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.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 3: we have, Crystal?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do many interesting things to get to you this morning.
Speaker 1: So we have all known that Biden and his team
Speaker 1: are in a bubble, but now we have some astonishing
Speaker 1: new reporting giving us some of the details, the color
Speaker 1: and the texture of that bubble that I think will
Speaker 1: find very interesting. Also taking a look at what's going
Speaker 1: on with Nvidia and asking the question, are we facing
Speaker 1: another crash allah the dot com bubble burst, So we'll
Speaker 1: look at that. Also on foreign policy, Russia making a
Speaker 1: new pact with North Korea? Where did this come from?
Speaker 1: What does it mean? Quite a next ordinary move. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari is rebuking BB directly and
Speaker 1: admitting that it is impossible to defeat Hamas, which has
Speaker 1: been their purported goal all the way along. So that's
Speaker 1: very interesting. We also have a mother of a Boeing
Speaker 1: seven thirty six seven thirty seven Max plane crash victim
Speaker 1: who went off on CNN.
Speaker 3: Against you, guys, a CEO.
Speaker 1: This is This woman is amazing and she is incredibly
Speaker 1: correct about everything she's saying. I'm taking a look at
Speaker 1: the vaunted humanitarian peer debacle. Sager is taking a look
Speaker 1: at the zin debacle.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a black day for many of us.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so lots to get to this morning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. Before we get to that.
Speaker 2: Thank you everybody who's been signing up premium subscriber. Our
Speaker 2: interview or my interview with a Candice Owen's dropped early.
Speaker 2: In general, that's what we do here. We've got the
Speaker 2: debate that's come or not a debate what does it?
Speaker 2: Counterpoints with Matt Tayibi that will come out early for
Speaker 2: premium subscribers today and then it will drop for the
Speaker 2: general public later on. So if he can support us
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot Com, we really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: We do have a presidential debate coming up.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, yeah, that's right. Next we're going to
Speaker 3: presidential debate.
Speaker 2: So yeah, if you want to participate, support us and
Speaker 2: our ability to do that, you're going to get some
Speaker 2: special features, et cetera, Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to the very latest with the
Speaker 1: Biden campaign. I want to start with CNN having their
Speaker 1: old pal Brian Stelter back on the air to provide
Speaker 1: us with a heaping dose of some Biden cope about
Speaker 1: why the public is viewing him as an old man.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 4: That's what we're seeing. That's what the Biden administration, the
Speaker 4: Biden campaign is so worried about right now. But made
Speaker 4: no mistake, they are worried about this. This is a
Speaker 4: real problem. This is not something made up fiction. The
Speaker 4: videos are oftentimes made up, but the problem is real.
Speaker 4: Because some of us have watch a forty minute speech
Speaker 4: by Biden, we see the full context. Other people only
Speaker 4: watch a five second clip, and that's going to be
Speaker 4: something that's going to I suspect follow Biden for the
Speaker 4: rest of this campaign.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 1: I've also many of them make the extent to the
Speaker 1: extent that I can take watching a forty minute speech
Speaker 1: typically Biden on double speed. I think the conclusion that
Speaker 1: people come away with is even more dire than the
Speaker 1: short clips that get pulled.
Speaker 2: This is just pure White House regurgitated propaganda. And in fact,
Speaker 2: my friends who are on the White House Press Corps
Speaker 2: are the ones who are most concerned about Biden. They're like, dude,
Speaker 2: you don't even know the half of it in terms
Speaker 2: of the stuff that doesn't make it to the clips.
Speaker 2: This is something that you hear consistently from all of
Speaker 2: the people who are forced to And yeah, you and
Speaker 2: I are probably in the top point one percent of
Speaker 2: people who have to consume the vast majority of what
Speaker 2: this man does on a daily basis. And you know,
Speaker 2: even sticking with that, many of the things that make
Speaker 2: me cringe are not even the ones that go viral.
Speaker 2: You're sick, oh my, just watching this person on the stage.
Speaker 2: But this is the new media regurgitation of the White
Speaker 2: House line about cheap fakes quote unquote, A cheap fake
Speaker 2: is a video.
Speaker 3: I don't like that happens to show Biden.
Speaker 2: Looking really really old, like wandering off in the middle
Speaker 2: of the G seven being led away by Barack Obama.
Speaker 2: They can try and spin these things all they want,
Speaker 2: and it's really evident now that they're basically trying to
Speaker 2: imply that the videos themselves, as Stelter says, are fake.
Speaker 3: He wants you to believe they are fake. No, they
Speaker 3: are real.
Speaker 2: At the very least, you could say they are edited
Speaker 2: out of context.
Speaker 3: Show us the full context. We showed you the full context.
Speaker 1: It doesn't STI look good, Yeah, no matter which.
Speaker 3: Way that you spent it, that's right.
Speaker 1: The one they really objected to is the one where
Speaker 1: you know they're at the D Day Compederation and the
Speaker 1: paraschuoters are coming down. Is that what they're called parashooters,
Speaker 1: and everybody is like looking at this one guide Biden's
Speaker 1: like wandering off over here. Now, the clip of that
Speaker 1: that went viral that the Republicans were pushing it did
Speaker 1: zoom in on Biden, so you couldn't see there was
Speaker 1: anything else going on over here. We showed you the
Speaker 1: full one so you could see, and I think you
Speaker 1: probably also felt that it didn't look great, especially in
Speaker 1: the context of everything else. And here's the other thing,
Speaker 1: is like, all right, if he's so with it, like,
Speaker 1: put him out, give him some interviews, you know, let
Speaker 1: him take questions from the press. They very rarely do
Speaker 1: any of that. So tells you that his own circle
Speaker 1: realizes this is a problem, realizing he isn't ready to
Speaker 1: perform at that level. Although the level of delusion within
Speaker 1: that circle, the close circle of Biden aids, is apparently astounding.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen from Axios. Top
Speaker 1: Dems colon Biden has a losing strategy. Senior Democrats, including
Speaker 1: some of President Biden's aids, are increasingly dubious about his
Speaker 1: theory for victory November, which relies on voter concerns about
Speaker 1: January sixth, political violence, democracy, and Donald Trump's character. But
Speaker 1: Biden's core inner circle has not lost faith in that approach.
Speaker 1: They write the product of Biden and his longtime aid
Speaker 1: Mike Donellan that puts them on an island within much
Speaker 1: of the party about what will decide the election. Has
Speaker 1: polls consistently show Biden tied or behind, even after a
Speaker 1: slight bump following Trump's criminal conviction. Some of the details
Speaker 1: here are really extraordinary and just you guys know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's no surprise Biden's been in politics a long time,
Speaker 1: and he has a very small handful of aids and
Speaker 1: confidence who've been with him for like decades. Who are
Speaker 1: the people he turns to and trust. If you aren't
Speaker 1: in that circle, then you basically you don't matter. And
Speaker 1: you also get from this that people are very nervous
Speaker 1: about bringing to Biden or that inner circle of aids
Speaker 1: any sort of bad news or dissenting voices because they
Speaker 1: worry they'll get shut out and or potentially even you know,
Speaker 1: let go. They just don't want to hear it. They
Speaker 1: believe things are gonna be fine. The lessons they took
Speaker 1: from the midterms and also from Biden's own primary victory,
Speaker 1: was to, you know, ignore the doubters. We know what
Speaker 1: we're doing, and that has really helped to seal in
Speaker 1: this very tight bubble. Let's put some of the quotes
Speaker 1: up here on this on the screen. This is a three.
Speaker 1: A DEM strategist in touch with the campaign told Axios
Speaker 1: it is unclear to many of us watching from the
Speaker 1: outside whether the president and his core team realize how
Speaker 1: dire the situation is right now, and whether they even
Speaker 1: have a plan to fix it. That is scary. Mike
Speaker 1: Donalan who we just mentioned, who was one of those
Speaker 1: top aids in the inner circle and has been for many,
Speaker 1: many years. He has reassured people that voters will quote
Speaker 1: do the right thing by rejecting Trump. Per a Biden
Speaker 1: aid who heard him say it. Joe Biden is a
Speaker 1: great president, and great presidents get re elected. Is another Biden, sorry,
Speaker 1: another common Donalin refrain. So that's the level of analysis
Speaker 1: we're dealing with here is don't worry. It's fine, we
Speaker 1: don't need to change course. It's all good.
Speaker 2: I really don't even know what to say. I mean
Speaker 2: when you look at some of the things here. For example,
Speaker 2: Donalin has argued January sixth will affect the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election as much as nine to eleven was central
Speaker 2: to two thousand and four. Quote the Democratic Party didn't
Speaker 2: want to believe it was a nine to eleven election.
Speaker 2: I decided after the election I would never be part
Speaker 2: of a campaign that didn't figure out with clarity what
Speaker 2: it wanted to say instead to it, well, you know
Speaker 2: he's working for the Biden campaign. What do you need
Speaker 2: to be smoking to believe that January sixth is relevant
Speaker 2: in any way like nine to eleven was to the
Speaker 2: two thousand and four election. It's also incredibly stupid to
Speaker 2: call it the nine to eleven election. It was not
Speaker 2: about nine to eleven. It was about Iraq, and it
Speaker 2: was about all of the Oran War on Terror nonsense
Speaker 2: that led up to it, which was directly relevant. In
Speaker 2: four when Americans went to the ballot box, American troops
Speaker 2: were dying in Iraq. We had a huge debate what
Speaker 2: the hell are we going to do now? John Carey
Speaker 2: was not particularly great on the issue of Iraq, part
Speaker 2: of the reason I think that he lost. But my
Speaker 2: point is just that in how is that possibly relevant
Speaker 2: in the same way that it is now?
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 2: It's one where you could theoretically say democracy or whatever
Speaker 2: is at the top of the ballot and I don't
Speaker 2: want to watch that. I think it's possible. And more
Speaker 2: because Fox News just had a pull. It came out
Speaker 2: last night making big waves. It actually showed democracy quote
Speaker 2: unquote at the top of voter preference. Now, I would
Speaker 2: be very curious to see what the age of the
Speaker 2: people who are surveyed and asked about that. So yeah,
Speaker 2: for old people. I'm not going to deny that it's
Speaker 2: not important, but to say it is the important election
Speaker 2: where everyone from eighteen to eighty five it's all on
Speaker 2: the same page, which we were, i know, for not
Speaker 2: even close, not even close.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's right. And one of the things that
Speaker 1: people are rightly pointing out in this Axios article is
Speaker 1: just that if the Biden team really took the wrong
Speaker 1: lessons from both twenty twenty and from twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: So in twenty twenty, Biden's able to win the primary
Speaker 1: not because people were like, oh, he's got the right
Speaker 1: message and this is really our guy, but because there
Speaker 1: was a massive internal Democratic Party movement to coalesce around
Speaker 1: Biden as the only person who could possibly stop Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders at that type at that time, orchestrated primarily by
Speaker 1: Barack Obama. I mean, we all remember how that worked.
Speaker 1: If that hadn't happened, Biden was getting his ass kicked.
Speaker 1: And that's pathetic. Given you were the previous vice president
Speaker 1: under Barack Obama, you did have this sort of like
Speaker 1: halo of goodwill around you. He was the logical successor.
Speaker 1: And if it wasn't for them, you know, Jim Clyburn
Speaker 1: coming in and Barack Obama coming in and everybody dropping
Speaker 1: out except for Elizabeth Warren at the right time in
Speaker 1: order to coll esce behind him. He was gonna lose
Speaker 1: to Bernie Sanders, who they all absolutely hated, so they,
Speaker 1: you know, instead of seeing that he saw it and
Speaker 1: his aid saw it as like, oh, we had the
Speaker 1: right message and voters chose us affirmatively, It's like, no,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of forces at work that had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with that. And then in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: the you know, campaign advisors and political big wigs or
Speaker 1: whoever they talked to for this article were saying, listen,
Speaker 1: the candidates we were running in twenty twenty two in
Speaker 1: the midterms, they were all running away from Biden. They
Speaker 1: were all trying to distance themselves from Joe Biden. So
Speaker 1: to take credit for you know, outperforming in the midterm
Speaker 1: is preposterous because part of why we were able to
Speaker 1: be successful is to the extent that strategy of being
Speaker 1: like that guy. We don't even barely know him. We're
Speaker 1: going to be different from Joe Biden. That's not our person.
Speaker 1: That's part of what was successful in Democrats, you know,
Speaker 1: doing well in the midterms. You can see that right
Speaker 1: now with the fact that Senate candidates are outperforming Joe
Speaker 1: Biden in every single contest in every single swing state.
Speaker 1: So they really got lucky with a lot of these things.
Speaker 1: But they think that they engineered all of this, and
Speaker 1: so that has given them this insane level of confidence
Speaker 1: that is absolutely crazy, you know, just speaking to the
Speaker 1: work environment here and again, and how they don't let
Speaker 1: in any dissenting voices from this consensus of like, it's
Speaker 1: all good and we got this, and Joe Biden's a
Speaker 1: great president, so of course he's going to get re elected,
Speaker 1: they say in the article. People close to the president
Speaker 1: told Axios they worry about raising concerns in meetings because
Speaker 1: Biden's group of longtime loyal aids can exile dissenters.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: Even for those close to the center, there is a
Speaker 1: hesitant to raise skepticism or doubt about the current path
Speaker 1: for fear of being viewed as disloyal. A person in
Speaker 1: Biden's orbit told Axios, there is not a discussion that
Speaker 1: a change of course is needed. So not only have
Speaker 1: they decided on this change of course, they have committed
Speaker 1: to this course. They have committed to this course, and
Speaker 1: they are locking the doors and stealing the gates to
Speaker 1: make sure that no other viewpoint gets in whatsoever. It
Speaker 1: really is pretty astonishing. Now it is important to note
Speaker 1: the Fox News poll which showed, as Sager mentioned that
Speaker 1: you know, democracy is a top concern there, even above
Speaker 1: it was above the economy, right, Economy, I think was
Speaker 1: number two after that and something else. It was like stability.
Speaker 3: I have it in front of me.
Speaker 2: So future democracy extremely important to twenty twenty votes.
Speaker 3: Sixty eight percent.
Speaker 2: Economy is sixty six percent, stability, normalcy fifty eight, immigration
Speaker 2: fifty two, healthcare fifty two, then abortion and then guns.
Speaker 2: So if we combine future democracy, stability, and normalcy, look,
Speaker 2: this is I want everyone to be clear here on
Speaker 2: the show, nobody is like Biden is going to lose
Speaker 2: one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: I have nobody here.
Speaker 2: On this show will ever say that. Nobody will even
Speaker 2: allow anyone to say that unchallenged. And it's because of
Speaker 2: this X factor. I will not erase it or look
Speaker 2: past it or undercount it after the twenty twenty two election.
Speaker 2: And I want everybody to have their eyes wide open
Speaker 2: going into this and create a reference accepted. My point
Speaker 2: is just that whenever we look at what is happening
Speaker 2: here with the election.
Speaker 3: If you were.
Speaker 2: Biden, why would you not be doing everything in your
Speaker 2: power to actually get this done? And he is betting
Speaker 2: it all very much in the same way they did
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, very arrogantly thinking he could and he almost lost.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're answer we were like a we were
Speaker 2: Trump endorsing mail in balloting a week before the election
Speaker 2: away from him winning the entire election. We were Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, overriding Mitch McConnell and sending out those two
Speaker 2: thousand dollars stimulus checks.
Speaker 3: From winning the entire election. Like we can't just forget that.
Speaker 2: Things turn like so oh sharply, and he's just acting
Speaker 2: like that isn't.
Speaker 1: Happening, right, Yeah, they act like they won in a
Speaker 1: landslide and it was because of some brilliant strategy. When
Speaker 1: one of the quotes in here is Joe Biden didn't
Speaker 1: win in twenty twenty Donald Trump lost, right, And I
Speaker 1: think that is a much more accurate way to look
Speaker 1: at it. Through some really obvious and devastating errors, I mean,
Speaker 1: the handling of COVID being the overarching theme. But you're
Speaker 1: right just on these couple of little decisions, the decision
Speaker 1: to reject mail in balloting alone probably change the results
Speaker 1: of that election. Last thing to put up on the
Speaker 1: screen here. So on the one hand, you have the
Speaker 1: Fox News pole that actually shows not just that issue
Speaker 1: set that looks good for Joe Biden, him surging into
Speaker 1: a small lead over Donald Trump for the first time
Speaker 1: in a number of months in that poll, significant shift
Speaker 1: in favor of him, just you know, visa VI the
Speaker 1: Fox News poll. Take that for what it's worth. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, but this last a five up on
Speaker 1: the screen here. Trump is currently beating Biden in a
Speaker 1: lot of the polls, and I think the average of
Speaker 1: polls despite the fact Trump's campaign has aired no as
Speaker 1: in May none well, Biden's campaign has been flooding swing
Speaker 1: states with their ads. So as of late May, they
Speaker 1: say Biden campaign was airing thirteen point six million dollars
Speaker 1: worth of ads. Trump campaign had yet to spend a
Speaker 1: penny on TV spots, according to the wesley On Media Project.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't mean there are no pro Trump ads
Speaker 1: airing in the US. Outside group supporter of the candidate
Speaker 1: have bought eight million dollars in ads. But even when
Speaker 1: you factor in such spending, pro Biden ads have been
Speaker 1: out numbering pro Trump ads by slightly more than two
Speaker 1: to one, So even with a you know what, is
Speaker 1: still a significant fundraising advantage, although that gap is rapidly closing,
Speaker 1: even with a massive ad spend advantage. At this point,
Speaker 1: Biden is either you know, tied or behind Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in national polls, and certainly when you look at swing
Speaker 1: state pulling, the position for Biden tends to look even worse.
Speaker 1: So not a great place to be in as we
Speaker 1: head into like the summer and you know, then into
Speaker 1: the really prime time. I'm part of this campaign.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, and look, how is it going to work out?
Speaker 2: I don't want anyone to just say that, you know,
Speaker 2: either is in a total favor. The five thirty eight
Speaker 2: average right now is Trump wins fifty times out of
Speaker 2: one hundred and Biden wins forty nine of one hundred,
Speaker 2: where genuine, yeah, let's see, oh less than one in
Speaker 2: one hundred chants of no electoral college winner. Actually was
Speaker 2: looking at that, it would mean that it would be
Speaker 2: two sixty nine, two sixty nine. So what it would
Speaker 2: be is Trump would win Georgia or he would lose.
Speaker 2: He would win Wisconsin. He would win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Speaker 2: He would lose Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, or no, he
Speaker 2: would win Nevada, but Biden would somehow win that likes
Speaker 2: one the one, or maybe Trump would have won it,
Speaker 2: but anyway, that would put.
Speaker 3: It sixty nine to two sixty nine.
Speaker 2: So I mean, that'd be kind of fun because they
Speaker 2: would be thrown to the House of Representatives. What was
Speaker 2: it called contingent election? Is that what we decided? Contingent election,
Speaker 2: which we haven't seen in a very very I'm.
Speaker 1: Sure the history buff and youo go wild without I
Speaker 1: would need to.
Speaker 3: Read a lot of books.
Speaker 2: I think is eighteen seventy six The Corrupt Bargain or
Speaker 2: whatever it was called with Rutherford Behayes. Anyway, it's been
Speaker 2: a long time since we've seen anything like that. But
Speaker 2: as of things right now, it is a genuine toss up.
Speaker 2: If I was Biden, there's no reason that I wouldn't
Speaker 2: be working to try and make it sixty out of
Speaker 2: one hundred sixty. I mean, remember, Hillary had a two
Speaker 2: thirds chance according to the polls, of winning in twenty
Speaker 2: sixty and she lost. A coin toss is not where
Speaker 2: I want to be if I'm running for president, but
Speaker 2: when you're this old, that's probably the best thing you
Speaker 2: can do.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the thing with Biden that I'm
Speaker 1: increasingly realizing as we look at his domestic policy, as
Speaker 1: we look at his foreign policy, I think this will
Speaker 1: be relevant when we talk about Russia and North Korea
Speaker 1: and the mistakes and the missteps that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: has made that have led us to this place. He
Speaker 1: is locked in a paradigm of the world that is
Speaker 1: like twenty forty years outdated, and because of his age
Speaker 1: that there's just no shifting it. And it's also the
Speaker 1: case with you know, how he runs this operation, like
Speaker 1: this is how he's been These are the people he's
Speaker 1: comfortable with, this is the circle, this is who we trust,
Speaker 1: this is how you know, this is who he's going
Speaker 1: to go to for guidance, and there's just no changing that.
Speaker 1: At this point. It's ossified. It's locked in. And so
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's reflected when you see and
Speaker 1: by the way, a lot of these people that he
Speaker 1: really trusts are also pretty old.
Speaker 2: So isn't Tom Donald and like Mike Donloge or sorry,
Speaker 2: Mike Donald, isn't he like eighty plus or something like that.
Speaker 1: He's quite let me look, let me but he's not
Speaker 1: he's not young.
Speaker 3: All right, what do we got he's six sixty five?
Speaker 3: Is he spring chicken?
Speaker 1: Things like he's going to be just qualified.
Speaker 3: For Social Security? I apologize, Mike. It's not like you
Speaker 3: don't have forty year old children or whatever.
Speaker 1: You yeah, okay, in any case. Yeah, So I think
Speaker 1: that is part of why there is such a stubborn
Speaker 1: reluctance to hear anything outside of everything's got we got this.
Speaker 1: The polls are wrong. Don't worry about it, sir. You're
Speaker 1: you've been a great president. And I promise you, sir,
Speaker 1: you've got no problem. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I really am just praying. I want a shake up
Speaker 3: so badly. And this is the problem problem with Trump.
Speaker 3: You know Trump.
Speaker 2: I saw him sit for a Time magazine interview, and
Speaker 2: even some of his supporters are like, why.
Speaker 3: Is he doing this.
Speaker 2: I'm like, guys, because he's literally a child of the
Speaker 2: seventies and the eighties.
Speaker 3: Yeah he right.
Speaker 2: Time They're like, oh, Time magazine. People like me are like,
Speaker 2: what the Time magazine? You mean the one that had
Speaker 2: the shitty Time for kids in the two thousands and
Speaker 2: then when bankrupt or whatever. It's like, but in their head,
Speaker 2: they're like, oh, Henry Loose, you know, like magazine, Time, magazine.
Speaker 2: That's the generation that they come from. So that's what
Speaker 2: they revere. If you were you know, if somebody come
Speaker 2: for me, and let's say I was running for president
Speaker 2: like ten years now or whatever, They're like, Oh, the
Speaker 2: Nilk boys want to have you on. I'm like, okay,
Speaker 2: all right, that actually means something to me, you know,
Speaker 2: like that actually is like a huge platform or something
Speaker 2: like that. But these guys, they're just they're totally locked in.
Speaker 2: I guess Trump, to his credit, he will sit with Logan,
Speaker 2: Paul or whatever. But you know the rest of them,
Speaker 2: he doesn't understand though, the same power. He does it
Speaker 2: because his advisors toe him too. He doesn't have the
Speaker 2: actual reference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he still has the love for the New York Times. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they cannot get away from it. I mean, think about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the columnists that he loves. Trust Car, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Guys have been on TV or writing in politics and
Speaker 2: have been wrong since I was a small child. When
Speaker 2: I was coming up, I used to read them and
Speaker 2: be like, these guys are idiots. And I'm thinking this
Speaker 2: when I'm what fifteen years old, and now it's been
Speaker 2: twenty years almost, and they're still doing the same job,
Speaker 2: and they're still wrong in the same positions, and Biden
Speaker 2: is like, oh, like praying and inviting them, Yeah to whites, man,
Speaker 2: what do you think for Reid?
Speaker 3: Tell me what to do well?
Speaker 1: I mean, in fairness, he is crushing it with the
Speaker 1: like Mike donalden age plus demographics, so you know, in
Speaker 1: terms of his campaign model that was honed in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five, he's crushing it.
Speaker 3: Kills me.
Speaker 1: It is looking increasingly likely that we could be facing
Speaker 1: an all out wore huge escalation between Israel and HESBLA. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: Emily and I told you about some of the provocations
Speaker 1: from Israel talking about all out war, talking about how
Speaker 1: they've already developed a quote unquote operational plan. Now we
Speaker 1: have some new updates from the HESWLA side. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. So this is from a
Speaker 1: Reuter's reporter who says these alerts are heading Reuter's wire
Speaker 1: right now. Lebanon's HESBELA chief said, Hassan Estralla says nowhere
Speaker 1: in Israel will be safe from groups attacks in case
Speaker 1: of war, including targets in the Mediterranean. Hezbel Ahead also
Speaker 1: says if war is imposed on Lebanon, the group will
Speaker 1: fight with no rules, no ceilings, and saying that Cyprus
Speaker 1: allowing Israel use of its airports means that it has
Speaker 1: become a part of the war and that Hesbela will
Speaker 1: deal with it as such that you know, potentially having
Speaker 1: the possibility of drawing a part of the EU into
Speaker 1: this war as well. And I mean we've been seeing
Speaker 1: this potentially coming for a while because basically there aren't
Speaker 1: a lot of parts of the Gaza strip left to destroy.
Speaker 1: You know, they started in the north, they moved down
Speaker 1: to the center, now they're in the south in Rafa.
Speaker 1: That annihilation will be complete imminently. And bb Nan Yahoo
Speaker 1: still has the same logic of how do I keep
Speaker 1: this war going as long as I possibly can. He
Speaker 1: also has a secondary logic of how can I also
Speaker 1: get the US directly involved on our side in this
Speaker 1: possible war against Hesbela. And already there's been you know,
Speaker 1: back and forth sort of tit for tat attacks. You
Speaker 1: also had yesterday that we brought you to Hesbela released
Speaker 1: drone fo footage that they were able to obtain of
Speaker 1: sensitive targets in Haifa in particular, sort of an acknowledgment
Speaker 1: of Hey, you think your iron dome is so incredible, Well,
Speaker 1: guess what we were able to get our drones past it.
Speaker 1: And if we can do that, guess what else we
Speaker 1: can do. The US had a somebody described as a
Speaker 1: senior advisor. But I've never heard of this do before,
Speaker 1: as Amos Hawkstein, have you know this person? A little
Speaker 1: bit envoy quote unquote Anyway, they had him in the
Speaker 1: region to supposedly try to ratchet down the tensions and
Speaker 1: talk them out of this all out war. That doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to have made a lick of difference. You will
Speaker 1: be unsurprised to learn since bb has learned very well
Speaker 1: at this point Biden isn't actually going to do anything
Speaker 1: besides tough conversations and little you know, mean leaks to
Speaker 1: the press, et cetera. More on that in a moment.
Speaker 1: But Sager, what do you make of these recent developments.
Speaker 2: It's terrifying because for these rallies they have, they are
Speaker 2: either delusional or their confidence is far higher than it
Speaker 2: should be considering.
Speaker 1: Their things are related, considering.
Speaker 3: Their performance in Gaza.
Speaker 2: A bunch of guys who basically just bomb first, ask
Speaker 2: questions later, have shown me no real like you know,
Speaker 2: actual like tactical proficiency. Not according to me, you can
Speaker 2: go and speak to people who are actually experts about
Speaker 2: this stuff. What in the world makes you think that
Speaker 2: you can take on Hezbolah, which is a genuine paramilitary
Speaker 2: force which has been training and actually engage in active combat,
Speaker 2: probably in some cases since before many of these IDF
Speaker 2: reservists are even born. They've fought through the entire Civil War.
Speaker 2: They are strapped better today than they ever have been
Speaker 2: in all of their history. Iran has every incentive to
Speaker 2: make sure that they have the most up to date weaponry.
Speaker 2: If you consider their rockets, you know, like these Hamas
Speaker 2: rockets versus the actual stuff that they have, it's you know,
Speaker 2: apples and orange is totally different. Their ability. I mean, already,
Speaker 2: even if you just look at death toll, there have
Speaker 2: been proportionately way more Israeli soldiers who were killed already
Speaker 2: from Hezbola fire than compared to anything proportionally with respect
Speaker 2: to how vulnerable they are with Hamas. It's also pretty
Speaker 2: clear here look Hesbola, they don't want to be involved
Speaker 2: in this, they said from the original October. After October seventh,
Speaker 2: they're like, look where they're posturing.
Speaker 3: But Nasralla was like, we're not getting involved in this. Now.
Speaker 3: The tit for tad.
Speaker 2: We bomb one here, they fire here, and anti tank
Speaker 2: missiles kill three d idea of soldiers, they kill twenty
Speaker 2: has Bulla guys in an air strike. And there's more
Speaker 2: fire that's happening. And now this war cabinet, you know,
Speaker 2: green lights things are very very dangerous because what does
Speaker 2: it mean, I mean, is the whole country of Lebanon.
Speaker 2: It would almost certainly also draw Iran much further into
Speaker 2: the into the war through this, I mean, they have
Speaker 2: it's complicated, but they at least have an understanding of
Speaker 2: a lot of mutual support. Then you know, us targets
Speaker 2: like you said, Cyprus, which thank god is not in
Speaker 2: NATO at least for now while these idiots are in charge,
Speaker 2: but it is in the European Union, so that would obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, be very significant. And I also shouldn't forget this,
Speaker 2: you know, this whole HOUTHI stuff. I mean, look at
Speaker 2: what the houthis are probably less sophisticated than Hezbola.
Speaker 3: They have shut down the Red Sea. Yea, So are
Speaker 3: we just all gonna forget about that?
Speaker 1: They just think another shit?
Speaker 2: Yes, And ninety one percent or whatever Red Sea traffic
Speaker 2: is down from October seventh.
Speaker 1: They've been rerouted.
Speaker 3: This has been a total failure.
Speaker 2: The US mission to clear the Red Sea has not
Speaker 2: worked because I think I even said this at the time,
Speaker 2: if you actually want to do this, you need to
Speaker 2: militarily occupy Yemen and actually secure the ground.
Speaker 3: That's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Let's not do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's not. By the way, I don't think we should.
Speaker 3: I think that's a better We have a better option.
Speaker 1: Well, the better option is to end Israel's assault on Gaza,
Speaker 1: because that is the root of all of these conflicts,
Speaker 1: and it's the reason who these are doing what they're doing.
Speaker 1: It's the reason that has well is doing what they're doing.
Speaker 1: The reason Iran did what they did is because of
Speaker 1: Israel's direct provocation attacking their embassy in Damascus. But all
Speaker 1: of these tensions and conflicts stem from one issue and
Speaker 1: really from one imperative, which has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: Israeli security at this point, and everything to do with
Speaker 1: BB Netan Yahoo and his political motives and incentives. I
Speaker 1: should add to that also the incredible manifest weakness and
Speaker 1: capacity for incredible capacity for humiliation on Joe Biden's part, specifically,
Speaker 1: I mean the hoosy thing you have. Recall we played
Speaker 1: his comments when they asked him, Hey, is this working?
Speaker 1: It's like no, but is it going to continue? Yes?
Speaker 1: It's like what are we doing? This is complete and
Speaker 1: utter insanity. So do you have confidence that these weak
Speaker 1: need idiots are going to be able to keep us
Speaker 1: out of a more direct engagement in this mess that
Speaker 1: has been created in the region. I certainly don't have
Speaker 1: that confidence. The other piece you know, that contributes in
Speaker 1: his important context with all of this is your recall.
Speaker 1: We covered BB put out that video where, in spite
Speaker 1: of the bear hug, in spite of Biden giving him
Speaker 1: everything he wants whenever he wants it, he stabs Biden
Speaker 1: in the back, puts out this video attacking him, claiming
Speaker 1: he's not getting the weapons and the AMMO that he
Speaker 1: wants when he wants it, and the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: reportedly they're baffled there. They're shocked by this, which is like,
Speaker 1: why are you shocked. BB want's Trump in office. He's
Speaker 1: happy to knife you like he's only operating for his
Speaker 1: own interest. You've demonstrated no capacity to check him whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So I don't know why you're surprised at this point.
Speaker 1: But even beyond that, now, instead of being like, well,
Speaker 1: screw you, then maybe we are gonna if you're gonna
Speaker 1: blame us for blocking shipments, like maybe we should go
Speaker 1: ahead and do that. Instead we're oh, no, no, We're sorry.
Speaker 1: We'll get you everything you want whenever you want to
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. US Ambassador to Israel
Speaker 1: jacklu told Prime Minister nat Yahoo yesterday the m O
Speaker 1: and weapons the PM referred to, they're in the process
Speaker 1: of being delivered to Israel. Don't worry, guys, we promise.
Speaker 1: The other thing that is, I mean, I guess you
Speaker 1: either laugh or you cry. Is There were these typical reports, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's tough conversations and oh the Biden ministry just so
Speaker 1: mad about this video. They canceled a meeting that was
Speaker 1: going to happen, and I was like, oh, you canceled
Speaker 1: a meeting. Well now they're even denying that that ou No,
Speaker 1: we would never cancel a meeting we would never do
Speaker 1: that to the Israelis. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: It's so embarrassing, just from the Times of Israel. US
Speaker 1: denies report it canceled talks in DC overnt Yaho's complaint
Speaker 1: of weapons. Hold up. Here's the White House official quote.
Speaker 1: They say, as we said in the briefing yesterday, we
Speaker 1: have no idea what the Prime Minister is talking about,
Speaker 1: but that's not a reason for rescheduling a meeting. We
Speaker 1: would never do something so brazen and so audacious as
Speaker 1: reschedule a meeting. It's just so pathetic. You literally can't
Speaker 1: even make it up. At those points.
Speaker 2: Ager it's crazy. They're like, wait, we would never do that, outrageous.
Speaker 2: It's like, wait, why not?
Speaker 1: And the other response was always such a pathetic response, Oh,
Speaker 1: you canceled a meeting. Ooh if you did, Oh you're
Speaker 1: gonna leave him on red on his test messages next time?
Speaker 3: Yeah, do it? You actually should. It wouldn't be a
Speaker 3: bad idea, just to show him whose boss. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's part of the other thing too.
Speaker 2: When you look at Bebie's video, on the one hand,
Speaker 2: you could be like, wow, you know he's calling out America.
Speaker 2: He has all the strength because the immediately he is like, no,
Speaker 2: we would never do that. On the other he's like, hey,
Speaker 2: you need to give us the weapons to finish the job.
Speaker 3: What does that mean? They don't have the weapons to
Speaker 3: finish the job.
Speaker 2: So you're like, wait, what what are we admitting here
Speaker 2: in terms of what the power relationship is?
Speaker 3: Who's paying for it?
Speaker 2: Because if you can't finish the job without American weapons, well,
Speaker 2: you're kind of validating a lot of the critics here
Speaker 2: in Washington, which is that this is bankrolled and almost
Speaker 2: one hundred percent enabled by the United States. So you
Speaker 2: you know, for all of those you who are out there,
Speaker 2: that's a very critical thing in your rhetorical quiver. You're like,
Speaker 2: he said it, he admitted it on tape. We need
Speaker 2: the weapons. There's no other way to do it.
Speaker 1: That is a great point, because I'm sure you guys
Speaker 1: have heard this argument. It's been made throughout like Israel's
Speaker 1: a sovereign What could Joe Biden even really do They're
Speaker 1: going to do what they want to do.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: Really turns out maybe we do have a little bit
Speaker 1: of power if we would want to use them, but
Speaker 1: of course we don't. Instead, we're apologized, Oh, I'm sorry, fine,
Speaker 1: maybe upset you bbe. There was one shipment of five
Speaker 1: hundred two thousand pound poems that was delayed. Okay, not
Speaker 1: even We're not going to send it delayed. And this
Speaker 1: is the meltdown that you get. It's just it's insane.
Speaker 1: But BB, every time that he seems to stand up
Speaker 1: to the US domestically, he benefits from that. So that's
Speaker 1: what he's doing here. Also, don't forget he's got his
Speaker 1: visit and his speech to Congress invited on a bipartisan
Speaker 1: basis that is upcoming. It's like, Democrats, this is the
Speaker 1: guy you invited to come and have this high honor
Speaker 1: of speaking to Congress, like congratulations. Because I don't know
Speaker 1: who you thought, BB Natanya who was Maybe you should
Speaker 1: go ask him as raelis who this man is and
Speaker 1: what he is capable of, because you seem to be
Speaker 1: completely in the dark about that. At the same time,
Speaker 1: this is extraordinary as well. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So the IDF spokesman, I know you've seen this guy,
Speaker 1: Daniel Hagari. He has REBUKEDNTNA who he is, admitting that
Speaker 1: defeating Hamas is impossible. Let me read you a good
Speaker 1: bit of this, he said in an interview with Channel
Speaker 1: thirteen News on Wednesday in Israel. That quote, the idea
Speaker 1: of destroying Hamas is simply throwing sand in the eyes
Speaker 1: of the public. In other words, if we're anyone who's
Speaker 1: saying that you can destroy Hamas, you're lying to the public.
Speaker 1: It's not possible. He goes on to say, Hamas is
Speaker 1: an idea, Hamas is a political party. It is rooted
Speaker 1: in the hearts of people. Whoever thinks we can eliminate
Speaker 1: Hamas is mistaken. Hamas is the Muslim brotherhood. It's been
Speaker 1: around for many, many years. What can be done is
Speaker 1: to develop something else to replace it, something that will
Speaker 1: make the population realize that someone else is distributing the food,
Speaker 1: someone else is taking public service, taking care of public services,
Speaker 1: to really weaken Hamas. This is the way. Now, none
Speaker 1: of what he's saying here requires a genius to see.
Speaker 1: This is very similar to things we've been saying since
Speaker 1: October seventh, right about the way you should actually approach this,
Speaker 1: and the idea that you're going to completely eliminate and
Speaker 1: destroy Hamas, and how that is complete impossible. That supposed
Speaker 1: goal has simply been used as a pretext and as
Speaker 1: cover for the campaign of utter devastation and destruction that
Speaker 1: has been wrought in the Gaza strip. And I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to give Daniel Hagari here any flowers for coming
Speaker 1: up with this notion at this point, but to see
Speaker 1: the idea of spokesperson you know, coming out and this
Speaker 1: directly rebuking BBNT Yahoo is quite significant in terms of
Speaker 1: Israeli domestic context. This also echoes things that you know,
Speaker 1: Benny Gants and others has said gans as he left
Speaker 1: the War Cabinet government, Let's go and put the next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen. This is Bobe's response. He
Speaker 1: said on Wednesday that the Security Cabinet defined one of
Speaker 1: the worst goals as a destruction of Hamas's military and
Speaker 1: governing capabilities, and that the Israeli Army is of course
Speaker 1: obligated to this. Danieligari then came out and said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course we're going to do, you know, whatever you
Speaker 1: want us to do. But what do you make of this,
Speaker 1: You know, this acknowledgment in the Israeli press that BB's
Speaker 1: full of it. There's no defeating Hamas, no complete elimination
Speaker 1: of Hamas. That is not on the table, and by
Speaker 1: the way, implicitly in these comments too. You know, the
Speaker 1: way that we've approached this with just utter destruction and
Speaker 1: not supporting any sort of you know, aid delivery, certainly
Speaker 1: not bolstering any other group that could fill in in
Speaker 1: the governing capacity that Hamas has been fulfilling has been
Speaker 1: a dire mistake and a disaster.
Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't really matter what I make of it.
Speaker 2: The Israeli as usual, like this stuff doesn't even cross,
Speaker 2: like the blood brain barrier.
Speaker 3: It's like it's just left.
Speaker 2: It's left over there on Israeli soil, even though they
Speaker 2: write it in English, and then it's not even allowed
Speaker 2: to be discussed here. And that's part of what it
Speaker 2: drives me most insane about everything, is that when you
Speaker 2: read the Israeli Pressed in general, you almost get a
Speaker 2: more honest view of what is happening. You can even
Speaker 2: cite their own sources, but it won't matter because what
Speaker 2: Pastor Hagey said something different.
Speaker 3: That's I mean, that's the world we're living in, folks.
Speaker 1: It really is.
Speaker 2: Uh freaking you know, like those are the folks that
Speaker 2: really a pack. John Greenblatt over at the ADL, those
Speaker 2: are the folks who actually control all of our discourse
Speaker 2: around this foreign country. So as long as that's the case,
Speaker 2: it doesn't even matter what I make of it is
Speaker 2: obviously it's real. I mean, it doesn't take a genius
Speaker 2: to figure it out. But it's almost doesn't matter. It
Speaker 2: almost doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 1: No, it is true, and it is such a great
Speaker 1: point that like, you know, if you or I say
Speaker 1: the whole how could you ar like most talking points
Speaker 1: blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: But like this is signing me is really pressed, okay, and.
Speaker 1: Not just is really good the spokesman of the IDF
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. And in additional comments, he talked about how
Speaker 1: in that same interview, there is no military solution to
Speaker 1: getting the hostages back. The only way to get the
Speaker 1: hostages back is through negotiations, again, something that is completely
Speaker 1: clear and apparent from anyone who is watching this conflict
Speaker 1: and being remotely honest with themselves. But another thing that
Speaker 1: you know, people here pretend in the media, pretend not
Speaker 1: to understand and not to acknowledge, and they just you know,
Speaker 1: use the hostages as emotional manipulation to pretend that the
Speaker 1: war has to go on forever, when the hostage families
Speaker 1: themselves are saying, no, we want a deal to end
Speaker 1: the war and get our family and our loved ones back.
Speaker 1: We don't want them to be continually subjected by the
Speaker 1: way to IDF bombing, which one of the rescued hostages
Speaker 1: said was the thing that he was most afraid of
Speaker 1: when he was being held in captivity. So it's extraordinary
Speaker 1: to see the IDF spokesman admit things that you were
Speaker 1: really not allowed to admit in the context of the
Speaker 1: western media here in the US.
Speaker 3: Very true.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we wanted to bring you quite
Speaker 1: a remarkable interview with the mother of a woman her
Speaker 1: daughter died on that twenty nineteen Boeing seven thirty seven
Speaker 1: Max crash. This is in the context of the Boeing
Speaker 1: CEO John Calhoun was just called to the carpet in
Speaker 1: Congress testifying they're obviously Boeing in a heap of trouble
Speaker 1: of their own making for faulty designs and shoddy product
Speaker 1: and cutting corners at every turn with deadly and disastrous results.
Speaker 1: Did not go well for Calhoun in that hearing both
Speaker 1: parties really coming at him. Let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: CNN's set up here where you get a little taste
Speaker 1: of that testimony.
Speaker 6: David Calhoun. He struggled to answer questions during a Senate hearing,
Speaker 6: and he started off by apologizing to families of victims
Speaker 6: who were seated behind him in the room. They were
Speaker 6: holding up signs and pictures of their loved ones in
Speaker 6: those crashes.
Speaker 7: I would like to apologize on behalf of all of
Speaker 7: our boweing associates spread throughout the world, past and present,
Speaker 7: for your losses, Sir dot Richie and I apologize for
Speaker 7: the grief that we have caused, and I want you
Speaker 7: to know we are totally committed in their memory, the
Speaker 7: work and focus on safety for as long as long
Speaker 7: because we're employed by Boone. Oh again, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: So I said, John is David Calhoun? Anyway you can
Speaker 1: see they're his apology, I'm sure very heartfelt apology to
Speaker 1: the family members of victims of his company's faulty, disastrous products.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they took that very well. And
Speaker 1: in fact, as I said before, this mom who lost
Speaker 1: her daughter on one of these plane crashes, Nadia Millern,
Speaker 1: she went on CNN and she gave it to him
Speaker 1: in no uncertain terms, incredibly detailed way even throw us
Speaker 1: in there. You know, hey, you're going to apologize for
Speaker 1: all the bombs you built that were dropped on innocent
Speaker 1: kids in Gaza. Let's take a listen to how that went.
Speaker 6: Nadia. I want to first say, I'm so sorry for
Speaker 6: the loss of your daughter, and I know that that
Speaker 6: loss is still fresh in your mind. You were there,
Speaker 6: You heard firsthand what Calhoun had to say. What did
Speaker 6: you think of that apology?
Speaker 5: It wasn't a real apology. So what he was doing
Speaker 5: is he doesn't want us to know the details of it,
Speaker 5: how it happened. So every time your loved one dies,
Speaker 5: especially in a crime, you deserve to know and you
Speaker 5: need to know how did it happen. So it happened
Speaker 5: through production defects, not just through faulty design. So the
Speaker 5: AOA sensor on the outside of the plane had a
Speaker 5: faulty electrical component which caused the AOA sensor not to
Speaker 5: feed the right information into mcast, which caused the plane
Speaker 5: to dive into the ground. So he doesn't want people
Speaker 5: to know that. He doesn't want people to know that
Speaker 5: they cut corners on production, They cut out inspectors and
Speaker 5: as a result, there are all these problems in these planes.
Speaker 5: So the planes that were produced then, the planes that
Speaker 5: are being produced now, they all have production defects, and
Speaker 5: these are showing up in real problems that pilots are facing.
Speaker 6: Do you think that he and others at Boeing should
Speaker 6: be criminally prosecuted?
Speaker 5: Absolutely? He lies constantly. He was lying in the hearing today.
Speaker 5: So he said that he didn't know what happened to
Speaker 5: the supervisors who were harassing whistleblowers. So, for example, John
Speaker 5: Barnett's family was all there. John Barnett supposedly committed suicide,
Speaker 5: but I definitely have a question about that. He supposedly
Speaker 5: committed suicide after seven years of harassment by Boeing in
Speaker 5: the supervisors around his whistle blowing. It was a constant,
Speaker 5: horrible situation for that person trying to call attention to
Speaker 5: production problems and defects, and that those supervisors are all fine.
Speaker 5: They all stayed in Boeing, some of them were promoted.
Speaker 5: He looked at me in the eye and he said
Speaker 5: I am sorry, And I said you are sorry? Are
Speaker 5: you sorry for the bombs Boeing produce that kill innocent
Speaker 5: kids in Ratha? Are you sorry for that too, Like,
Speaker 5: how can he sleep? This person is a psychopath. We
Speaker 5: cannot have people running these companies that do not care
Speaker 5: about human life. We have to have responsible people running
Speaker 5: these companies.
Speaker 1: God bless that woman. Man, she let loose. I'm sure
Speaker 1: CNN after that they were like, okay, anyway, yeah we
Speaker 1: got Brian when you were talking about your daughter and
Speaker 1: I were talking about gods that we got to move on.
Speaker 1: But you know, to hear that on CNN, I think
Speaker 1: is it is a remarkable I mean, to hear her
Speaker 1: call him a psychopath.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to say.
Speaker 1: Out you're a liar, and yeah, you should be criminally prosecuted.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this isn't just about my daughter.
Speaker 1: It's about your immorality for building the bombs that get
Speaker 1: dropped on innocent kids in RAFA. She's one hundred percent
Speaker 1: correct in everything she said as well, because I thought
Speaker 1: the example she gave of, you know, the man who
Speaker 1: killed himself allegedly killed himself. What she says she has
Speaker 1: some questions about. I think we all have some questions about.
Speaker 1: But she says, hey, these supervisors who, if you believe
Speaker 1: he killed himself, bullied him basically into killing himself, like
Speaker 1: harassed him over years and years and years. You're pretending
Speaker 1: in your testament, Oh you don't know what happened to
Speaker 1: these I'm sure that some of them have been punished. No,
Speaker 1: they're fine. They're still alive and well and doing perfectly
Speaker 1: fine at your company. And meanwhile he's dead. So tell
Speaker 1: me what's going on there.
Speaker 3: Also, tell me.
Speaker 2: About your culture that happening right now. I'll have them
Speaker 2: add this in post. But the Boeing, actually, i'm not
Speaker 2: sure if you're aware, transported its very first astronauts to space.
Speaker 2: The problem is now they have to get them back.
Speaker 2: And oh, there's actually problems with the spacecraft that are
Speaker 2: right now. So I mean I'm reading directly and I've
Speaker 2: been following this now. There have been major quote helium
Speaker 2: leaks and thruster problems which have caused issues on the
Speaker 2: Boeing Starliner vehicle, which was supposed to compete with SpaceX.
Speaker 2: It was a major moment for the company. Starliner just launched.
Speaker 2: They carry two astronauts. Officials though from Boeing now say
Speaker 2: that the astronauts are supposed to return on June twenty sixth,
Speaker 2: but that there are now a major postponement that has
Speaker 2: had to happen. The astronauts will spend about twenty days
Speaker 2: now in space, more than double the eight days that
Speaker 2: they had originally planned.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Starliner is pinned down by a series of helium leaks
Speaker 2: in the propulsion systems and now problems with several thrusters
Speaker 2: that are used to maneuver the vehicle. NASA apparently had
Speaker 2: been studying those issues before they permitted Starliner to attempt
Speaker 2: to leave the International Space Station with those two astronauts
Speaker 2: and return them to Earth. But obviously this is terrifying
Speaker 2: because this is the Boeing flagship space vehicle. It was
Speaker 2: supposed to be the SpaceX competitor to carry them. It's
Speaker 2: a major US military industrial supplier, you know, obviously they
Speaker 2: get preferential contracts.
Speaker 3: And all of this.
Speaker 2: And we're looking here at an aircraft that's cost hundreds
Speaker 2: of billions of dollars, all this taxpayer money, et cetera,
Speaker 2: and now two of our astronauts are literally stranded in space.
Speaker 3: Wow return And that's this is totally about. I know,
Speaker 3: the media is totally escaped on this one.
Speaker 1: Incredible.
Speaker 2: I don't know why they're I don't know why they're
Speaker 2: ignoring it. I've been following you now for a couple
Speaker 2: of days. In the space community, people are going wild
Speaker 2: over this, like this is this is a really bad
Speaker 2: issue because this was already they were under contract to
Speaker 2: do six more flights right now to the International Space
Speaker 2: Station after this vehicle gets certified. But this is the
Speaker 2: very first flight of it actually carrying astronauts, and it's
Speaker 2: already into a problem.
Speaker 1: When you have a culture rife, enabled and encouraged around
Speaker 1: your company of profits for safety, lass cutting corners, you know,
Speaker 1: time is everything. Don't slow down if you need to,
Speaker 1: you know, get a new part. May because that one's faulty.
Speaker 1: You just put the faulty part in. That's what the
Speaker 1: type of thing that many whistleblowers at this point have
Speaker 1: testified to you can't even if they wanted to do
Speaker 1: this one right. Your culture is set. That is the
Speaker 1: environment that you've created. And so listen, personally, I'm afraid
Speaker 1: to get on a Boeing airplane. I can't imagine trusting
Speaker 1: my life on a freaking Boeing space shuttle. Are you
Speaker 1: kidding me? And then you know I'm about to talk
Speaker 1: about this, you know, peer debacle and how we can't.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a mess on every level. It's
Speaker 1: only been operable for literally ten days since it went
Speaker 1: into effect. Boeing is a critical part of our defense
Speaker 1: industrial base, and like you know, we're trusting a lot
Speaker 1: to these people, and we are giving them an unbelievable
Speaker 1: amount of taxpayer dollars. So it's just a disaster on
Speaker 1: every single level. It speaks to the culture and the
Speaker 1: enabling of an economy that's based around financialization, where all
Speaker 1: of the motives are around that dude, David Calhoun to
Speaker 1: get hit to juice his stocks, because that's what his
Speaker 1: compensation is, some forty million plus dollars a year, by
Speaker 1: the way, which has gone up over the past couple
Speaker 1: of years, which is also mind blowing. And he wouldn't
Speaker 1: answer a straight question when Josh Holly was asking about this, right,
Speaker 1: and the testimony wouldn't say how much he actually earns.
Speaker 1: But all the incentives around juicing that man's compensation, safety,
Speaker 1: public interest, anything else be damned, even the long term
Speaker 1: interest of the company be damned. Because he's not going
Speaker 1: to be there. He's actually leaving, and I'm sure he's
Speaker 1: got a nice tidy package as he heads out the door,
Speaker 1: basically being scapegoat of for what he deserves it. Don't
Speaker 1: get me wrong, but the problem is a lot bigger
Speaker 1: than just the CEO. It's an entire company wide, board
Speaker 1: wide issue at Boeing that they haven't even come close
Speaker 1: to scratching surface of dealing with.
Speaker 3: Exactly right, Crystal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: Humanitarian theater? That is how former USAID official Jeremy Kanandyke
Speaker 1: described the now infamous temporary Peer, constructed by the Biden
Speaker 1: administration with the supposed goal of increasing aid to starving Gosins,
Speaker 1: a that consistently sat at land border crossings blocked by
Speaker 1: our great friends and allies, the Israelis. But even as
Speaker 1: potentkin village style theater, the Peer has been such a
Speaker 1: catastrophe that it has even failed in the limited goal
Speaker 1: of providing the Biden administration with some sort of cover
Speaker 1: with Liberals to convince them that they actually care even
Speaker 1: the tiniest bit about Palestinian lives. The Peer has fallen
Speaker 1: apart multiple times, has led to injuries of service members
Speaker 1: charged with building and maintaining it. Its proximity to hostilities
Speaker 1: has put AID workers at further risk, and it has
Speaker 1: actually led to a decrease in the aid that is
Speaker 1: being delivered to starving Palestinians instead of theater. It has
Speaker 1: ended up a perfect symbol of the Biden administration's unique
Speaker 1: combination of incompetence, appetite for humiliation, and extraordinary evil. So
Speaker 1: here's the very latest part of the New York Times.
Speaker 1: US Peer for Gaza Aid is failing and could be
Speaker 1: dismantled early now. In this article they note that since
Speaker 1: its construction, the Peer has been operable a grand total
Speaker 1: of ten days. Ten days the rest of the time,
Speaker 1: they write, it was being repaired after rough seas, broken
Speaker 1: of heart, detached to avoid further damage, or pause because
Speaker 1: of security concerns. In fact, the Peer had to be
Speaker 1: dismantled once again this week over fears of quote rough waters.
Speaker 1: Didn't they know this thing was going to be in
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean Sea. Not that the Peer has mattered much
Speaker 1: in the limited days that it has actually been in operation.
Speaker 1: The administration had announced a goal of reaching one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty trucks of aid dispatched from the Peer on
Speaker 1: a daily basis. On hundred and fifty trucks, that.
Speaker 3: Was the goal.
Speaker 1: Now this amount by the way would still be insufficient
Speaker 1: given the level of need across the Gaza strip, but
Speaker 1: they have not even come close to this sum. You
Speaker 1: ready for this. Apparently seven trucks of aid have been
Speaker 1: able to move from the Peer on average in the
Speaker 1: few days when it has actually been functioning. Steven Semilar
Speaker 1: over at Responsible Statecraft has more specific details on this
Speaker 1: pathetic trickle of assistance. Quote. Hardly any food from the
Speaker 1: Peer on the Gaza coast has actually reached starving gozzins
Speaker 1: since it became operational on May seventeen. The World Food
Speaker 1: Program said only fifteen trucks from the Peer reached its
Speaker 1: warehouse inside Gaza for distribution from May seventeen and eighteen,
Speaker 1: and that no aid at all came from the Peer
Speaker 1: from May nineteen through twenty one. The piece goes on
Speaker 1: to explain that the administration will paint a different picture,
Speaker 1: but they're lying. They like to talk about the tons
Speaker 1: of aid reaching the beach in Gaza, but they don't
Speaker 1: mention the fact that the overwhelming bulk of that aid
Speaker 1: stays on the beach rotting with no distribution mechanism in place.
Speaker 1: In fact, since the vaunted Peer was constructed, a distribution
Speaker 1: has dramatically plummeted to the lowest levels by far all year.
Speaker 1: You can see in this image here a near eighteen
Speaker 1: hundred pallets of food were delivered via Peer. Meanwhile, Israel's
Speaker 1: attacks on Rafa have led to the closure of that crossing,
Speaker 1: a devastating blow as Rafa had served as a key
Speaker 1: distribution access point. So not only has Biden done nothing
Speaker 1: to reopen that Rafa crossing or to otherwise increase AID flow.
Speaker 1: In truth, the peer serves to let the Israeli government
Speaker 1: off the hook of our amazing peer is magically solving
Speaker 1: the AID problem. Then the pressure is eased on bb
Speaker 1: to crack down on anti AID protesters, to reopen key
Speaker 1: crossings and stop the outrageous bureaucratic blocks that have intentionally
Speaker 1: left AID backed up at the borders. In addition, our
Speaker 1: involvement in the Israeli Hostage Rescue Mission SLASH massacre and
Speaker 1: the proximity of that operation to the Peer has exacerbated
Speaker 1: the problems with the peer and the problems with AID
Speaker 1: delivery in particular. Now the US has acknowledged a role
Speaker 1: in that massacre, but denies their Peer was used in
Speaker 1: the attack. However, civilian vehicles were used in the course
Speaker 1: of the operation, which we aided in and celebrated, increasing
Speaker 1: the risk for aid workers who have already been frequently targeted.
Speaker 1: In addition, an idea of helicopter used in the massacre
Speaker 1: was photographed right next to the Peer. The concerns were
Speaker 1: grave enough that the US felt the need to put
Speaker 1: out a statement chastising those engaged in what we called
Speaker 1: inaccurate social media allegations that the PEER was used for
Speaker 1: combat operations by the Eye. Yeah, the World Food Program
Speaker 1: announced they would be suspending aid distribution from the Peer
Speaker 1: due to those security concerns. So, thanks to US and
Speaker 1: Israeli idiocy and malevolence, security concerns are becoming increasingly grave.
Speaker 1: In fact, the Israeli government recently announced they would limit
Speaker 1: fighting along a key road in order to help with
Speaker 1: aid distribution, but hasn't made a lock of difference because Gaza,
Speaker 1: after months of war, annihilation, destruction of government capacity, is
Speaker 1: increasingly gripped by total anarchy. Organized armed gangs attack and
Speaker 1: seize trucks with no police force insight or other security
Speaker 1: forces to stop them. This lawlessness, of course, is entirely predictable.
Speaker 1: New York Times Rights quote the mass run police force
Speaker 1: that helps secure the passage of aid earlier in the war,
Speaker 1: melted away months ago after the Israeli military killed several officers.
Speaker 1: The lack of any police or rule of law in
Speaker 1: the area has rendered the road surrounding the crossing highly dangerous,
Speaker 1: said a un spokesperson. In fact, you may remain that
Speaker 1: second assault on Al Shifa Hospital back in mid March.
Speaker 1: In that raid, the idea of killed the head of
Speaker 1: police operations in Gaza. That was the man who was
Speaker 1: responsible for coordinating aid distribution between UNRA and Palestinian tribes.
Speaker 1: Reports on the ground suggested other civil servants and police
Speaker 1: officers were also killed in that particular raid. So border
Speaker 1: crossings are blocked and destroyed. The peer is a cruel joke,
Speaker 1: and the Israelis have successfully created an environment of lawlessness
Speaker 1: that makes it impossible to deliver what aid actually does
Speaker 1: enter the strip. Meanwhile, Palestinians are suffering to an unimaginable degree.
Speaker 1: Dozens of kids that we know of have already died
Speaker 1: of starvation. One hospital is treating fifty children right now
Speaker 1: as we speak for severe malnutrition. According to Gaza's Health ministry,
Speaker 1: as many as thirty five hundred children are currently at
Speaker 1: risk of starving to death. I can scarcely imagine the
Speaker 1: pain of being unable to feed your own child, So
Speaker 1: good riddance to the peer, which has done nothing but
Speaker 1: escalate this pain. At least we can say that while
Speaker 1: the humans with power have been unwilling to act with morality,
Speaker 1: the seas apparently conspired to mete out some modicum of
Speaker 1: justice on this cruel point of humanitarian coseplay. Sager, we
Speaker 1: knew that the peer was and
Speaker 2: If you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.