speaker 1: literally starving to death. The toll as we know is
Speaker 1: now in the dozens. We know there are AID trucks
Speaker 1: lined up. We know even standard Democratic senators like Chris
Speaker 1: van Holland are calling out Israel for blocking aid. And also,
Speaker 1: by the way, Van Holland just in some pretty noteworthy
Speaker 1: comments said it was absolute nonsense the attacks on UNRA,
Speaker 1: which is the primary aid organization.
Speaker 4: On the ground.
Speaker 1: But to get back to the Schumer comments, let me
Speaker 1: play you a little bit of what Chuck Schumer had
Speaker 1: said on the floor and what was a very lengthy speech,
Speaker 1: and then I'll react to what he said and to
Speaker 1: Bebe's response to that, Let's take a listen to Chuck Schumann.
Speaker 11: Five months into this conflict, it is clear that Israelis
Speaker 11: need to take stock of the situation and ask must
Speaker 11: we change course at this critical juncture. I believe a
Speaker 11: new election is the only way to allow for a
Speaker 11: healthy and open decision making process about the future of
Speaker 11: Israel at a time when so many Israelis have lost
Speaker 11: their confidence in the vision and direction of their government.
Speaker 11: I also believe a majority of the Israeli public will
Speaker 11: recognize the need for change, and I believe that holding
Speaker 11: a new election once the war starts to wind down
Speaker 11: would give Israelis an opportunity to express their vision for
Speaker 11: the post war future.
Speaker 3: Of course, the.
Speaker 11: United States cannot dictate the outcome of an election, nor
Speaker 11: should we try. That is for the Israeli public to decide,
Speaker 11: so Sager.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, it's very noteworthy for Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 4: I believe he is the.
Speaker 1: Most powerful Jewish person in DC elected official in DC,
Speaker 1: long time staunch pro Israel. You know, he even was
Speaker 1: against the Obama nuclear deal. For example, he didn't criticize
Speaker 1: BIB when BB came and gave that speech over the
Speaker 1: objections of Democrats sort of undermining the Obama administration with
Speaker 1: regard to their Ronnie and nuclear deal. So it is
Speaker 1: no doubt extraordinarily noteworthy for him to come out so
Speaker 1: directly against BB, to cite him as a primary obstacle
Speaker 1: to peace, to call for new elections after the war.
Speaker 1: That is a significant and noteworthy shift from Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: that I think both reflects the horror of the undeniable
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis that is unfolding, and in particular the massive
Speaker 1: political pressure that has been applied to Democrats to the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, and also the fact that Listen a majority
Speaker 1: of Jewish Americans want to cease fire. An overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Israelis do want Netnaho gone and think very poorly
Speaker 1: of him.
Speaker 4: On the other hand, it continues.
Speaker 1: To be very convenient for Biden and Schumer and other
Speaker 1: liberal Zionists to just point to Netna who, like, all
Speaker 1: the problem is just you know, a few bad apples,
Speaker 1: and if we just got a you know, more quote
Speaker 1: unquote moderate government in there, everything would be better, everything
Speaker 1: would be different.
Speaker 4: It's also very convenient to.
Speaker 1: Just give a speech rather than using the incredible, you know,
Speaker 1: tools of policy, money and diplomatic leverage in order to
Speaker 1: actually compel different behavior from the Israeli government. The last thing,
Speaker 1: and I'll say here is you know, in some ways
Speaker 1: I'm curious your thoughts on this Sagur. In some ways
Speaker 1: this really plays into Phoebe's hands because even his you know,
Speaker 1: potential opposition, Benny Gama, distance himself from these comments because
Speaker 1: he can go out there and say what he did
Speaker 1: to Dana Bash even though you know, we laugh at
Speaker 1: the idea that Israel doesn't try to meddle in our politics,
Speaker 1: but hey, we're a sovereign country, Like, who are you
Speaker 1: to tell us what we need to do and how
Speaker 1: we need to run our government into medal in our
Speaker 1: domestic political affairs. So those are some of my thoughts.
Speaker 2: What was your reaction, Yeah, I mean I actually think
Speaker 2: that well, first of all, yeah, I think you're correct
Speaker 2: in terms of the domestic side. In terms of whether
Speaker 2: this is actually going to change anything, No, I mean
Speaker 2: what exactly is happening. Nothing in terms of actual effect
Speaker 2: on the Netsannahu government in terms of change of policy.
Speaker 2: That said, in Tel Aviv, I would hope that this
Speaker 2: actually is a wake up call.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: For example, Barakravid, reporting from Israel, quote Senate Majority leader
Speaker 2: Truck Shumer speech calling for a new government landed like
Speaker 2: an earthquake, delivering a huge shock to the already tense
Speaker 2: US Israel relationship. He says, specifically, in points to the
Speaker 2: fact that since Schumer is understood in Israel as one
Speaker 2: of the great friends of the country, that for him
Speaker 2: to call for a change in government with seismic But
Speaker 2: what you pointed to is very important about Benny, about
Speaker 2: Gans as well, distancing himself from the comments, and former
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Nef Tally Bennett as well, is that The
Speaker 2: fact is is that they are all trying to preserve
Speaker 2: their ability to operate in the way that they whatever
Speaker 2: they want with us backing. So they're rhetorically trying to
Speaker 2: shift to this idea of like, hey, how dare you
Speaker 2: tell us what to do? And it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: if we gave you no money, then maybe you would
Speaker 2: have a point. But whenever, we're the guarantee of your
Speaker 2: security and have been now for decades, and we sell
Speaker 2: you the vast majority of your weapons, And where.
Speaker 3: Was iron doome invented? Actually?
Speaker 2: Oh right, Okay, well then no, it is a little
Speaker 2: bit different, and maybe we can and we should tell
Speaker 2: you what to do. That's kind of where I take
Speaker 2: issue with where it is politically.
Speaker 3: I think you're right.
Speaker 2: I think this will become the mainstream position of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party is like, well BB himself has to go.
Speaker 2: I do want to say. I mean, it's not like
Speaker 2: a change in government. I'm not saying everything would change,
Speaker 2: but I think some things would change. I think if
Speaker 2: gance was you know, for example, I've said this before,
Speaker 2: I do think a ceasefire would be more likely because
Speaker 2: you wouldn't necessarily have the same political incentive that BB
Speaker 2: does to have the war going. I think actually, perhaps
Speaker 2: most importantly for our purposes, the idea of an expanded
Speaker 2: war in Lebanon would at least be likely dramatically reduced
Speaker 2: because there is no direct political incentive at least to
Speaker 2: continue the war after.
Speaker 3: Any operations in Gaza.
Speaker 2: So I wouldn't say that there aren't very very big
Speaker 2: substantive changes that would come as a result. And the
Speaker 2: problem though is that if we still ultimately are not
Speaker 2: going to reach for any leverage, then you can rhetorically
Speaker 2: be against the BB government, but he'll still support the
Speaker 2: BB government and he's not going to voluntarily resign anytime soon.
Speaker 2: If anything, the longer that this goes, the better off
Speaker 2: it is for him. And that dynamic, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know that there is much we can do about
Speaker 2: that without actually conditioning and changing AID. And when both
Speaker 2: Schumer and Biden have said that that's off the table,
Speaker 2: than the de facto is basically the same one as Trump,
Speaker 2: where we just support the government.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say that nothing would change if
Speaker 1: you had Benny Gantz running the government, you'd probably have
Speaker 1: a different coalition. As you said, you know, may not
Speaker 1: include Ben Gevere or Smotrich some of the most you know,
Speaker 1: absolute genocidal psychomaniacs that exists. But we also have to
Speaker 1: reckon with the fact that this war and the way
Speaker 1: that it has been prosecuted, in all of its horror
Speaker 1: and brutality, is very popular domestically in Israel. Phoebe's not popular,
Speaker 1: you know. When he tries to act like he is
Speaker 1: and like people want him to be there and they
Speaker 1: don't want elections, that's a lie. And Dana Bash did
Speaker 1: a good job of catching him in that particular lie,
Speaker 1: both in saying you're misquoting what Schumer or misunderstanding what
Speaker 1: Schumer was saying because he specifically said after the war,
Speaker 1: and also you're you know, misrepresenting what the people of
Speaker 1: your own country want, because there is an overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: that wants new elections after the war is through, and
Speaker 1: there's a good number that want those elections to occur now.
Speaker 1: But it's not because they think the war has been
Speaker 1: too brutal. There is some dissent with regard to prioritizing
Speaker 1: quote unquote destroying Hamas, which we know is impossible and
Speaker 1: is you know, fanciful and was always wishful thinking from
Speaker 1: the beginning and the release of the hostages. So there,
Speaker 1: you know, there are tensions there. And perhaps if you
Speaker 1: had a Gance who was in charge of the government,
Speaker 1: had a different coalition, he would be more sympathetic to
Speaker 1: the hostage families and their allies who prioritize cease fire
Speaker 1: in order to obtain the release of the hostages over
Speaker 1: continuing the absolute annihilation of the Gaza strip. But what
Speaker 1: these comments don't reckon with is number one, the fact
Speaker 1: that we have massive power that we're choosing not to
Speaker 1: use instead just using these you know, rhetorical flourishes or
Speaker 1: these leaks to the press or whatever to signal large
Speaker 1: displeasure while not actually doing anything about it. And number
Speaker 1: two the fact that yeah, domestically in Israel, the war,
Speaker 1: the prosecution of the war, brutality of the war, the
Speaker 1: complete annihilation. We know the numbers. It is overwhelmingly popular.
Speaker 1: So to just pin the way this has gone down
Speaker 1: on bib in his right wing government, it's very convenient,
Speaker 1: and I think it allows Democrats a talking point to
Speaker 1: posture like they care about the humanitarian crisis and they
Speaker 1: really care about what's happening to civilians in Gaza while
Speaker 1: not actually doing anything that will change the results. I
Speaker 1: also want to dig further into this umbrage that bib
Speaker 1: at Al are taking at the idea, Oh, how dare
Speaker 1: you meddle in our domestic political polity, our domestic politics.
Speaker 4: We would never do that to you.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to this is an Israeli government
Speaker 1: spokesperson Tahl Heinrich making that case to Newsmax.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what she has to say.
Speaker 12: I'll address what Schumor said there at these statements.
Speaker 4: You know, Israel is a sovereign country.
Speaker 12: Word democracy, this concept where the citizens choose.
Speaker 4: Who leads them the government.
Speaker 12: And right now, in case someone hasn't noticed, we have
Speaker 12: a unity government in place. We don't intervene in American politics,
Speaker 12: and we expect to be treated with the same respect.
Speaker 12: The unity government and the war cabinet that we have
Speaker 12: in place. Right now, then the Prime Minister who leads
Speaker 12: them really represent what the overwhelming majority of Israelis want
Speaker 12: to see, and that is a total victory over Hamas.
Speaker 12: We want to see all hostages back home. We want
Speaker 12: to see the elimination of this terrorist organization. We want
Speaker 12: to make sure that Goadza will never ever pose a
Speaker 12: terror threat to us again. You'll remember very well that
Speaker 12: right after nine to eleven, when Osama bin Laden and
Speaker 12: radical Islamist attack the United States, the civilized world closed
Speaker 12: ranks and rallied behind the United States and President George W.
Speaker 2: Bush.
Speaker 12: Back then, he said, it's either you're with us or
Speaker 12: you're with a terrorists. Twenty years later, we asked the
Speaker 12: same question.
Speaker 1: I love how she sites that favorably as an example.
Speaker 1: You know, like we didn't say you should have new elections.
Speaker 1: Well maybe you should have. Maybe you should have said, well,
Speaker 1: what you're doing is insane.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right. I mean, by the way, Bebe was
Speaker 3: a staunch advocate of the war in Iraq. A lot
Speaker 3: of people forget that.
Speaker 2: He testified before Congress Act by how we would be
Speaker 2: greeted as liberators and all that. Of course, because he
Speaker 2: wants to get us involved in the region, and he
Speaker 2: wanted us to fight Iran on their behalf. So he's
Speaker 2: always thinking like fifteen steps ahead. Yes, the idea that
Speaker 2: these people don't medical on our elections is insane. This
Speaker 2: is what always drives me crazy about the Israel exception.
Speaker 2: You know, I know a lot of people who have
Speaker 2: worked or let's just say, come into contact with the
Speaker 2: US intelligence agencies, and what they are always briefed on
Speaker 2: is they're like, listen, in terms of counterintelligence threats, the
Speaker 2: number one most sophisticated spy agency in Washington is the Mosad.
Speaker 3: But they never say it publicly. They're always warned.
Speaker 2: They're like, hey, you know, pretty girls approaching you in
Speaker 2: bars and all that. It's not just a Russian phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It's not just a Chinese phenomenon. It's an Israeli phenomena
Speaker 2: in terms of being spied on. In terms of spyware.
Speaker 2: We know about Pegasus, we know about Mosad infiltration into
Speaker 2: our own government. Don't forget and look past that entire
Speaker 2: Jonathan Pollard incident. But the problem I always find is,
Speaker 2: you know, we have a huge intelligence penetration in this
Speaker 2: country of let's say Chinese assets, Russian assets, and these
Speaker 2: are front page news. I mean recently, there are multiple
Speaker 2: incidents of Chinese Chinese spies that were working on their
Speaker 2: behalf either in AI companies, US military. But then whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to people who are Israeli spies, we had
Speaker 2: that man Jonathan Pollard, who several presidents considered pardoning because
Speaker 2: of pressure from the Israeli government, and then after he
Speaker 2: was released from prison, he's greeted like a hero in
Speaker 2: Israel and nobody in America. You know, it says anything,
Speaker 2: even though in terms of the crime, it's exactly the same.
Speaker 3: So the idea that they.
Speaker 2: Don't spy on us, that they don't infiltrate us, that
Speaker 2: they don't meddle in our politics is ludicrous. None of
Speaker 2: this is anti Semitic. It is just an acknowledgement of reality.
Speaker 2: You could say it about any other country that has
Speaker 2: this amount of foreign influence. And yet you know, they
Speaker 2: try and use that exception, and they're kind of policing
Speaker 2: of rhetoric to quash a lot of what we're talking
Speaker 2: about here, Crystal, and to pass you know, things like
Speaker 2: those BDS legislations or anti Semitism definitions in the state
Speaker 2: of South Dakota. I don't believe we ever put that
Speaker 2: in the show because we had so much going on.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a perfect example of like when their
Speaker 2: ambassadors are literally campaigning at state by state level for
Speaker 2: BDS legislation which is infringing on the state on the
Speaker 2: speech of US citizens. How can you not call that
Speaker 2: meddling in our POWERY imagine if we were going some
Speaker 2: Israeli prefecture, I don't know what they call it down there,
Speaker 2: but state, province, whatever, and we're like trying to advocate
Speaker 2: for local legislation, they would lose it.
Speaker 3: And you know we should too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you are more free in America to criticize our
Speaker 1: own government, as you should be, than you are to
Speaker 1: criticize the Israeli government. Yes, it's insane, I mean literally codified.
Speaker 1: And now, especially in South Dakota, they've codified this definition
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism which includes all sorts of things that
Speaker 1: are just criticism of the Israeli government. So a Twitter
Speaker 1: user put together some of the examples of israel influence
Speaker 1: in American politics. We can put these up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is Asaul Rod who pulled these together. She says, quote,
Speaker 1: we don't intervene in American politics. And here are the headlines.
Speaker 1: Quote Republicans invite net Yahoo to address Congress as part
Speaker 1: of spurning of Obama. Israel's aggressive spying in the US
Speaker 1: mostly hushed up to your point, Sager John Kerry reminds
Speaker 1: Congress NETANYAHUO advised US to invade Rock. Oh really, and
Speaker 1: pro Israel lobbying group APAC secretly pouring millions into defeating
Speaker 1: progressive Democrats. I believe bb was just featured in a
Speaker 1: political ad and a Florida campaign. I think I saw
Speaker 1: a headline something like that. But speaking to APAC specifically,
Speaker 1: we can put this up on the screen from the
Speaker 1: American Prospect, they just had this big conference right outside
Speaker 1: of DC National Harbor, same place that they had the
Speaker 1: c Pack conference, and American Prospect was able to get
Speaker 1: in and get their hands on the talking points that
Speaker 1: APAK was pushing and handing out, and you know, it's
Speaker 1: pretty astonishing. So first of all, there were massive attendants
Speaker 1: from a high level American political officials along with BB
Speaker 1: net Yahoo himself, and Israeli Ambassador of the US Michael Herzog.
Speaker 1: According to a speaker list, the entire Democratic and Republican
Speaker 1: leadership in Congress all delivered remarks, including Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: Kim Jeffries, Mike Johnson, John Fetterman, and Tim Burschett were
Speaker 1: both in attendance, among other representatives. They go on to
Speaker 1: say the documents reveal a pack's legislative strategy and the
Speaker 1: talking points that we use to support an unconditional fourteen
Speaker 1: billion dollar military funding package that has thus far been
Speaker 1: held up. They also include numerous positions on aspects of
Speaker 1: the US response to the war that have not previously
Speaker 1: been made public, from abolishing the United Nations Relief and
Speaker 1: Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Newer East that's
Speaker 1: unrap to opposing recent restrictions imposed by the Biden administration
Speaker 1: on Israeli settlers, no mention of a two state solution, surprise, surprise.
Speaker 1: They also touted their prowess to members as dollar for dollar,
Speaker 1: the largest contributor to candidates in the twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: midterm elections. In fact, I think sagre that they cited
Speaker 1: some of Ryan Grimm's critical reporting of them to prove
Speaker 1: just how impactful and influential they have been in these
Speaker 1: election cycles, which I think is pretty undeniable. And they
Speaker 1: also had a list of lies for people to spread
Speaker 1: about what's unfolding on the ground in Gaza. In particular,
Speaker 1: they told members of Congress that quote, Israel is not
Speaker 1: blocking the delivery of aid to Gaza out and out reply,
Speaker 1: and that reports that people are starving in Gaza are false.
Speaker 1: We've all seen the pictures. We've all seen the pictures,
Speaker 1: and we know that our own government has resorted to
Speaker 1: these ridiculous, inadequate boondoggles of dropping aid which by the way,
Speaker 1: killed some Palestinian civilians and building this temporary court pier situation,
Speaker 1: ridiculous expensive, you know, boondoggles that are going to take
Speaker 1: that's going to take a while to even come into play.
Speaker 1: Why because Israel won't just let in the hundreds of
Speaker 1: AID trucks that are masked at its border. So that's
Speaker 1: a little bit of what the Israel lobby is up
Speaker 1: to here just outside of our nation's capital.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's genuinely amusing for them to claim there that
Speaker 2: they don't meddle in other people's politics, when, as I said,
Speaker 2: they are one of the biggest meddlers in our own
Speaker 2: politics and in terms.
Speaker 3: But I mean, look, you have to give it to them.
Speaker 2: It does work, and they still have the ability to
Speaker 2: compel all of those bipartisan politicians to come to their summit.
Speaker 2: I definitely think, of course, in the long run, I
Speaker 2: think that they're standing in the US and the change
Speaker 2: in politics here is something they will have to reckon
Speaker 2: with but in the interim it is paying dividends for
Speaker 2: them in their war.
Speaker 3: So look what canntinue to see and look at it.
Speaker 2: Next part that we want to go to is about
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and this is a pretty impactful ruling
Speaker 2: we wanted to cover and to actually give people some
Speaker 2: more insight as there's a number of cases coming down
Speaker 2: the pipeline now, specifically about social media, about digital rights
Speaker 2: and democracies, something I really welcome this in particular, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Was a ruling
Speaker 2: that came across the wire on Friday where the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court laid out a new test for determining when actions
Speaker 2: taken by government employees on social media, such as posting messages,
Speaker 2: deleting comments, or blocking users, constitutes an official business versus
Speaker 2: their personal conduct. So what they have decided is that
Speaker 2: public officials can reconsipts the rules on when public officials
Speaker 2: can block certain social media users. And what they find
Speaker 2: specifically is that they have to protect freedom of speech
Speaker 2: and this specifically also want to retain First Amendment rights
Speaker 2: for private citizens to be able to engage with their constituents.
Speaker 2: This particularly came as a result of this case of
Speaker 2: a Michigan man his name is Kevin Linke, after comments
Speaker 2: that he had posted to a sport manager's support Huron
Speaker 2: City manager's Facebook page, which were deleted and his access
Speaker 2: to the page was blocked entirely. He had criticized the
Speaker 2: handling of the COVID nineteen pandemic. The person who blocked
Speaker 2: him said that his personal account, that his account was personal,
Speaker 2: and that COVID was not.
Speaker 3: Part of his officials duties.
Speaker 2: So what they basically ruled, Crystal, and they have come
Speaker 2: to is that blocking your own constituents is therefore a
Speaker 2: violation of your public duties. But there are some narrow
Speaker 2: rules as to where they are set, and I really
Speaker 2: welcome some of these changes as to how exactly these
Speaker 2: people who try and mix their public and private life
Speaker 2: and their accounts and all of that can actually interact
Speaker 2: with the rest of us when they are imbued with
Speaker 2: public responsibilities.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it seems like there's still going to be
Speaker 1: more suits in this direction and more finding of exactly
Speaker 1: where the line is, because it is a kind of
Speaker 1: a tricky question. You know, if you've gotten Instagram, that's
Speaker 1: ninety five percent your dog and your kids, and occasionally
Speaker 1: you post like a government press release, is that a
Speaker 1: is that public? Is it your private personal? How do
Speaker 1: you find where the line is? But I think the
Speaker 1: fundamental insight here is that these platforms are a critical
Speaker 1: part of the you know, the digital town square, if
Speaker 1: you want to call it. That there are huge First
Speaker 1: Amendment implications in terms of how people are allowed to
Speaker 1: conduct themselves on the platform, and that public officials have
Speaker 1: a responsibility, in accordance with the First Amendment to make
Speaker 1: sure that their own constituents aren't blocked from accessing these
Speaker 1: official government communications. So I believe the ruling was unanimous.
Speaker 1: I think it's you know, important. I wonder, and I
Speaker 1: genuinely wonder. There's a question mark for me whether it
Speaker 1: could have some implications for the debate and discussion that's
Speaker 1: going on with regard to TikTok, because part of the
Speaker 1: question there is also a First Amendment question some legal
Speaker 1: analysts saying that depending on how this is described and
Speaker 1: depending on how the government, if a band were to
Speaker 1: go into effect, how that would be effectuated, that it
Speaker 1: could also come under legal scrutiny because of First Amendment questions,
Speaker 1: And so to me, it seems significant that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is directly acknowledging that these are important First Amendment
Speaker 1: concerns that are being considered with regards to social media
Speaker 1: platforms in particular.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like I said, the crux of the matter really
Speaker 2: comes down to allowing suits to go through whenever constituents
Speaker 2: specifically are then blocked by their public officials allowing and
Speaker 2: setting those rules. What's important also about what you raised,
Speaker 2: and actually maybe we can cover this later on in
Speaker 2: the week, is specifically about these First Amendment protections, because
Speaker 2: what we're really talking about our digital rights is that
Speaker 2: our digital extension of our current life in the town
Speaker 2: square that's all been litigated over the last two hundred
Speaker 2: years and applying it to this. For example, there's actually
Speaker 2: a very important Supreme Court case that is going before
Speaker 2: the Court today around the Biden administration contacting social media
Speaker 2: companies and alleging that misinformation this was around vaccines that
Speaker 2: was occurring on the platform. The plaintiffs start bringing a
Speaker 2: case saying that that was a direct violation of free
Speaker 2: speech and was specifically meddling in the speech of US
Speaker 2: citizens by advocating for this, especially when it was an
Speaker 2: official position of the White House, and will remember that
Speaker 2: infamous Jensaki comment that if you're blocked from one place
Speaker 2: and you should be blocked everywhere. That could then set
Speaker 2: up the rules for where the government is even allowed
Speaker 2: to interact with these social media companies.
Speaker 3: Sotting you put all these kind of.
Speaker 2: Things together, what I think is important is that it
Speaker 2: really just gets to the idea that we do have
Speaker 2: rights as citizens on these companies, that the companies themselves
Speaker 2: are now it's being taken out of their house. It
Speaker 2: never really should have been there in the first place,
Speaker 2: and it has then entering the public sphere to which
Speaker 2: we can have a commonly held understanding that is not
Speaker 2: just up to some idiot in Menlo Park, and so
Speaker 2: what I am allowed to say and not and especially
Speaker 2: when we're interacting here when you think about it too,
Speaker 2: in the COVID context, this is a man who is
Speaker 2: under a lockdown, who is protesting against his government's handling,
Speaker 2: specifically local government's handling of the COVID pandemic. Well, he
Speaker 2: was under a lockdown, so how else was he allowed
Speaker 2: to make his speech hurt? He's not like he couldn't
Speaker 2: go out into a public without a mask, and actually
Speaker 2: say something. So that's when it becomes really critical for
Speaker 2: the ability to voice dissent. And that's where I think
Speaker 2: a lot of this comes down to. I also would
Speaker 2: be remiss if we didn't mention our own Ryan Grimm.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. We were
Speaker 2: all trying to determine whether we're blocked by public officials.
Speaker 2: We're not actually sure because you never necessarily know who
Speaker 2: you're blocked by unless you go and look. But Ryan
Speaker 2: is actually blocked by Congressman Richie Torres. So as he
Speaker 2: says here, yo, Richie Torres, a Supreme court says this
Speaker 2: is unconstitutional. Not quite, although we would definitely support We
Speaker 2: would definitely support a lawsuit there if it were to
Speaker 2: go through, to try and force Richiet Torres to unblock
Speaker 2: him and then deal with Ryan's some critical questions.
Speaker 3: Anything else you want to say on this, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Ritchie Torurus is kind of notorious for blocking anyone who criticizes,
Speaker 1: so no surprise, Ryan is not a constituent of Richie Torres.
Speaker 1: I have no doubt that Richie Torres has plenty of
Speaker 1: his own constituents blocked, so he may want to look
Speaker 1: into that before he faces a lawsuit. Given this new precedent,
Speaker 1: I just want to say, on a practical note for
Speaker 1: Twitter users out there, I never block anyone. If someone's
Speaker 1: annoying me, I just mute them. It's such a much
Speaker 1: better function. They don't know they're muted. You know, you
Speaker 1: don't give them that like ego boost of realizing that
Speaker 1: they got under your skin enough that you actually blocked them.
Speaker 1: So I guess we'll have to wait for the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court hearings on whether muting your constituents is also a
Speaker 1: violation of the first event.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, that's a great point.
Speaker 2: Actually, here I'm trying to see if I've ever blocked anyone,
Speaker 2: so according to yeah, no, I have not blocked anybody,
Speaker 2: according to my according to my Twitter blocked accounts. As
Speaker 2: you said, if I click on muted accounts, there's a
Speaker 2: hell of a lot of accounts of people.
Speaker 3: Who I have muted.
Speaker 2: Mostly people will wait, please debate me or somebody who's annoying.
Speaker 2: But that's it. So I agree with you. Public officials
Speaker 2: establish a Crystal and Sager standard.
Speaker 3: Just mute them.
Speaker 2: Then you don't even have to interact with them, and
Speaker 2: they can waste their life, you know, replying to you
Speaker 2: and trying to ruin that, you know, trying to poison
Speaker 2: your headspace, and you won't even know about it.
Speaker 3: So anyways, there you.
Speaker 4: Go, All right, saga, what are you looking at?
Speaker 2: COVID has had many long lasting impacts on American society
Speaker 2: that we haven't yet fully grappled with, from learning loss
Speaker 2: as a result of school closures to the enduring effect
Speaker 2: of hybrid work with white collar workers. But my personal
Speaker 2: favorite subject really is the vast internal migration that has
Speaker 2: taken place in the US over the last three years,
Speaker 2: which is going to completely redefine the America of the future.
Speaker 2: From our coatomy are demographics and our electoral map, every
Speaker 2: new release of census data tells us that a vast
Speaker 2: internal migration not seen since the days of World War
Speaker 2: II is taking place with really not that much paying
Speaker 2: attention at the national level. New really released data from
Speaker 2: the Census Bureau at a county by county level presents
Speaker 2: a stunning picture of how people with the ability and
Speaker 2: means are fleeing.
Speaker 3: Different parts of the country.
Speaker 2: For others, of the top ten counties in the United
Speaker 2: States that experience annual numeric growth in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: a stunning eight are in the state of Texas.
Speaker 3: The other two are Arizona and Florida.
Speaker 2: Especially noteworthy is that the Arizona county is Maricopa, which
Speaker 2: was the largest and so critical in the last election.
Speaker 2: In Florida's Polpe County ranked at number five. Where are
Speaker 2: these people coming from? It's also a clear though when
Speaker 2: you take a look at where the largest outflows are happening.
Speaker 2: The county which lost the single most amount of people
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three was Los Angeles County in California,
Speaker 2: followed up quickly by Kings Queens and Bronx County in
Speaker 2: New York State, and then Cook County in Illinois. In
Speaker 2: other words, La New York City, Metro Chicago, Philadelphia County
Speaker 2: the city of Philadelphia next on the list at number four,
Speaker 2: then Wayne County, Michigan where Detroit was finally San Diego.
Speaker 3: Are you sensing a theme.
Speaker 2: You got major cities that have high levels of crime,
Speaker 2: housing affordability, and in metropolitan areas that are losing hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands of people now on top of the hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands already lost. That confirms the twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty two trend of net migration loss from
Speaker 2: the northeast and the Midwest, with people heading in droves
Speaker 2: to the south and the west. The overall migration center
Speaker 2: of the gravity. Center of gravity of this country is
Speaker 2: rapidly moving away from the coast and much more into
Speaker 2: the heartland, into the sun belt. Specifically, Florida has experienced
Speaker 2: stunning growth. The Census actually says ninety six percent of
Speaker 2: Florida's sixty seven counties had population growth in just one
Speaker 2: year from twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three. Similar
Speaker 2: percentages actually experience in Idaho and in the state of Tennessee.
Speaker 2: Population loss from major metropolitan areas to Florida and Texas
Speaker 2: plus smaller states like Idaho and Tennessee is significantly changing
Speaker 2: already the politics in those states.
Speaker 3: We've seen this happen.
Speaker 2: For example, in the state of Georgia, you hat a
Speaker 2: former red state that is now fully purple, showing major
Speaker 2: metro growth in the city of Atlanta. Florida and Texas
Speaker 2: remain solidly read but with very different red coalitions of
Speaker 2: voters that are delivering these victories. And same thing in Arizona,
Speaker 2: which has become fully purple. What really I see from
Speaker 2: the map is not just a rejection of the ultra
Speaker 2: blue metropolis model, but it is one of hope that
Speaker 2: I always try and highlight in these monologues. A lot
Speaker 2: of this just comes down to the cost of living, housing,
Speaker 2: and accessibility to.
Speaker 3: The American dream.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's an accident when you overlay a
Speaker 2: housing heat map on the most expensive places to live
Speaker 2: in the US, they almost exactly one to one match
Speaker 2: up with the places that are losing the most amount
Speaker 2: of people. Cost of living is a math problem that
Speaker 2: people are not willing to put up with anymore, especially
Speaker 2: in places where much of their quality of life was
Speaker 2: eroded by crime. The story of just simply being able
Speaker 2: to live and be safe is so basic that should
Speaker 2: be accessible to everyone, Which is where I'm really going
Speaker 2: to end this on the same note I always do.
Speaker 2: I'm genuinely happy for friends and others who have been
Speaker 2: able to leave major cities for the Sun Belt or
Speaker 2: for the West and.
Speaker 3: They have a better life. We also can't forget.
Speaker 2: About the people who are already there, or those who
Speaker 2: are just too poor or who lack flexibility to move.
Speaker 2: The single best policy we can't pursue is optionality.
Speaker 3: And affordability.
Speaker 2: It's the best way to ensure that those who don't
Speaker 2: want to stay are priced out of their own homes,
Speaker 2: and those who want to leave can do so without
Speaker 2: it being zero sum for where they're going. The current
Speaker 2: Hodgepod system is unfortunately not working for everyone as it should.
Speaker 2: People often think that policies of the past, like vast
Speaker 2: migration under the Home Seat Act and Western expansion is
Speaker 2: no longer possible, but the complete and the rapid shift
Speaker 2: already and where people are living just with flexible and
Speaker 2: hybrid work shows that, combined with technological change, a potentially
Speaker 2: even bigger shift inward and downward is in America's future.
Speaker 2: I know I do this monologuvery so x months Crystal,
Speaker 2: but I mean, and.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching. I know we
Speaker 2: had some technical difficulties, et cetera. We'll make sure everything
Speaker 2: is set and ready to go for tomorrow. We appreciate
Speaker 2: you sign up if you haven't otherwise, we'll see you
Speaker 2: on Tuesday.