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 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means 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 Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today,
Speaker 3: Extra amazing. Crystal, you're back.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's nice to be back. And I'll be in
Speaker 1: for Ryan on Counterpoints tomorrow. So you're getting the full
Speaker 1: dose of Crystal this week, whether you want to run not.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: So in the show today, we have Nate Silver joining
Speaker 1: the chorus of insiders calling on Biden to drop out.
Speaker 5: Is that actually going to happen? We will talk about.
Speaker 1: That an FBI informant was indicted for lying about Biden.
Speaker 1: This is someone that the Republicans and Fox News have
Speaker 1: really been relying on for their allegations against him. So
Speaker 1: that's an interesting one. Trump launched a sneaker line, and
Speaker 1: Sager has some startor commentary that was really important to
Speaker 1: get into the show. I don't know if you guys
Speaker 1: have checked out the capabilities of this AI text to
Speaker 1: video generator called Sora, but it is pretty mind blowing.
Speaker 5: Especially the progress your over year.
Speaker 3: Is just like it's astounding.
Speaker 1: It is insane. It's insane. A lot going on with
Speaker 1: regard to Israel. The US is actually proposing a temporary
Speaker 1: cease fire resolution to try to pass through the UN
Speaker 1: Security Council, So that is noteworthy, and it calls for
Speaker 1: them not to invade Rafa, at least not right now,
Speaker 1: so we'll take a look at that. I'm also reviewing
Speaker 1: the ICJ hearings yesterday with regard to Israel's illegal occupation,
Speaker 1: and Sager is taking on a list of presidential rankings
Speaker 1: that he vehemently disagrees with.
Speaker 5: So a lot to get into this one.
Speaker 2: I was so angry about this I spontaneously sat down
Speaker 2: and roade a monologue.
Speaker 3: So anyway, you guys.
Speaker 5: Want to the things that trigger you are interested.
Speaker 2: Listen, Sometimes things have the record cannot stand all right,
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, we are making big plans
Speaker 2: here breaking points.
Speaker 3: March seventh is going to be the state of the Union.
Speaker 2: We are going to have a State of the Union
Speaker 2: live stream, and so as an incentive for our subscribers
Speaker 2: we're able to support our work, We're going to allow
Speaker 2: our premium subscribers to submit questions that us and the
Speaker 2: team will be able to answer.
Speaker 3: We'll have special guests and.
Speaker 2: Others all here at the desk as we go live
Speaker 2: before and after the State of the Union for a
Speaker 2: special show that you can join us on. As we said,
Speaker 2: premium subscribers will be able to submit questions that we
Speaker 2: will all take a tackle at here at the desk.
Speaker 2: So Breakingpoints dot com, if you can go ahead and
Speaker 2: sign up.
Speaker 3: We've got our.
Speaker 2: Election discount going on right now, so now is the
Speaker 2: time to do it Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's talk about what is going on
Speaker 1: in some elite circles with regard to our current president,
Speaker 1: Joseph Robinet Biden Nate Silver.
Speaker 5: He's independent now, but he's still.
Speaker 1: Very much an insidery respected kind of a guy, that's right,
Speaker 1: very much respected in insidery circle. So quite noteworthy that
Speaker 1: he joined as reclined and we'll get to that in
Speaker 1: a moment. In actively calling on Biden to drop out
Speaker 1: because primarily of concerns over his age. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Nate wrote down a lengthy piece
Speaker 1: explaining his thinking and explaining how his thinking has changed
Speaker 1: with regards to Biden and the need for him to
Speaker 1: drop out of the race completely. So he writes in
Speaker 1: part personally, I crossed the rubicon in November, concluding that
Speaker 1: Biden should stand down if he wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: able to run a normal reelection campaign, meaning things like
Speaker 1: conduct a Super Bowl interview. Yes, it's a huge risk,
Speaker 1: and yes Biden can still win, go on to the
Speaker 1: next part. But he's losing now and there's no plan
Speaker 1: to fix the problems other than hoping that the polls
Speaker 1: are wrong or the voters look at the race differently
Speaker 1: when they have more time to focus on it. He concludes,
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. The only option now
Speaker 1: is for Biden to step aside, perhaps in response to
Speaker 1: peer pressure from Democratic leaders and people inside the White House.
Speaker 1: This is a real option. However, don't let anyone gaslight
Speaker 1: you into believing otherwise. The Democratic Convention is not until August. Second,
Speaker 1: this is an option that Biden, the White House, and
Speaker 1: Democratic leaders need to seriously consider as I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: this was in response to a podcast essay that Ezra
Speaker 1: Kline released Azracline now being a calumnist at the New
Speaker 1: York Times or I guess a podcaster for the New
Speaker 1: York Times, as we're also having a lot of sway
Speaker 1: and influence in elite circles, especially from his perch at
Speaker 1: the New York Times. Let's take a listen to a
Speaker 1: little bit of the argument that he made with regards
Speaker 1: to why Joe Biden should drop out of the race.
Speaker 6: I think one reason Democrats react so defensively to critiques
Speaker 6: of Biden is that they've come to a kind of fatalism.
Speaker 6: They believe it is too late to do anything else.
Speaker 6: And if it is too late to do anything else,
Speaker 6: then to even talk about Biden's age is to contribute
Speaker 6: to Donald Trump's victory. But that's absurd. It is February fatalism,
Speaker 6: This far before the election is ridiculous. Yeah, it's too
Speaker 6: late to throw this to primaries, but it's not too
Speaker 6: late to do something. So then what step one, unfortunately
Speaker 6: is convincing Biden should not run again, that he does
Speaker 6: not want to risk being Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a heroic
Speaker 6: brilliant public servant who causes the outcome she feared most
Speaker 6: because she didn't retire early enough that in stepping aside,
Speaker 6: he would be able to finish out his term as
Speaker 6: a strong and focused president and people would see the
Speaker 6: honor in what he did in putting his country over
Speaker 6: his ambitions. The people who Biden listens to Barack Obama,
Speaker 6: Chuck Schumer, Mike Donollan, Ron Klay, Nancy Pelosi, Anita Done,
Speaker 6: they need to get him to see this. Biden may
Speaker 6: come to see it himself. I take nothing away from
Speaker 6: how hard that is, how much Biden wants to finish
Speaker 6: the job he has started, keep doing the good he
Speaker 6: believes he can do. Retirement can be often is a trauma,
Speaker 6: but losing to Donald Trump would be far worse.
Speaker 1: So it's very interesting because Ezra is like the ultimate neoliberal.
Speaker 1: I mean he was, you know, came to prominence as
Speaker 1: like the Obama guy. He's at the New York Times
Speaker 1: making this argument. If you listen to the whole, which
Speaker 1: I recommend because it's interesting the reasoning he lays out,
Speaker 1: he goes out of his way to spend like a
Speaker 1: third of the essay, being like Biden is great, and
Speaker 1: he's done amazing things, and I think he's fantastic, and
Speaker 1: you know, as a president, and I really think he's delivered,
Speaker 1: and I think he could continue to deliver. My issue
Speaker 1: is if he's not able to run a normal campaign,
Speaker 1: if he's not able to sit for interviews and he
Speaker 1: goes through the metrics of how few interviews and how
Speaker 1: few press avails, Joe Biden has actually done that. He
Speaker 1: worries he won't be able to beat Trump. And also
Speaker 1: I thought not worthy and important here, Sager, is that
Speaker 1: he doesn't just leave it up to like a hope
Speaker 1: and a prayer. He lays out specifically, Okay, here's what
Speaker 1: would need to happen. You would need people like Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Ron Klean and needed done whoever to convince Biden to
Speaker 1: drop out. Then it goes to the convention at the DNC,
Speaker 1: and we've had in the past. It's not in either
Speaker 1: of our lifetimes, but in the past, these things were
Speaker 1: decided at the convention. There is a process for picking
Speaker 1: a candidate on the convention floor, and they could do
Speaker 1: that at the DNC, and that could work out and
Speaker 1: would make for a lot or compelling and interesting campaign.
Speaker 1: TV than just the anointment of this These are my words. Now,
Speaker 1: tired old man that everyone you know is concerned about
Speaker 1: can't even make it through another four years.
Speaker 3: No, it's very well.
Speaker 2: I mean, look when I say well argued, I just
Speaker 2: mean not the parts about how Biden is fantastic.
Speaker 5: He knows his audience.
Speaker 2: You're right, But I mean it's interesting to me that
Speaker 2: both Silver and Ezra both point to the Super Bowl
Speaker 2: as such a massive jump off point. They're like, how
Speaker 2: in good conscience and you, as a sitting president of
Speaker 2: the United States pass up the opportunity to speak to
Speaker 2: one hundred and twelve million people. You know, we had
Speaker 2: the ratings afterwards, Crystal, it was the most watched event
Speaker 2: in the United States since the Apollo Moonlander.
Speaker 3: That's that's the truth. I've said it before.
Speaker 2: The very last thing that unites this country at all
Speaker 2: is the Super Bowl and football specifically.
Speaker 3: Why would you not go out of your way.
Speaker 2: The point that he also makes is that Biden has
Speaker 2: given fewer than one hundred interviews.
Speaker 3: Quote, most of them are softballs.
Speaker 2: He'll go on Conan O'Brien's podcast or Ave Shetty's mindfulness.
Speaker 2: The Biden team says they need a political voters, the
Speaker 2: ones who are not listening to political media. You know,
Speaker 2: a great way to reach a political voters the super Bowl.
Speaker 2: But if you do that, you have to go sit
Speaker 2: down with face the nation. You got to be asked
Speaker 2: questions about Israel. The other thing that he points to,
Speaker 2: which is just so obvious, and again it's just bears
Speaker 2: mentioning is quote. Go watch a speech he gave in
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania kicking off his campaign in twenty nineteen. Yeah, now,
Speaker 2: go give a speech he gave last month. It's not close.
Speaker 2: There's no comparison. They're on YouTube and you can see it.
Speaker 2: The way he moves, the energy in his voice. Democrats
Speaker 2: denying his decline are only fooling themselves.
Speaker 3: He's right. And yet why is it that what lone
Speaker 3: Voice Silver can say whatever he wants. He no longer
Speaker 3: works for ABC.
Speaker 2: It's true, you know, to a certain extent, it took
Speaker 2: some courage to say something like this. But I just
Speaker 2: want to underscore exactly what you said. The modern campaign
Speaker 2: as we know it really was born throughout the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 2: specifically nineteen sixty eight or so.
Speaker 3: With Hubert Humphrey and Robert F.
Speaker 2: Kennedy and the way that the primary system as we
Speaker 2: kind of currently know it really stemmed really from the
Speaker 2: JFK campaign. Prior to that, we had a very similar
Speaker 2: system through which he lays out here. In many cases, Crystal,
Speaker 2: we would not even know who was really running for
Speaker 2: president until the convention.
Speaker 3: I mean, think about it was only six weeks out
Speaker 3: or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, from election day, these two year long elections, I mean,
Speaker 2: in some cases it really is only eight you know,
Speaker 2: the Iowa caucus battles that began a year before that.
Speaker 2: How recent, you know, the current insanity really seems for
Speaker 2: all of us. So there's no reason, you know, given
Speaker 2: his age, where we can't revert a little bit back
Speaker 2: to tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, listen, I never thought I'd be in
Speaker 1: a position where I'd be cheering for the DNC to
Speaker 1: just like take control and pick.
Speaker 5: A candidate at the convention. But that's where we are.
Speaker 1: So I think it is very noteworthy for this case
Speaker 1: to be made publicly in the pages of the New
Speaker 1: York Times, given how much elite circles pay attention to
Speaker 1: what is written at the New York Times and what
Speaker 1: is said at the New York Times. I mean, I
Speaker 1: wonder what you think, So, like, do you think there's
Speaker 1: a chance that he does drop out, that these people,
Speaker 1: do you know, have some sort of come to Jesus
Speaker 1: moment and really put pressure on him to leave the race,
Speaker 1: and that he's ultimately persuaded.
Speaker 2: By that absence a major health event. And I'm not
Speaker 2: talking on like a stroke something debilitating. He's running, That's
Speaker 2: what I think.
Speaker 3: I think that.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, the party system is also very weak.
Speaker 2: He is the commander in chief, he's the executive. The
Speaker 2: people around him have been in Biden indoctrinated. They've been
Speaker 2: preaching the tune that he's completely fine. You can't just
Speaker 2: flip on a dime. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, like, they've
Speaker 2: all given their shibbletz about how he's the smartest, you know,
Speaker 2: most sharp man's ever lived in the Oval office.
Speaker 3: How can you reverse you look like an idiot. So this,
Speaker 3: this is all played out.
Speaker 2: This system, the architecture and all that would be needed
Speaker 2: for something like this, it just doesn't exist. Yeah, really
Speaker 2: what it is And it comes back to, and he
Speaker 2: even points to this, is at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: the candidate is the person who matters the most. Biden
Speaker 2: is an egomaniac and arrogant. And if anything, what do
Speaker 2: we always know about age? It only makes you.
Speaker 3: More of what you already are. Yeah, he was stubborn
Speaker 3: in eighty eight. He's gonna you think he's gonna be
Speaker 3: less stuborn when he's old.
Speaker 2: I don't know a single old person who became less
Speaker 2: stubborn with age, especially, you know, one of the most
Speaker 2: common characteristics is they cling to what they can control
Speaker 2: as they get older and older. That's where he is,
Speaker 2: and he's decided to put all of our fates with him.
Speaker 2: Like you said, it can sound mean and all of this,
Speaker 2: but most people who are his age are in very
Speaker 2: peaceful retirement who are hanging out with their grandchildren and others.
Speaker 2: And to the extent that he feels any responsibility to
Speaker 2: the American people, he's decided that he's the sole judge
Speaker 2: of his character and he'll leave.
Speaker 3: It up to the voters.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, it's up to him.
Speaker 1: I did think it was noteworthy that as are appointed
Speaker 1: not to You know, here's the performance of Biden when
Speaker 1: he was vice president. But here's just a few years
Speaker 1: ago when he was launching this campaign, and how much
Speaker 1: he's declined like notably clearly declined, and they both basically
Speaker 1: made the case that the reason he's not doing these
Speaker 1: interviews is because is actually rational, Like from his campaign
Speaker 1: team's perspective, from his aid's perspective, it is their best
Speaker 1: possible bet because they think.
Speaker 5: The performance would be bad.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean that was demonstrated in the
Speaker 1: press conference that he attempted to give to try to
Speaker 1: assuage concerns that he was old and basically losing it,
Speaker 1: and then mixes up Mexico in Egypt within the.
Speaker 5: Course of fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1: And as we've said before, it'd be one thing if
Speaker 1: it's a one off, like everybody misspeaks sometimes it happens regularly,
Speaker 1: but the fact that it happens in this way basically
Speaker 1: every time he's in front of a camera is pretty telling.
Speaker 1: And obviously the American people have already decided eighty six
Speaker 1: percent of them have already decided this man is too
Speaker 1: old to be able to really run and serve.
Speaker 5: Again.
Speaker 1: The other issue that I can't remember one or both
Speaker 1: of them got into it, But part of the challenge
Speaker 1: for those around Biden too is they don't have confidence
Speaker 1: in Kamala Harris and she is the next most likely
Speaker 1: person to take up the mantle. I mean, if Biden
Speaker 1: were to drop, she would have the inside track to
Speaker 1: replace him as the Democratic nominee. And the fact that
Speaker 1: her approval ratings have consistently been below his, and she
Speaker 1: has not proven herself to be an able campaign or
Speaker 1: she hasn't She herself has not done all that many
Speaker 1: interviews and has not been all that comfortable in front
Speaker 1: of the camera either, and has a tendency to say
Speaker 1: like weird, rambling nonsensical word salady, mumbo jumbo. So I
Speaker 1: think that's another reason why people around Biden have convinced
Speaker 1: themselves that he is the best bet. There was an
Speaker 1: interesting piece over at CNN, though, I'm curious what you
Speaker 1: think about this one that I think this one was,
Speaker 1: you know, very much planted by Kamala's team about how
Speaker 1: she understands that there are problems with the campaign and
Speaker 1: she's trying to ride to the rescue.
Speaker 5: She's trying to work it out.
Speaker 1: She's having all these meetings behind the scenes, trying to
Speaker 1: save this campaign and a just course and make it better,
Speaker 1: make it responsive to voters, et cetera.
Speaker 5: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They interviewed two dozen sources CNN did, and they said
Speaker 1: that Harris has been gathering information to help her penetrate
Speaker 1: what she sometimes refers to as the bubble of Biden
Speaker 1: campaign thinking, telling people she's aiming to use that intelligence
Speaker 1: to push for changes in strategy and tactics that she
Speaker 1: hopes will put the ticket in better shape.
Speaker 5: There were some specific.
Speaker 1: Concerns from prominent politicians that were mentioned here. The fact
Speaker 1: that they had these specific concerns on the record was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting, So they said. Representative Debbie Dingle has
Speaker 1: pushed Kamala repeatedly to get the White House to take
Speaker 1: more seriously how hard Biden's response to the Gaza wars
Speaker 1: hitting Arab Americans in our home state of Michigan. Steve Horsford,
Speaker 1: the Nevada congressman and Congressional Black Caucus Chair, urged Harris
Speaker 1: to get the administration to talk more about housing affordability
Speaker 1: rather than the triumphant and often disconnected talk about Biden nomics.
Speaker 1: At a session around Harris's dining table last Saturday with
Speaker 1: six Democratic governors and their chiefs of staff, According multiple
Speaker 1: people who were there, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer slammed the
Speaker 1: way the president of the campaign have been talking about abortion.
Speaker 1: Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker hammered Biden's response to migrant
Speaker 1: crisis and insisted they need to quickly get much more
Speaker 1: aggressive about attacking Republicans and Trump for tanking the bipartisan
Speaker 1: immigration bill. Maryland Governor Wesmore complained that the campaign has
Speaker 1: been failing to get through to voters under thirty five
Speaker 1: years old. So interesting that all these concerns are being
Speaker 1: made known.
Speaker 5: But you know, the one thing that you.
Speaker 1: Like, you could adjust your strategy or what you're doing
Speaker 1: on any range of number of issues. But you aren't
Speaker 1: going to be able to change Biden's cognitive abilities or
Speaker 1: you know his age and how old he will be
Speaker 1: if he.
Speaker 5: Is once against warned as president.
Speaker 3: Right, And that's what they're like, talk about housing affordability.
Speaker 3: It's like this is all the ship is sailed on
Speaker 3: this stuff years and years ago. How many people can
Speaker 3: go rule the tape.
Speaker 2: How many discussions persons we have in twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: about you need to be active about fighting inflation.
Speaker 3: If you let it just continue, then you're going to
Speaker 3: lose the narrative.
Speaker 2: You're going to show people that you don't particularly care,
Speaker 2: and then they just caught up when they're like, no,
Speaker 2: everything is actually fine. They want people to just you know,
Speaker 2: erase their eyes and not realize that there's been a
Speaker 2: twenty something percent year over year inflation from twenty nineteen
Speaker 2: to where we are right now. That's insane, one fifth
Speaker 2: price increase. People don't just look quarterback quarter. They experience
Speaker 2: their life, you know, on a very different timeline. So
Speaker 2: there's so many things within this that are just stupid.
Speaker 2: But the real one and we just can't go away from,
Speaker 2: is people hate Comma even more than they hate Biden.
Speaker 2: So it's one of those where how are you supposed
Speaker 2: to save anything? On an interpersonal level, people cannot stand you.
Speaker 2: It's not like they're waiting for you to come in
Speaker 2: as a savior. That's also, by the way, a huge
Speaker 2: part of how we have a very weak Democratic Party
Speaker 2: where you don't have the ability for someone like Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 2: who look, I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan, you cannot
Speaker 2: deny he's very politically talented. He's very politically talented, and
Speaker 2: more importantly, he loves the fight.
Speaker 3: He's itching to be able to get into the ring.
Speaker 2: He just simply is constrained both by media and the
Speaker 2: criticism that he'd be usurping a black woman and the
Speaker 2: most successful president or whatever. And that's actually a sign
Speaker 2: of tremendous weakness in the American political system to not
Speaker 2: allow somebody to come in the other way, especially when
Speaker 2: the base. The thing is about Trump is Trump is strong.
Speaker 3: The base likes him.
Speaker 2: Now the rest of the country may not, but as
Speaker 2: a party, it shows that he is in control. The
Speaker 2: Democrats don't like Biden, and yet he's still somehow in control.
Speaker 3: That's actually nuts.
Speaker 5: They have affection for him.
Speaker 1: Yes, they do not want him to be the nominee
Speaker 1: or the president again, they would like to have other options,
Speaker 1: you know, just to play sort of like political fantasy football.
Speaker 1: Here for a minute, I do think if it came
Speaker 1: down to convention because of the reasons that you just cited.
Speaker 1: With Gavin Newsom, I mean, he is like the ultimate
Speaker 1: political animal, not only in terms of his capabilities demonstrating
Speaker 1: like his debate versus Ronda Santis, his comfort going into
Speaker 1: you know, difficult spaces, etc. But also he is the
Speaker 1: ultimate you know, behind the scenes backslapper and networker. I
Speaker 1: guarantee you, many of the DNC delegates feel like they
Speaker 1: know him personally, have had some interaction with him. He's
Speaker 1: the type who has been for years and years and
Speaker 1: years at this point, flying around the country to go
Speaker 1: to different Democratic dinners and make sure he's pressing in
Speaker 1: the flesh with whoever the key. You know, state party
Speaker 1: chairs are in different places, and so if it did
Speaker 1: come down to that, and especially since he's from the
Speaker 1: same state as Kamala Harris, you know, if it was
Speaker 1: looking like the California delegation is going for Gavin over Kamala,
Speaker 1: which I think they would.
Speaker 5: If he had the balls to do it right.
Speaker 1: Over you know, over the historic first black woman vice president.
Speaker 1: If he had the balls to do it, I do
Speaker 1: think the California delegation would go with him, and that
Speaker 1: would be a pretty devastating blow to Kamala Harris. But
Speaker 1: I mean, we're getting way over our skis now just
Speaker 1: imagining all of these things. But I can't help but
Speaker 1: think about how this could potentially all play out. The
Speaker 1: other thing that I would say about that Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: writing to the Rescue Piece, which, as I said, you know,
Speaker 1: paints her in a very favorable light. And I think
Speaker 1: was very much planned by her or her team, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You know, I think she is also trying to burnish
Speaker 1: her image as a credible alternative if something was to
Speaker 1: happen to Biden or he was to drop. So I
Speaker 1: also see this as a little bit of shadow maneuvering
Speaker 1: from Kamala to try to rehab her image so that
Speaker 1: people feel more comfortable if Biden was to step aside
Speaker 1: with go ahead and you know, pick the next in
Speaker 1: line vice president as the next Democratic nominee.
Speaker 5: So I read a little bit into that.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 1: The other thing that was interesting that we wanted to
Speaker 1: touch on here from the New York Times is this
Speaker 1: piece about how resistance liberals are feeling, how they described
Speaker 1: as crisis out. They're exhausted after all these years of
Speaker 1: Trump and the existential threat and you know, every single
Speaker 1: election being completely existential and the energy they put into
Speaker 1: that now for you know, a long time. They are
Speaker 1: feeling very burned out, which is not a great thing.
Speaker 1: That even the most faithful of the Democratic Party base
Speaker 1: are feeling kind of exhausted.
Speaker 5: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: The headline here from the Times, anti Trump burnout, the
Speaker 1: resistance says it's exhausted bracing for yet another election against
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Mayer because liberals are feeling the fatigue. Quote,
Speaker 1: We're kind of like crisist out, one Democrat said, let
Speaker 1: me read you the lead of this piece. They say
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen, they donned pink hats to march on Washington,
Speaker 1: registering their fury with Donald Trump at the hundreds of thousands.
Speaker 1: Then they fliped the House from Republican control, won the presidency,
Speaker 1: and secured a surprisingly strong showing the twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: midterm elections. Dalvanized by their conviction that mister Trump and
Speaker 1: his allies constituted a national emergency. This year, anti Trump
Speaker 1: voters are grappling with another powerful sentiment, exhaustion.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: Some folks are burned out on outrage, said Rebecca Leefunk,
Speaker 1: the Washington based founder of The Outrage, a progressive activism
Speaker 1: group and a purveyor of resistance era apparel.
Speaker 5: Lol. People are tired.
Speaker 1: I think last election, we were desperate to get Trump
Speaker 1: out of office, and folks were willing to rally around that
Speaker 1: singular call to action, and this election feels different. We're
Speaker 1: kind of like crisist out, said Shannon Casper, thirty six,
Speaker 1: of security guard in Pittsburgh, who called the prospect of
Speaker 1: a Trump Biden rematch a dumpster fire. She added, it
Speaker 1: is crisis fatigue for sure. They have some poll numbers
Speaker 1: here to back up the anecdot total comments from the
Speaker 1: people that they interviewed, indicating that there are more Democrats
Speaker 1: saying they are exhausted by the political process and sort
Speaker 1: of dispirited by the whole situation. Then Republicans, you know,
Speaker 1: that could be a problem for them come election day.
Speaker 1: Although I have to say, you know, these people, these
Speaker 1: people are going to vote for Joe Biden. They're not
Speaker 1: going to stay home. They're certainly not voting for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The question is more, you know that activist energy. Are
Speaker 1: they going to get out there? Are they going to
Speaker 1: knocked doors? Are they going to organize? Are they going
Speaker 1: to send in their ten bucks, et cetera. I think
Speaker 1: that's more the issue here. And if you have a
Speaker 1: base that's like dispirited, depressed, exhausted, not excited about the
Speaker 1: candidate and crisis dount, that's obviously not a great thing.
Speaker 2: What do I ask hilarious about it is that in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, when they were the most activated. It just
Speaker 2: compare that to the Trump of today. Ask yourself, which
Speaker 2: should you be more worried about. Shouldn't you be more
Speaker 2: of a resistance person, like post January sixth or not?
Speaker 3: If anything, they.
Speaker 2: Kind of blew arough, you know it early on when
Speaker 2: they conjured up this like hitlarian image which wasn't real,
Speaker 2: and then it became like this cartoonish whatever you want
Speaker 2: to call it right now, but unironically unlinked at least
Speaker 2: from whatever forces were who are keeping him moored. At
Speaker 2: the time, you should probably if you were a resistance person,
Speaker 2: you should be way more afraid of Trump too than
Speaker 2: you should be if Trump won.
Speaker 3: But they've been exhausted.
Speaker 2: They tapped their coffers, you know, as much as they
Speaker 2: could back in what was it, the twenty eighteen that
Speaker 2: was like peak resistance, I think for the election now
Speaker 2: that said, I don't want to underestimate it. Even if
Speaker 2: they're exhausted, doesn't mean that you won't come out and
Speaker 2: vote on election day. I will not ever sit here
Speaker 2: and you know, or underestimate the actual power of an
Speaker 2: anti Trump vote. It doesn't just have to be resistance.
Speaker 2: A lot of people who are not resistance of people
Speaker 2: will not vote for him. They may come to the ballot,
Speaker 2: or they may still hold their nose and vote for Biden.
Speaker 2: But as Stilver put it, at the very beginning of
Speaker 2: this block, what a risk, What a risk for the
Speaker 2: whole country? Yeah, you're putting us all through, That's right.
Speaker 3: You know, it's like, what are you doing? What are
Speaker 3: you doing to us? Yeah?
Speaker 1: No, I think that's I think that's exactly it. So,
Speaker 1: you know, fascinating a lot these matchinage.
Speaker 5: I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think it is highly unlikely that at this point
Speaker 1: Biden is actually convinced to step aside. But you know,
Speaker 1: you do see some some sort of palace intrigue, little
Speaker 1: bit of you know, behind the scenes drama with regards
Speaker 1: to Kamala Harris trying to bolster her image, with regards
Speaker 1: to a variety of insiders actually coming out and saying
Speaker 1: all right, you need to drop out, and here's what
Speaker 1: the path looks like. So, you know, we'll wait and
Speaker 1: see if there are additional developments. But I also am
Speaker 1: not hopeful that anything will actually change.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I think you're right.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to the next part in terms of
Speaker 2: the election and what could have been a major turning
Speaker 2: point the FBI waited specifically to cover with this with you,
Speaker 2: Crystal has now charged the same prosecutor who charged Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden with tax evasion with the gun charge, has now
Speaker 2: began prosecuting actually or charge and will and intends to
Speaker 2: prosecute a witness that came forward and alleged that the
Speaker 2: Biden family had approached the Ukrainians for a quote ten
Speaker 2: million dollars bribe. If you are familiar with this, this
Speaker 2: was subject of a Chuck Grassley letter that was leaked
Speaker 2: about last year that came forward from an alleged witness
Speaker 2: that had all of this incriminating information. I actually covered
Speaker 2: it also at the time, although unlike Fox News, have
Speaker 2: not been clinging it to it for over a year
Speaker 2: now as evidence of quote unquote.
Speaker 3: Biden family corruption.
Speaker 2: And while there certainly may be some this particular instance,
Speaker 2: this man has now been charged with lying, which is
Speaker 2: a bit of a problem for some people over at
Speaker 2: Fox News, which have been beating the drum on this.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to the credience that they gave
Speaker 3: this gentleman.
Speaker 8: A veteran FBI informant alleging both the President and Hunter
Speaker 8: Biden each.
Speaker 2: Took five million dollars in bribes. Details come from an
Speaker 2: FBI informant who is very trusted, the highly reliable informant
Speaker 2: that has always checked out all the information he's ever
Speaker 2: given us as checked out.
Speaker 8: We have determined that whatsleblower is extremely credible.
Speaker 7: This is a very crucial piece of our investigation.
Speaker 8: Confidential human source that had been reliable previously to the FBI,
Speaker 8: A confidential informat that they had on the payroll. Documented
Speaker 8: allegations of bribery from a trusted FBI confidential human source
Speaker 8: has now finally been released. Now its contents are devastating.
Speaker 2: So as you could see, didn't work out so well
Speaker 2: for them. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: After the news leaked quote unquote GOP lawmakers used to
Speaker 2: claim him to President Joe Biden's corrupt FBI source now
Speaker 2: charged for allegedly providing false information on Biden's which was
Speaker 2: then cited by Republicans. We're talking about Russian individual Alexander
Speaker 2: Smirnov one count of making a false statement and one
Speaker 2: kind of creating a quote false and fictitious record related
Speaker 2: to statements that he made to the FBI on a
Speaker 2: Form ten twenty three. The charging documents say that we
Speaker 2: approached the FBI as an alleged confidential source, but fabricated
Speaker 2: and provided false information to the FBI, which was then leaked,
Speaker 2: specifically to Senator Chuck Grassley, who took the step of
Speaker 2: then releasing that claim several years ago, as we said,
Speaker 2: to say that a Ukrainian oligarch had pushed the president
Speaker 2: the Biden family aid approaches Ukrainian oligarch to pay them
Speaker 2: ten million dollars. Now, this was a key part of
Speaker 2: the Ukraine corruption story that was kind of ancillary to
Speaker 2: Barisma and some of the other verified claims there crystal,
Speaker 2: but nonetheless, I mean, it's a terrible look because they're
Speaker 2: hanging all of their.
Speaker 3: Hat on this.
Speaker 2: And while it was not, you know, the central part
Speaker 2: of the prosecution, you still that's exactly why you are
Speaker 2: supposed to not be totally credulous about all this. One
Speaker 2: of the reasons I feel credulous quote unquote about Barisma
Speaker 2: is a hunter admitted it, and you know, the money
Speaker 2: is verified.
Speaker 3: It's right there.
Speaker 2: We could literally see it in wire transfers that have
Speaker 2: been verified now by the IRS, the FBI House investigators
Speaker 2: et cetera. With this one, all you ever had was
Speaker 2: the claim of this single individual, right, which is the
Speaker 2: problem from the very beginning.
Speaker 5: Well, they're trying desperately to.
Speaker 1: Make a connection between the money that Hunter was receiving
Speaker 1: and money received directly by Joe Biden, because rightly, people say, Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: what Hunter did was corrupt trading on the Biden family name.
Speaker 1: It's very clear he's doing that. It's very clear that
Speaker 1: Biden's brother has done that, and we're talking about over
Speaker 1: decades that this has been long standing Biden family practice.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't directly implicate Joe Biden. And also, I mean,
Speaker 1: honestly that like pales in comparison to what Kushner and
Speaker 1: Trump himself are doing in terms of cashing in on
Speaker 1: the position they're named, the presidency, et cetera. So they
Speaker 1: really really wanted to make this direct monetary connection, and
Speaker 1: so that's why they relied so heavily on what was
Speaker 1: just basically an unvetted allegation made at the FBI, which
Speaker 1: if I recall correctly, you covered as such at the time.
Speaker 1: The irony here is that, I mean, that's exactly what
Speaker 1: the quote unquote Steele dossier was it was someone who
Speaker 1: had been an FBI in format in the past, as
Speaker 1: had this individual, and that's part of why they gave
Speaker 1: him crudence, as like, oh, well, he's said stuff that
Speaker 1: was true to the FBI in the past, so this
Speaker 1: must also be true. Well, the same could be said
Speaker 1: of Michael Steele. And of course they spent years rightfully
Speaker 1: lambasting Democrats for completely hanging their hat on this one
Speaker 1: dude and the stuff that he you know, clearly like
Speaker 1: made up out of thin air. And now they're in
Speaker 1: the same situation. Now, the people who are leading the
Speaker 1: Biden impeachment over this allegation and other allegations of corruption,
Speaker 1: they claim the House Republicans Jamie Comer at all that,
Speaker 1: oh no, this wasn't really central to the impeachment, but
Speaker 1: that's a lie, Like clearly they had hung a lot
Speaker 1: on this allegation.
Speaker 3: True, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: And Comer himself went on Fox News no fewer than
Speaker 1: two hundred times to talk up this story with this
Speaker 1: dude's claims at the center of what he was saying,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity was a primary culprit of like relying wholesale
Speaker 1: on what this individual had to say. And you know,
Speaker 1: it turns out, and the evidence is pretty compelling that he.
Speaker 5: Just made it up. It was just a lie. He
Speaker 5: hates Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: He had like an ax to grind, and you decided
Speaker 1: to try to push this claim and see where he
Speaker 1: could get with it. And it looks like where he's
Speaker 1: going to get is probably some prison time.
Speaker 2: Right Yeah, I mean, look, he should go to jail.
Speaker 2: People who you know, lead people on goose chases and
Speaker 2: all of that, and also we should do at the
Speaker 2: Steele dossier point is fantastic and it's also very important.
Speaker 2: They're also something we wanted to kind of roll into
Speaker 2: this because it does kind of thematically fit.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen. There has been.
Speaker 2: A massive wave actually of high profile Republicans who are
Speaker 2: quitting the House GOP, and kind of what it comes
Speaker 2: down to is that the vast majority of these people
Speaker 2: who are leaving, it's almost unheard of to leave whenever
Speaker 2: you have the majority and whenever you are likely projected
Speaker 2: to continue the majority, whenever you are the chairman in
Speaker 2: many cases of you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Speaker 2: or you have a high high profile position on the
Speaker 2: US China Committee like Mike Gallagher who recently just announced
Speaker 2: that he would retire.
Speaker 3: You have Mike Penn, his brother, who said he would retire.
Speaker 2: Many of the people who are announcing their retirement were
Speaker 2: people who had not only decades long careers left in
Speaker 2: the House, but in the immediate term, would have had
Speaker 2: power in the committee system. And one of the reasons
Speaker 2: that they're leaving is like, listen, you know, we don't
Speaker 2: do anything. We don't pass any laws. We had all
Speaker 2: this Kevin McCarthy nonsense. We keep going down these impeachment
Speaker 2: or whatever rabbit holes. And that's fine, you know, as
Speaker 2: long as we get to continue any serious work. But
Speaker 2: they just feel as if it's completely irrelevant, and they're like,
Speaker 2: why should I have to fly back and forth between
Speaker 2: Washington and my district or whatever just to come here
Speaker 2: and do fake votes that don't actually mean anything or
Speaker 2: matter at all. Even my committee work, for example, it's
Speaker 2: not like bills are being reported out of committee these days.
Speaker 2: They just get they get drawn up by the leadership
Speaker 2: three days before they send it to you, and they're like, hey,
Speaker 2: you got to vote for this, or you're out of
Speaker 2: the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: What do you do? I mean, it's a terrible job
Speaker 3: in many respects.
Speaker 2: For a lot of these folks, most of them are rich,
Speaker 2: you know, so for them, they're like, why should I stay?
Speaker 3: I I'll just.
Speaker 5: Leave out lobbyist passion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll do it too if I was stuck in there.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be clear, almost all of what these
Speaker 1: people want to quote unquote accomplish and govern is bad.
Speaker 1: So it's not like I'm not mad at the House
Speaker 1: GOP dysfunction. But the thing that I also think is interesting.
Speaker 1: So just to give you some of the numbers, twenty
Speaker 1: three Republican lawmakers decided not to seek reelection or resigned early.
Speaker 1: That includes, and this is the part that is kind
Speaker 1: of astonishing, just based on history, five.
Speaker 5: Committee chairs, right and crazy, you guys.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to explain how coveted these positions are.
Speaker 1: People work their entire careers to climb up the frickin'
Speaker 1: ladder to be, you know, in these various committee positions,
Speaker 1: and so at the point where they've actually like achieved
Speaker 1: the goal of their many years of ambition, they're like,
Speaker 1: it's not worth it. Like I'm just it's not worth it.
Speaker 1: None of this is worth it. And I think it
Speaker 1: is no worthy that. Listen, they can read the polls.
Speaker 1: They see it's very likely that Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be back. And you would think in an ordinary political
Speaker 1: moment that the fact that you are going to have
Speaker 1: an ally back in the White House as president of
Speaker 1: the United States would make you more likely to stay
Speaker 1: because then you say, oh, well, then you know we're
Speaker 1: not far from being They have a very good shot
Speaker 1: at taking back the Senate. They have a very good
Speaker 1: shot at holding onto the House, although it is precarious,
Speaker 1: I mean, their majority is bounced on a knife edge,
Speaker 1: but they have a very good shot of having the House,
Speaker 1: the Senate, and the presidency. And so to have that
Speaker 1: situation and have this many people, especial especially committee chairs
Speaker 1: being like I'm out, I think that is actually really
Speaker 1: quite extraordinary. And so it speaks to the fact that
Speaker 1: having Trump in the White House for a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans is not a benefit. It's a pain in the ass, right,
Speaker 1: because then what happens, I mean, they're still not governing.
Speaker 1: Everything they're getting asked is just questions about like the
Speaker 1: latest bullshit that Trump did or said, or you know,
Speaker 1: tweet truth that he's sent down or whatever, and they
Speaker 1: just don't want to deal with it. So I think
Speaker 1: that part is also really fascinating that they are very
Speaker 1: they have a very good shot at having the trifecta
Speaker 1: of the House, the Senate, in the White House, and
Speaker 1: they're still like, in fact, because of the fact.
Speaker 5: That Trump is likely to be back there.
Speaker 1: That is part of the motivation for them wanting to
Speaker 1: get out of town and snag their corporate board board
Speaker 1: seats and lobbyist gigs while the getting is still good.
Speaker 2: Like you just said, I mean, in the Trump era,
Speaker 2: when a Republican senator the vast and I know some
Speaker 2: of these people, but here's mostly what your job consisted of.
Speaker 3: You do nothing while you're here.
Speaker 2: While you walk down the hallway, you get accosted by
Speaker 2: these reporters and they're like, have you seen the latest
Speaker 2: Trump tweet on Mika Persinski's facelift?
Speaker 3: Yes, And you're like.
Speaker 2: Uh, well, I don't can know who the President says,
Speaker 2: but you know, i'll see him in November in my district.
Speaker 4: Whatever.
Speaker 5: It is absolutely humiliated.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't do it either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So look, I do not begrudge them for leaving,
Speaker 2: but it is certainly I mean, whether it's a crisis
Speaker 2: or not.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean they will all be replaced, all of their
Speaker 2: jobs will continue.
Speaker 3: That people replacing them probably believe the same things. And
Speaker 3: all these.
Speaker 1: People are in safe Republican seats exactly, so it doesn't
Speaker 1: particularly further imperil the GOP majority. But it just is
Speaker 1: a very unusual situation to have people who were this many,
Speaker 1: people who were this highly placed, facing the prospect of
Speaker 1: a continued majority.
Speaker 5: To be like, I'm out, I'm done, well said.
Speaker 2: Speaking of Trump and some of the things that he
Speaker 2: imposes on the GOP, Trump made a surprise appearance at
Speaker 2: Sneakerhead Convention. He's declared himself a member of the community,
Speaker 2: and he is now unveiled for many of his supporters.
Speaker 2: One of the grail items a golden pair of Trump
Speaker 2: high tops that people literally wept in order to be
Speaker 2: his president.
Speaker 3: They've paid thousands of.
Speaker 2: Dollars to acquire a pair, so he certainly is still
Speaker 2: making money off of some of his supporters.
Speaker 3: Take a lesson, Yo, check out these Trump ones. Four
Speaker 3: hundred dollars retail on these. Check these out. Check the
Speaker 3: box who says Trump and friends and family, And then
Speaker 3: when you open it, it comes with like a gold wrapping paper.
Speaker 1: Make these.
Speaker 3: These are crazy? Look how many Trumps and on the
Speaker 3: friends and family parents? He signed them to do that?
Speaker 5: See, so what was your winning bed I about?
Speaker 3: And let's see the signature? All right? Congratulations, you're all sneakerheads.
Speaker 3: You're sneaker heads.
Speaker 4: Try does everybody in the room consider themselves a sneakerhead?
Speaker 5: I think so?
Speaker 9: Yes, Sweet Christian, he's a good, honest man. They're after
Speaker 9: here for no reason. Don't trap, He's a good man.
Speaker 9: Look at a good jets, a good cheese.
Speaker 3: All right, So a lot of passion in the audience, snegaretts.
Speaker 2: The shoes the never Surrender high Top cell retail for
Speaker 2: three hundred and nine and nine dollars. As you saw,
Speaker 2: that gentleman paid nine thousand dollars for a signed pair
Speaker 2: two along two of the low top sneakers actually also
Speaker 2: come with a ninety dollars bottle of Victory forty seven
Speaker 2: perfume and cologne was also available for sale on that website.
Speaker 2: Trumb says that he's been wanting to do this for
Speaker 2: a long time, and in a typical Trump fashion, he
Speaker 2: actually did not manufacture the product. He simply registered the
Speaker 2: trademark to cic Ventures LLC.
Speaker 3: In the way that he's done business there in the past.
Speaker 2: So assuming he's getting a decent a little bit of
Speaker 2: a cut of something that's going on along with this,
Speaker 2: here's my issue with the sneakers, all right, So the
Speaker 2: high top sneakers in general. I don't really wear sneakers
Speaker 2: as much anymore. I've been trying to only wear traditional shoes.
Speaker 2: But if you're gonna wear a high top sneaker, I
Speaker 2: would genuine generally request it be a classic, like a
Speaker 2: Converse style of the Nike. I'm blanking on the name
Speaker 2: exactly for what they look like. These are gaudy. They
Speaker 2: also crystal. You know, you remark this, they don't look
Speaker 2: very well made for four hundred dollars, like shit in every.
Speaker 5: Way, think about what you could buy they're hitting.
Speaker 2: One hundred bucks. Yeah, four hundred dollars is a lot
Speaker 2: of money.
Speaker 3: You can buy a pair of Olden's for like boots
Speaker 3: for four hundred dollars. So this is not what I personally.
Speaker 2: Would be spending my money on for somebody who's interested
Speaker 2: in shoes and in clothing for men, And yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean I cannot imagine a scenario where this would be
Speaker 2: appropriate maybe Walmart, you know, wearing something like this, even then,
Speaker 2: not really sure that's what I would want to be
Speaker 2: wearing in there. So yeah, I'm honestly flabbergasted by the
Speaker 2: entire thing. But guess what, they all sold out within hours,
Speaker 2: so it's not like it didn't work, just like its
Speaker 2: trading cards or whatever.
Speaker 3: The NFTs.
Speaker 1: I mean, a good sneaker design is a beautiful thing,
Speaker 1: like some of the jordanses you know are. I mean,
Speaker 1: they really put a lot of thought into the design
Speaker 1: and inspiration, and they truly are like art like pieces
Speaker 1: of art. This is some schlocky, ugly craft. And the
Speaker 1: gold ones are the worst ones. There are these other
Speaker 1: ones that are like red, white, and blue that are
Speaker 1: just sort of very standard but also just look kind
Speaker 1: of like cut and paste. Nothing special about them, nothing
Speaker 1: like that really pops about them. They're just they again
Speaker 1: look like something you you know, that might get a Walmart.
Speaker 1: No offense Walmart, but I've I've purchased many shoes Walmart.
Speaker 3: So no, my first I was a George.
Speaker 1: But anyway, yeah, they're they're quite hideous, and I'm in
Speaker 1: the other context, obviously, this guy needs to make a
Speaker 1: buck apparently, because he's got facing an almost half a
Speaker 1: billion dollar judgment against him that he's got either pony
Speaker 1: up or you know, post enough collateral to be able
Speaker 1: to get a bond and get someone to agree to that.
Speaker 1: So I guess he's in the market for new money
Speaker 1: making ventures and fool better to go to than to
Speaker 1: further squeeze and rip off your own fan base, which
Speaker 1: is exactly the people who will pay the four hundred
Speaker 1: dollars price for these hideous things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I mean, I guess it's part part of
Speaker 2: merch you know, fan merchant, all that stuff. I will say,
Speaker 2: you know, at least our merchandise union made, and it's actually.
Speaker 3: It's actually nice, high quality. Our stuff is actually genuine,
Speaker 3: high quality.
Speaker 2: I don't feel bad charging what we do because a
Speaker 2: it's made in America, it's made with the union labor,
Speaker 2: and it's nice.
Speaker 3: It's actually nicer than most of the stuff.
Speaker 2: But when you mark your stuff up by several hundred percent,
Speaker 2: and it's an inferior product, Like I said, So I
Speaker 2: looked up the names I was blanking on it. They're
Speaker 2: the Nike mid Blazers. That's a very classic shoe as you.
Speaker 3: Can see here. Yeah, those are nice, very very classic.
Speaker 3: I actually own a pair. And then the Converse Chuck Taylor.
Speaker 2: Obviously that's one of those, you know, the most classic
Speaker 2: designs in all of men's where you can mess around
Speaker 2: a little bit with some of the ancillary at details.
Speaker 2: Doesn't necessarily need be Converse, Nike or any of that.
Speaker 2: But really what you're going for is like a clean esthetic.
Speaker 2: That's something you can put together that is not going
Speaker 2: to draw too much attention down to the shoe.
Speaker 3: All great outfits should draw attention to the face.
Speaker 2: Part of the reason why wearing a gaudy pair of
Speaker 2: fox leather sneakers would violate some of the fundamental rules.
Speaker 1: What do you think it could cost the goods on
Speaker 1: these monstrosities are.
Speaker 2: It depends, I mean, it depends on how many he's made.
Speaker 2: If they're being made to order, it doesn't sound like
Speaker 2: they made all too many of them. Maybe twenty thirty
Speaker 2: bucks something like that unit costs whenever we're factoring in
Speaker 2: shipping and all of that, maybe forty something else messy,
Speaker 2: So it's a decent amount of pocket that's going into
Speaker 2: the for the big man. But hey, that one lady
Speaker 2: seemed really happy. The other guy at the same time,
Speaker 2: you know what he paid nine thousand bucks. There's the
Speaker 2: trump there's a crazy trump boat guy out there who
Speaker 2: will buy some of those on stock X.
Speaker 3: Like we know that they exist.
Speaker 2: So from an investment point of view, he's not wrong
Speaker 2: per se.
Speaker 3: To be helped to buy it.
Speaker 5: I wonder what they are retailing for.
Speaker 2: Let's look, I will look it up right now. Okay,
Speaker 2: So with some research on eBay, here's what we've got.
Speaker 2: We've got one pair going for a size nine chrystal
Speaker 2: going for.
Speaker 3: Forty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Another one here with eleven watchers on eBay and fifty
Speaker 2: dollars in shipping the man. The galls on this guy
Speaker 2: twenty three thousand, five hundred dollars. Another one going for
Speaker 2: seventeen thousand. The cheapest gold pair that I can find
Speaker 2: on eBay right now is two thousand, five hundred bucks.
Speaker 2: And these are all oh eight thousand here. Yeah, so
Speaker 2: it looks like this man made a good trade. Good
Speaker 2: trade to him the assigned ones. If a basic pair
Speaker 2: can be listed for forty five k.
Speaker 3: Imagine what's some weirdo out there is going.
Speaker 1: To pay so I guess that dude that bought the
Speaker 1: nine thousand dollars pair.
Speaker 5: I agree that, guys, wasn't a bad deal.
Speaker 3: I was a good deal. It was a good deal.
Speaker 2: Now you know, it's still risky, you never know, still
Speaker 2: questionable financial decision if I was his partner or somebody
Speaker 2: like that, but hey, you never know.
Speaker 3: And good luck to the man in his eBay avengers.
Speaker 3: I certainly wish him luck.
Speaker 5: What a world we live in?
Speaker 3: All right, let's move on to the next part.
Speaker 2: Speaking of what a world we live in, we wanted
Speaker 2: to cover this and just give a general reaction. We
Speaker 2: haven't been able to do that one yet. From Sora,
Speaker 2: the new product that is being released at least being
Speaker 2: red teamed currently by a select few that's been released
Speaker 2: by Open Ai. This is text to video in some
Speaker 2: of the most stunning imagery from AI that we have
Speaker 2: seen yet. We have a couple of prompts that we
Speaker 2: wanted to show everybody. The first one, let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen, is just amazing. This was
Speaker 2: where the first really one that they released. It says
Speaker 2: for those who are just listening, a beautiful, snowy Tokyo
Speaker 2: city is bustling The camera moves through the bustling city street,
Speaker 2: following several people enjoying the snowy weather shopping at nearby stalls.
Speaker 2: Gorgeous sakura petals are flying through the wind along with snowflakes.
Speaker 2: I mean, it really does appear real. It's only whenever
Speaker 2: you get really close in crystal to some of their
Speaker 2: faces that you can tell that it's fake because it's
Speaker 2: a bit blurry and it's still in that uncanny valley.
Speaker 2: But if you are a decent enough away from their profile,
Speaker 2: it would pass the smell test. I think it's no
Speaker 2: longer really there. The next one, too, is quite a
Speaker 2: let's go and put this one up there. Two Golden
Speaker 2: retrievers podcasting on top of a mountain. What gets me
Speaker 2: is the realistic way that that Golden retriever is panting.
Speaker 2: Now Here we have said. A white and orange tabby
Speaker 2: cat seen happily darting through a dense garden, chasing something.
Speaker 2: If eyes are wide and happy as it jogs forward,
Speaker 2: scanning the branch as flowers and leaves as it walks.
Speaker 2: The path is narrow as it makes its way between
Speaker 2: all the plants. The scene is captured from a ground
Speaker 2: level angle following the cat closely.
Speaker 3: This one does appear to fake to me. I'm not
Speaker 3: sure about you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this one's in the Uncanny Valley for the for
Speaker 2: the cat. The other two they look real. The golden
Speaker 2: one is the most real.
Speaker 5: I agree with you. And the thing with the dogs.
Speaker 5: First of all, they're adorable.
Speaker 1: Yes, on their little red and white picnic blanket on
Speaker 1: the mountain, the little head phones on, and the way
Speaker 1: that the wind is rustling their furs, right, it's like,
Speaker 1: how do you do that? I mean, you know, And
Speaker 1: it's just based on that text prompt of two Golden
Speaker 1: Retrievers podcasting on a mountain, and you get the scenery
Speaker 1: is beautiful. The thought of like putting them on this
Speaker 1: little blanket and the microphone looks in the headphones and
Speaker 1: the way that they're interacting with each other, it's it's
Speaker 1: pretty wild.
Speaker 5: I mean it is incredible.
Speaker 1: The number of scenes that I've seen, especially the ones
Speaker 1: that are like scenery or landscape, I mean, those seem
Speaker 1: very very real.
Speaker 3: And very accurate. Crystal we can actually this is amazing.
Speaker 2: This is actually if when it does come out, this
Speaker 2: is what I'm gonna use it most for, which is
Speaker 2: historical footage.
Speaker 3: Let's put this one please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Historical footage of California during the gold Rush. What's amazing
Speaker 2: about this is not just like the dead wood style architecture,
Speaker 2: the horses and everything. Is also like the patina color
Speaker 2: on the camera as if.
Speaker 3: It's old footage, and the landscape.
Speaker 2: Reverting it back to where it was, the oxen, you know,
Speaker 2: people pulling just i mean, the shadows there like in
Speaker 2: the saloon. For me, that is just absolutely amazing. Again,
Speaker 2: you don't get in far enough to realize the uncanny
Speaker 2: valley here. Also, just to show everybody the progress that's
Speaker 2: been made, here's one from twenty twenty three of Will
Speaker 2: Smith that there was an original prompt. It was like
Speaker 2: show Will Smith eating spaghetti. Now compare it to where
Speaker 2: we are now. Look how awful you know, his features,
Speaker 2: his eyes and never it's terrible. Yeah, I mean it's
Speaker 2: just it's his mouth, you know, barely opens. And then
Speaker 2: look at the realistic nature. I'm not sure what the
Speaker 2: prompt is on that other one, but it's like old
Speaker 2: man with a beard sitting in a cafe, people moving
Speaker 2: behind him.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it looks basic.
Speaker 2: It's almost the only reason that we can tell it's
Speaker 2: not real is because his features are a little bit
Speaker 2: too perfect.
Speaker 3: It's like things are.
Speaker 2: Just a little bit too smooth. It's like if somebody
Speaker 2: hits airbrush or something.
Speaker 1: But well, yeah, I agree, agree, But I do feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, we have the luxury of knowing that it
Speaker 1: was AI generated.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 1: I think that if I just saw that video and
Speaker 1: didn't know, I don't think that I would pick up
Speaker 1: on that because, like you said, it could just be
Speaker 1: it could easily just be a filter. It could just
Speaker 1: be the light, you know, good lighting making him look
Speaker 1: in you know, the most ideal way.
Speaker 5: That he could possibly look.
Speaker 3: So I do.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have passed a significant rubicon now where
Speaker 1: it is not just rubes and people who aren't very
Speaker 1: sophisticated and people who don't have a good eye or
Speaker 1: whatever who can be completely one hundred percent tricked by
Speaker 1: these because especially depending on the prompt and depending on
Speaker 1: what you're talking about, I think the human beings are
Speaker 1: still the most challenging. But that old man, like I said,
Speaker 1: I mean, that looks very real to me. We are
Speaker 1: in a new phase now, and there's a lot to
Speaker 1: say about I can't even wrap my head around all
Speaker 1: of the implications of not only where this technology is
Speaker 1: right now, but as you were just pointing out, the
Speaker 1: fact that it developed and progressed so quickly.
Speaker 5: In one year is mind blowing.
Speaker 1: It's extraordinary, and I also feel like it's kind of
Speaker 1: terrifying because I don't know what all the implications are,
Speaker 1: and neither do these people who are developing it and
Speaker 1: putting it out into the world, and certainly neither do
Speaker 1: our lawmakers have any sort of a grasp of what
Speaker 1: the risks.
Speaker 5: And what the potential implications are.
Speaker 1: So I am the camp in the camp that is
Speaker 1: amazed by this, but also very very unsettled by what
Speaker 1: it could mean.
Speaker 2: Some of the implications so far that I've seen commercial
Speaker 2: application what you might see in our producer Griffin floats
Speaker 2: that all commercials may basically be over now, or you
Speaker 2: can get decent enough stock footage and other things that
Speaker 2: you can use in the past, you no longer have
Speaker 2: to hire actors. One of the immediate implications I thought
Speaker 2: of for people who work in film is think about
Speaker 2: how much nicer it will be for storyboarding. An idea like,
Speaker 2: if you're working on a project and you want to
Speaker 2: just get to roughly what it should look like and
Speaker 2: your vision. You can use something like this instead of
Speaker 2: having cartoon artists and others sketch things out. Secondary is
Speaker 2: we can think about animated film. What's something that could
Speaker 2: look like the ways that you know Disney, Pixar and
Speaker 2: all the other magic that we've seen him.
Speaker 3: This was revolutionary technology.
Speaker 2: It's why Pixar was one of the most such a
Speaker 2: valuable part of Disney that Disney even purchased them.
Speaker 3: It's a huge part of childhood.
Speaker 2: You can think about, you know, using a product like
Speaker 2: this to dramatically lower the unit costs, move things over
Speaker 2: to YouTube in terms of voiceover and all that.
Speaker 3: It just takes a lot of the work out of
Speaker 3: it because then you just.
Speaker 2: Have to put that in there. You don't have to
Speaker 2: do any of the animation. Those are just things that
Speaker 2: immediately come to mind. Yeah, and I'm trying to think
Speaker 2: about circumstances that we may use it. So, from what
Speaker 2: we understand right now, our team will use AI stuff
Speaker 2: a mid journey I believe, for thumbnails, like in retrospect. So,
Speaker 2: but I'm trying to think about maybe a circumstance that
Speaker 2: if we want to recreate something that had happened and
Speaker 2: explain it to our audience. Maybe we could type something
Speaker 2: in here, and especially if it gets good enough with politicians,
Speaker 2: you could create a scenario where somebody can literally have
Speaker 2: it come to life.
Speaker 3: I'm just thinking out loud.
Speaker 1: Imagine Gavin Newsom at the Democratic Contention giving his acceptance
Speaker 1: speech after he just vanquished Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5: What what would it look like?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I struggle to really understand what the
Speaker 1: implications would be for us in particular. The thing that
Speaker 1: is very clear is just we're at a point now,
Speaker 1: guys where you just you.
Speaker 5: Can't believe your eyes.
Speaker 1: You know, just because you were seeing a video, a picture, whatever,
Speaker 1: audio and it looks real, it sounds real, it feels real,
Speaker 1: does not mean that it's real. And that is I
Speaker 1: think a very difficult thing for human beings to struggle with.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're ready for it. I don't think
Speaker 1: our politicians are ready for it. The most clear is
Speaker 1: you're pointing out sager implications in terms of industry and workers.
Speaker 1: Is in Hollywood, as you guys know, because we covered
Speaker 1: it extensively at the time, both the actors and the
Speaker 1: writers and the director, they were all on strike and
Speaker 1: some of the key things that they were concerned about
Speaker 1: were implications of AI, and for the actors, this rapid
Speaker 1: development and technology has the largest implications. The contract that
Speaker 1: they just agreed to and signed does not have great
Speaker 1: protections in.
Speaker 5: Terms of AI.
Speaker 1: It has some provisions, but even at the time, there's
Speaker 1: a reason why many of these contract deals, once they're crafted,
Speaker 1: they get overwhelming like ninety eight percent support. This one
Speaker 1: had more reluctance associated with the rank and file, specifically
Speaker 1: because of concerns over AI protections. Wired had a good
Speaker 1: write up at the time, can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So one of the people who worked directly
Speaker 1: on the AI provisions and with sounding the alarms about
Speaker 1: some of the language in the agreement, she said that
Speaker 1: she was worried primarily about quote unquote synthetic performance performers
Speaker 1: or AIS that resemble humans.
Speaker 5: Quote.
Speaker 1: This gives the studios and streamers a green light to
Speaker 1: use human looking AI objects instead of hiring a human actor.
Speaker 1: It's one thing to use generative AI to make a
Speaker 1: King Kong or a flying serpent. It is another to
Speaker 1: have an AI object play a human character instead of
Speaker 1: a real actor.
Speaker 5: So how do you regulate that.
Speaker 1: And there are some provisions in here that's like, you
Speaker 1: can't just take Denzel Washington and AI generate him and
Speaker 1: put them in your thing. However, what if you take
Speaker 1: someone with a lot of the characteristics of Denzel Washington
Speaker 1: who's sort of giving Denzel Washington but isn't.
Speaker 5: Actually exactly like Denzel Washington.
Speaker 1: Where do you draw the line of where the boundaries
Speaker 1: are legally? But I feel like we see this already
Speaker 1: in some of the legislation, the lawsuits over music and
Speaker 1: whether or not some you know, beat or rhythm or
Speaker 1: part of a track was used illegally by another artist,
Speaker 1: and you have to go through the courtroom process of
Speaker 1: like is it similar enough to count as being a
Speaker 1: ripoff an.
Speaker 5: Infringement or not.
Speaker 1: So we're moving into a realm where that will have
Speaker 1: to be legislated in court too, like how close can
Speaker 1: you come to a known actor before you're over the
Speaker 1: line and you're ripping off that person's likeness. The other
Speaker 1: thing that they expect is that this will further increase
Speaker 1: the sort of inequality in Hollywood in terms of the
Speaker 1: acting profession, because if you are an a list star,
Speaker 1: you have the money and you have the you know,
Speaker 1: brand awareness and the media attention, et cetera, to fight
Speaker 1: back if you and your likeness are being used in
Speaker 1: these ways that are potentially over the line. If you
Speaker 1: aren't that person, if you aren't the Denzel Washington, you
Speaker 1: don't have the resources to fight back. You are expendable,
Speaker 1: and AI is very cheap, so they can render someone
Speaker 1: who looks very much like you and sounds very much
Speaker 1: like you and plug you into the background of films,
Speaker 1: plug you in as an extra, and you don't see
Speaker 1: a dime. So I do think for a lot of
Speaker 1: actors who aren't you know, the top, the top, the top,
Speaker 1: this is a quite an existential threat to their industry
Speaker 1: and to their work. In the same way, and they
Speaker 1: make this parallel and the wired piece in the same
Speaker 1: way that automated truck driving is a threat to teamsters
Speaker 1: and professional truck drivers. This is already an existential threat
Speaker 1: to many acting professionals.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I certainly think it does. In terms of what
Speaker 3: we should do about it, I honestly don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm still in a wait and see mode just because
Speaker 2: something I always talk about full self driving technology for
Speaker 2: Tesla and all that. Listen, you know, it can get
Speaker 2: you on the highway, but like if you're asking it
Speaker 2: to turn left or something in a crowded street, good luck,
Speaker 2: it's not there. And this is billions of dollars that
Speaker 2: have been thrown at everyone's like, Oh, this is going
Speaker 2: to replace Hollywood. I just don't think so. I can't
Speaker 2: continue to come back to the nom Chonski op ed.
Speaker 2: Remember they wrote in the New York Times about how
Speaker 2: LMS fundamentally misunderstand the evolution of human language. A thought
Speaker 2: of creativity and look, Gnome, you can think whatever you
Speaker 2: want about his politics. I happen to agree with some
Speaker 2: of it, but he is a world renowned linguist. He
Speaker 2: kind of knows what he's talking about. And the point
Speaker 2: that he makes is that syntax, the construction of language
Speaker 2: and all of that itself. Simply compiling that in the
Speaker 2: database just misses the deep human like evolution of language
Speaker 2: over what six million years now, Yeah, that's been happening.
Speaker 2: I happen to have some faith in that. That doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that this won't be a very very useful tool.
Speaker 2: I don't see it as replacement.
Speaker 3: Maybe the AI will roll this and laugh at me
Speaker 3: ten years from now or whatever. But yeah, I could
Speaker 3: be wrong. We'll see.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is in a scriptive production, though you're
Speaker 1: not depending on the AI to generate the human like speech.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: True, you have skeeek screenwriters, although I mean potentially they're
Speaker 1: heading in the direction of also using AI at least
Speaker 1: for first drafts or polishing or whatever. But you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the video piece, I think the technology
Speaker 1: is already at a place where for extras it's done.
Speaker 1: Like if you have you know, your primary actors in
Speaker 1: the front of the scene, and you've got people behind
Speaker 1: you eating and walking and walking the dog and talking to.
Speaker 5: Their kids or whatever.
Speaker 1: This tech is already good enough that you could do
Speaker 1: that and no one would notice that these aren't actual
Speaker 1: real human beings.
Speaker 3: And there's other stuff like that. I'm not a hun
Speaker 3: percent familiar.
Speaker 2: I believe the term are like secondaries, like things that
Speaker 2: you film away from the main cast.
Speaker 3: Sometimes you can be like tracking shots or extra stuff.
Speaker 2: If you could use AI for that, you just save
Speaker 2: money on a drone, you save money on a helicopter.
Speaker 3: You know, there's all kinds of scenery shots.
Speaker 1: And then all the crew that would be responsible for
Speaker 1: filming that and editing that, et cetera. I mean there
Speaker 1: it would also impact their industry greatly as well. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, the fulsome implications. I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: can really wrap their head around what it's going to
Speaker 1: look like and where the technology is going to end up.
Speaker 5: But I think.
Speaker 1: Already there are clear huge implications for Hollywood in particular,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm not sure that I don't feel
Speaker 1: like we are ready to grapple with the fallout for
Speaker 1: what this incredible technology is going to mean for that
Speaker 1: industry in particular, but more broadly as well.
Speaker 3: I agree totally.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, we have a lot of developments to
Speaker 1: get to with regard to Israel. First of all, just
Speaker 1: breaking really today. The first news came out yesterday, but
Speaker 1: fully being picked up by the process this morning. The
Speaker 1: US has decided to push its own version of a
Speaker 1: temporary ceasefire resolution through the UN Security Council. We can
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. It has some of
Speaker 1: the details. This comes as Algeria had offered a separate
Speaker 1: resolution that the US is intending to block. So the
Speaker 1: headline here from Reuter's is US proposals UN Security Council
Speaker 1: oppose RAFA assault back temporary Gaza ceasefire. We have proposed
Speaker 1: a rival draft UN Security Council resolution that will call
Speaker 1: for a temporary ceasefire in Israel Hamas war and oppose
Speaker 1: a major ground offensive by Israel in Rafa. According to
Speaker 1: text seen by Reuters, the move comes after the US
Speaker 1: signaled it would veto on Tuesday an Algerian drafted resolution
Speaker 1: that would demand an immediate humanitarian ceasefire over concerns. This
Speaker 1: is according to our people, that it could jeopardize talks
Speaker 1: between the US, Egypt, Israel and Cutter that seeks to
Speaker 1: broker a pause in the war the release of hostages
Speaker 1: held by Hamas. Until now, Washington has been averse to
Speaker 1: the word ceasefire in any UN action on the Israel
Speaker 1: Hamas war. But the US text echoes language that President
Speaker 1: Biden said he used last week in conversations with net Nyahu.
Speaker 1: It would see the Security Council underscore its support for
Speaker 1: a temporary ceasefire. This is all in quotes right now
Speaker 1: in Gaza as soon as practicable, based on the formula
Speaker 1: of all hostages being released and calls for lifting all
Speaker 1: barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale. I
Speaker 1: also want to call your attention to what they're reporting.
Speaker 1: The proposed draft says specifically about Rafa. Because they don't
Speaker 1: say no, you can never do a ground offensive in Rafa.
Speaker 1: They say that they have determined, under current circumstances, a
Speaker 1: major ground offensive into Rafa would result in for their
Speaker 1: harms of civilians and their further displacement, including potentially into
Speaker 1: neighboring countries. Let me go ahead and put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen, because with regard to Raffa,
Speaker 1: this is incredibly critical. Israel is imminently threatening a full
Speaker 1: scale Rafa invasion for the first time. They set a
Speaker 1: specific deadline of the beginning of the Muslim holy day
Speaker 1: of Ramadan, which starts on March tenth. That is, per
Speaker 1: Benny Gantz, who is a member of the Israeli War Cabinet,
Speaker 1: delivering effectively an ultimatum at a Sunday event, he said,
Speaker 1: and I quote, the world must know and Hamma's leaders
Speaker 1: must know that if by Ramada on the hostages are
Speaker 1: not home, then the fighting will continue, including in Rafa.
Speaker 1: I don't have to tell you, guys, but I will
Speaker 1: remind you again that Palestinians have been pushed south multiple
Speaker 1: times until now you have the bulk of the population
Speaker 1: one point three million Palestinians who are clustered right up
Speaker 1: alongside the border with Egypt in the city of Rafa.
Speaker 5: There is nowhere else for them to go.
Speaker 1: The humanitarian conditions are already appalling. The bombing that was
Speaker 1: used as like a distraction while Israel rescued two of
Speaker 1: their hostages killed some sixty plus Palestinians. So it's not
Speaker 1: like Rafa is safe right now. But what they're talking
Speaker 1: about soccer would be another order of magnitude. So, I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to make of this US move.
Speaker 1: It is noteworthy that they are going to allow something
Speaker 1: through the Security Council, that that something includes this forbidden
Speaker 1: word of ceasefire, that it at least expresses concern about
Speaker 1: a ground invasion of Rafa. But as always, the question
Speaker 1: is not just what are you going to say, but
Speaker 1: what are you going to do? What is going to
Speaker 1: be behind this Security Council resolution to actually try to
Speaker 1: get to Israel to stop the slaughter here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, obviously the U and Security Crencil resolution has no
Speaker 2: authority or ability to enforce anything.
Speaker 3: It comes down to the Member States of what's his name.
Speaker 2: BB has said repeatedly, if you are saying that we
Speaker 2: can't go into Rafa, you're saying we can't defeat the enemy,
Speaker 2: you're saying that we cannot prosecute the war. So which
Speaker 2: is I mean, he's made it very clear that this
Speaker 2: is something that they're going to do.
Speaker 3: At the same time, I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe this could have some move because it
Speaker 2: does show the first time that the US is saying no,
Speaker 2: you can't go into Rafa, or at the very least
Speaker 2: allowing a resolution or something like that to go through.
Speaker 2: Apparently the President told by Bebe that on the phone.
Speaker 2: This is a direct contradiction apparently of what the Israeli
Speaker 2: war cabinet wants. In terms of the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: story that I know we've read about the Israeli plans
Speaker 2: to go into Gaza they say in the coming weeks,
Speaker 2: there does seem to be some ambiguity here about whether
Speaker 2: this is going to be allowed through. I was floating
Speaker 2: a theory with Ryan, I wonder what you think. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if the Israelis and the Egyptians are almost
Speaker 2: talking a bit behind the scenes as to why the
Speaker 2: Egyptians would have built that large fence around Rafa for
Speaker 2: some sort of like refugee containment zone. It could be
Speaker 2: that they're waiting until something like that has occurred.
Speaker 3: I genuinely don't know.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen reporting or something like that to effect.
Speaker 2: I would not put it past the two governments to
Speaker 2: do something like that in response to this. So I
Speaker 2: don't know what all of the chess pieces here mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm skeptical of the US's here.
Speaker 1: I do pick up on the fact that they're not
Speaker 1: saying you can't go into Rafa. They're saying under current circumstances. Interesting,
Speaker 1: and you know BB is already they're already floating like, oh,
Speaker 1: you guys can build a tense city and you know,
Speaker 1: then I guess the circumstances would be different and then
Speaker 1: we could go ahead. So I see a lot of
Speaker 1: wiggle room here. I thought Ryan made a great point
Speaker 1: in You Guys Show yesterday. He said, you know, they're
Speaker 1: pushing Palestinians up against the border, and there's all this
Speaker 1: pressure on Egypt to allow this Palestinian refugee population into
Speaker 1: their country. And of course, you know that is it's
Speaker 1: an impossible situation that the Israelis had put everybody into
Speaker 1: because Egypt, first of all, is worried about political instability,
Speaker 1: second of all, is worried about participating in an ethnic
Speaker 1: cleansing Palestinans and Gaza obviously very fearful that if they
Speaker 1: left the Gaza Strip they would never be allowed to
Speaker 1: return to their homes. You know, obvious solution is, okay, Israel,
Speaker 1: if you want to go into Rafa, you can have
Speaker 1: the tent city or you know, in Israel, and how's
Speaker 1: the civilian population, and then there wouldn't be the fear
Speaker 1: of you're not going to let us return to our
Speaker 1: homes in the Gaza Strip. Obviously, in that instance, they
Speaker 1: would allow you to return to your home in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip because they don't want you in Israel. So
Speaker 1: the fact that they put that completely off the table
Speaker 1: tells you a whole lot about their actual care and
Speaker 1: concern for the Palestinian civilian population, which is not only none,
Speaker 1: but as we've documented here, I mean, the clear intent
Speaker 1: at this point is just devastation, annihilation, pain, suffering, collective
Speaker 1: punishment of the Palestinian civilian population. And you know that
Speaker 1: has been very clear from the beginning of this offensive
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 5: So you know, it's.
Speaker 1: Interesting development, and I have no idea where things go
Speaker 1: from here. I really don't know if the ceasefire negotiations,
Speaker 1: the temporary ceasefire negotiations, have any real shot at coming
Speaker 1: to fruition. I can tell you the domestic pressure on
Speaker 1: Bbie continues to be in the direction of continue doing
Speaker 1: this thing indefinitely. There had previously been a pole soccer
Speaker 1: that we covered that Israeli citizens preferred the goal of
Speaker 1: freeing the hostages over quote unquote defeating Hamas. I saw
Speaker 1: a new poll that had the opposite conclusion that they
Speaker 1: put the first priority of defeating Hamas. Bbe of course
Speaker 1: knows the war has to continue. For him to continue
Speaker 1: his hold on power, he needs to bring home some
Speaker 1: sort of victory, which they have not been able to
Speaker 1: manage thus far. And so that's where we are. Does
Speaker 1: this resolution really move the needle without also threatening you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to send the weapons that you need
Speaker 1: to engage in this offensive. There are going to be
Speaker 1: other consequences if you do these things that we are
Speaker 1: asking you not to do. I think that would probably
Speaker 1: be more consequential, but we haven't seen that yet yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 5: At the same.
Speaker 1: Time, you know, speaking of pressure on bb and on
Speaker 1: the Israeli domestic society.
Speaker 5: This was quite extraordinary. And put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: The Israeli economy on an annual basis shrank at a
Speaker 1: twenty percent rate in the final quarter of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: So if you extrapolate out the economic crash of the
Speaker 1: end of twenty twenty three to an entire year, you
Speaker 1: are talking about GDP shrinking by twenty percent. It is
Speaker 1: impossible to explain what a massive contraction that would ultimately be.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking about even beyond the level of
Speaker 1: things like COVID. No, it's nuts that, yeah, it is.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely nuts. Let me give you a little
Speaker 1: bit of the explanation of what happened here. They say
Speaker 1: the sharp drop in that ftpiece was caused in part
Speaker 1: by the colup of three hundred thousand reservists who had
Speaker 1: to leave behind their workplaces and businesses. Other factors did
Speaker 1: the economy included the government sponsorship of housing for more
Speaker 1: than one hundred and twenty thousand Israelis who have been
Speaker 1: evacuated from the northern and southern borders following the October
Speaker 1: seventh attack. I think this one is actually really critical.
Speaker 1: Israelin posts tough restrictions on the movement of Palestinian workers
Speaker 1: from the West Bank into the country. That move hit
Speaker 1: the construction sector, causing labor shortages that became an additional
Speaker 1: drag on economic growth. So they basically use Palestinians as
Speaker 1: like day laborers to do the jobs that Israeli citizens
Speaker 1: don't want to do. And so for all of those
Speaker 1: workers to effectively be banned and not available for work,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's been devastating for Palestinians for the West
Speaker 1: Bank economy also has been really bad for the Israeli economy.
Speaker 1: In addition, they said imports of goods and services fell
Speaker 1: forty two percent while exports dropped eighteen percent. So you
Speaker 1: have had this just massive collapse in economic activity. You
Speaker 1: also have a huge number of Israeli's estimates are around
Speaker 1: half a million who have just left the country and
Speaker 1: not clear whether or not they're going to come back.
Speaker 1: So the economic toll of this war on Israel has
Speaker 1: been really actually quite extraordinary, and this was worse. People
Speaker 1: knew there was going to be a drop in economic growth,
Speaker 1: They did not predict anything like twenty percent on an
Speaker 1: annual basis.
Speaker 2: Well, the imports of the goods following forty two percent
Speaker 2: is also nuts because Israel obviously is a society that
Speaker 2: is deeply reliant on import export. Export's also dropping by
Speaker 2: eighteen percent. So they've got the high tech economy that
Speaker 2: can save them in the future. That's you know, if
Speaker 2: sanctions and other things don't go through, but at the
Speaker 2: very basic level like what they need to subsist on
Speaker 2: and then basically becoming a completely backstopped by government spending,
Speaker 2: that's not a good situation to be in for their
Speaker 2: domestic economy. Losing all these people, and it just demonstrates
Speaker 2: too Look for the Israelis, you want peace, you cannot
Speaker 2: live this way.
Speaker 3: You know, having one hundred thousand people or so, if you.
Speaker 2: Guys go to war with Lebanon, you're gonna have a
Speaker 2: million people that you're gonna have to evacuate.
Speaker 3: You're going to pay all their bills.
Speaker 2: You've either got to ship them out of the country
Speaker 2: or you're gonna rehouse them, or some of the intellivision.
Speaker 2: You've got to pay that rent as we can see,
Speaker 2: which is bankrupting the government. Not to mention if you
Speaker 2: have to recall those three hundred thousand reservists, you've got
Speaker 2: to pay them, and you've got to try and replace
Speaker 2: them whenever there's a labor crisis and all this this
Speaker 2: will basically make you a total war economy. I was
Speaker 2: talking about this with Ryan yesterday, but one of the
Speaker 2: things we were talking in the Russian context too. Something
Speaker 2: that is clear is that when you transition to this,
Speaker 2: coming out of it is immensely difficult, and you were
Speaker 2: signing yourselves up for years of inflation, of shortages, of
Speaker 2: labor disputes. Just look to our own history or any
Speaker 2: other economy that comes out of this. You want to
Speaker 2: exit as soon as humanly possible. But I don't think
Speaker 2: people there have felt it yet. It could actually take
Speaker 2: a long time before people start to really feel it
Speaker 2: at that level.
Speaker 3: But this goes to show that for years and years
Speaker 3: and years.
Speaker 2: To come, they're going to be grappling with the decisions
Speaker 2: being made in these more than one hundred days.
Speaker 5: No doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And this is why I'm covering today in my monologue.
Speaker 1: There's multiple things happening at the ICJ this week. On Friday,
Speaker 1: Israel's facing a deadline to prove that they are complying
Speaker 1: with the injunctions issued by the ICJ with regard to
Speaker 1: them plausibly committing a genocide. I think they are very
Speaker 1: much flogging that desk. I'll talk more about that in
Speaker 1: amount long later this week. But they also are facing
Speaker 1: these hearings over the illegal nature of their occupation. And
Speaker 1: you know, in ordinary times they could easily shrunk this
Speaker 1: off right and it wouldn't matter because for number one,
Speaker 1: a lot of the world wouldn't even be paying attention.
Speaker 1: You know this, this international institutions, they have no teeth.
Speaker 1: They you know, had an injunction against them, an advisory
Speaker 1: ruling go against them in two thousand and four. They
Speaker 1: didn't care. They were supposed to. There's, you know, the
Speaker 1: barrier wall in the West Bank, they're supposed to take
Speaker 1: it down. Not only they not take it down, they
Speaker 1: actually expanded it. So it shows you how much care
Speaker 1: and concern they give and credence they give to these
Speaker 1: decisions they go against them. But you're now at a
Speaker 1: time where you know, the economy is incredibly dire shape,
Speaker 1: and so the more that these decisions go against you,
Speaker 1: and the more that you have effectively world pariah status.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is you know, this is basically what
Speaker 1: the BDS movement was trying to accomplish all these years,
Speaker 1: and it's part of what put pressure on South Africa
Speaker 1: during apartheid as well.
Speaker 5: Is this you know, global pariahs.
Speaker 1: Status that was devastating to the country, to their world prestige,
Speaker 1: to their economy, et cetera. And so you know, you
Speaker 1: are inching closer and closer to that being a reality,
Speaker 1: which is why some of these things which may not
Speaker 1: ordinarily matter, like rulings at the ICJ, may have a
Speaker 1: little bit of a different implication at this particular moment,
Speaker 1: given the precarity that Netnyahu has has steered the Israeli
Speaker 1: economy and the Israeli society into for the first time ever.
Speaker 1: In addition, credit rating agency downgraded Israel. This has never
Speaker 1: happened before.
Speaker 5: This was Moody's. We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 5: They downgraded Israel's credit rating.
Speaker 1: This was a couple of weeks ago, citing material political
Speaker 1: and fiscal risks for the country from its war with
Speaker 1: Palestinian militant group ham Us. The impact of the conflict
Speaker 1: raises political risk and weakens Israel's executive and legislative institutions.
Speaker 1: It's fiscal strength for the FACI seeable future. Moody's had
Speaker 1: begun this review for a downgrade on October nineteenth, and
Speaker 1: this just came through in early February. The country's rating
Speaker 1: was cut to a two. That is still five notches
Speaker 1: above investment grades, so it's still, like, you know, a
Speaker 1: solid credit rating, but it's the first down grade ever
Speaker 1: in history, and its credit outlook was kept negative by Moody's,
Speaker 1: meaning that a further downgrade is possible.
Speaker 5: Babe was furious.
Speaker 1: About this downgrade, and always, you know, his level of
Speaker 1: fury is indicative of how much he thinks these things
Speaker 1: may actually matter and what the consequences could be. Put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, he said, the decision does
Speaker 1: not reflect the state of the country's economy.
Speaker 5: It is entirely due to the fact that we are
Speaker 5: at war.
Speaker 1: The rating will go back up as soon as we
Speaker 1: win the war. So he responded very strongly to this news.
Speaker 1: When this dropped a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: Back, well, obviously matters, like I said, for trade, for
Speaker 2: the your ability to conduct commerce expors imports is exactly
Speaker 2: why we freak out whenever our credit rating goes down,
Speaker 2: and they're not.
Speaker 5: The world's reserve tu Sun loans, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have way less.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they have way more to worry about from an
Speaker 2: international financial system point of view than we do. So
Speaker 2: it's one of those where these are exactly all the
Speaker 2: long term concerns that we've laid out here before, which
Speaker 2: are remain ever present for the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Speaking of long term concerns, you know, this war has
Speaker 1: long now spilled outside of the borders of the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 1: and we have continued tit for tat escalations between Israel
Speaker 1: and Lebanon, in particular.
Speaker 5: It can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: There was some you know, pretty wild imagery coming out
Speaker 1: of southern Lebanon here of Israeli airstrikes on a town
Speaker 1: here in southern Lebanon, according to the Israeli military and
Speaker 1: Lebanese state media. So let me go and read you
Speaker 1: a little bit about this Lebanese arm group. Has one
Speaker 1: Israel been exchanging your daily fire across the border since
Speaker 1: Israel launched its assault on Gaza in response to the
Speaker 1: Hamas ledt on October seventh. In Israeli army spokesman said
Speaker 1: on Monday, we targeted Hesbela weapons depost near Saidan in
Speaker 1: response to explosion of an enemy craft whose wreckage we
Speaker 1: found near the Tiberius area this afternoon. Will continue to
Speaker 1: act forcefully in response to Hesbela attacks. On Friday, hesbel
Speaker 1: A Secretary General Hassan Usralla vowed that Israel would pay
Speaker 1: quote with blood for civilians it killed in Lebanon. He
Speaker 1: warned the group possesses missiles that could reach anywhere in Israel.
Speaker 1: Heswela has reported around two hundred of its fighters have
Speaker 1: been killed since the cross border escalation started. That so,
Speaker 1: this continues to be an extraordinary area of risk for
Speaker 1: a broader conflagration, even more so than what we've already seen.
Speaker 2: More so, yesterday, this was actually pretty interesting. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. The new attack on
Speaker 2: a ship by the Hoho Thies appears to have been
Speaker 2: their most damaging attack that's launched to date.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: The crew of a cargo ship was forced to abandon
Speaker 2: after it came under attack from Husti militia and Yemen
Speaker 2: who'd been firing missiles at the Red Sea. This ship
Speaker 2: was called the Ruby, appeared to be one of the
Speaker 2: who these most damage so far, most of the arm
Speaker 2: groups missiles and dronosault ships have failed to inflict serious damage.
Speaker 2: These were two anti ship missiles that were launched from
Speaker 2: Yemen at nine to thirty times according to the US military,
Speaker 2: and they said that one of the missiles actually struck
Speaker 2: the ship quote, causing damage and making the ship have
Speaker 2: a distress call.
Speaker 3: Don't know much about the ship actually right now.
Speaker 2: It said that their management office was in Lebanon to
Speaker 2: confirm that it had attacked.
Speaker 3: We don't know what a destination or any of that.
Speaker 2: Was there, but it does demonstrate that this continues to
Speaker 2: happen and it's going to dramatically drop sea traffic. You
Speaker 2: know in the sus Canal Crystal you found this as well.
Speaker 2: If please put this up there on the screen and
Speaker 2: it shows us how a significant hit Egypt has taken
Speaker 2: in just four hundred and twenty eight million dollars last month,
Speaker 2: which is nearly half of the eight four million dollars
Speaker 2: they took in the same period in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: causing major fiscal problems, but also just indicative of how bad,
Speaker 2: how bad the situation is right now for the SEUs
Speaker 2: Canal and for global shipping for the lost that the
Speaker 2: Europeans and US are all absorbing on behalf of this war.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and obviously, like the US strategy here of hitting
Speaker 1: Hoo they targets and being more aggressive in the region
Speaker 1: has failed, and never had. Even the people who instituted
Speaker 1: this policy knew it was not going to work. They
Speaker 1: knew from the beginning it was not going to work,
Speaker 1: as Joe Biden himself admitted in his infamous comments are
Speaker 1: they working?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 5: Are they going to continue?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: The other thing that is noteworthy here, so number one
Speaker 1: noteworthy is in spite of our attacks unhoafy capabilities, they
Speaker 1: just launched their most damaging attack yet. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: Like again, more proof not working. Number two a new
Speaker 1: hoothy capability apparently just dropped. One of the things that
Speaker 1: we struck in our most recent bombing efforts was an
Speaker 1: underwater drone, so basically like an autonomous submarine. That's something
Speaker 1: that I don't think we were aware that the Houthis
Speaker 1: had access to our capabilities with that ULPS. The ante
Speaker 1: once again, and you know, as I always do when
Speaker 1: we do these segments about the wider issue here, like
Speaker 1: the one answer to all of these issues to ratchet
Speaker 1: down the tensions and make sure we don't go any
Speaker 1: further in the direction of escalation.
Speaker 5: Is the ceasefire. That is the core of the problem.
Speaker 1: That is what is calling all of these attacks on
Speaker 1: our own service members, on shipping lanes, the tip for
Speaker 1: tat with Husblah, all of these things are because of
Speaker 1: what Israel is doing in Gaza, and until that ends,
Speaker 1: we can expect to be an incredibly, incredibly risky, fraud
Speaker 1: dangerous environment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, Crystal.
Speaker 2: It's pretty scary as we look at all of it,
Speaker 2: especially with what's happening with the who these the Israeli economy.
Speaker 2: I mean, all of this is it's a very precarious
Speaker 2: global situation and you never know where it's going to
Speaker 2: pop off. No nobody could have predicted it with the
Speaker 2: Red Sea also, you know with the Red Sea, you
Speaker 2: just think one wrong ship.
Speaker 3: And the whole world is going to war. You have
Speaker 3: no idea.
Speaker 2: You get one missile comes from i Ron, hits a
Speaker 2: US flag carrier, hits a US ship, and a couple
Speaker 2: of sailors die. You know, we saw large a preview
Speaker 2: in the Jordan attack.
Speaker 3: We have no idea.
Speaker 2: If you imagine if they sank a US ship, it
Speaker 2: would be insane and it would do I mean, that's
Speaker 2: it full blown. It's like fireworks are completely off. And
Speaker 2: that's not a situation that any of us want to
Speaker 2: be in Crystal. What are you taking a look at?
Speaker 2: It's a big week for Israel. At the International Court
Speaker 2: of Justice. On Friday, Israel faces a deadline for demonstrating
Speaker 2: that they have adhered to the Court's demand that they
Speaker 2: cease all genocidal activities as they blockade, threaten an invasion
Speaker 2: of Rafa, and stand by as more than a dozen
Speaker 2: ministers attendant ethnic cleansing conference. I think it's fair to
Speaker 2: say Israel has not only failed to meet its obligations,
Speaker 2: but has in fact doubled down on the cruelty and
Speaker 2: incitement that led the Court to rule they are plausibly
Speaker 2: committing genocide.
Speaker 1: More on that one though later this week. But yesterday
Speaker 1: another case began oral arguments in front of the ICJ
Speaker 1: an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion that Israel's occupation
Speaker 1: of Palestine is in breach of international law and is
Speaker 1: therefore illegal. Of course, the illegality of Israel's occupation in
Speaker 1: settlement policy is kind of hardly disputed at this point.
Speaker 1: That's why Israel and her defenders are mostly arguing against
Speaker 1: this court action on technical legal grounds rather than on
Speaker 1: the merits. Israel has opted not to participate in the
Speaker 1: oral arguments at all, submitting only a written brief and
Speaker 1: denying the court's legitimacy on the question. Following Monday's hearings,
Speaker 1: a spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry released a statement saying,
Speaker 1: in part that the Palestinian authority was quote trying to
Speaker 1: turn a conflict that should be resolved through direct negotiations
Speaker 1: and without external impositions into a one sided and improper
Speaker 1: legal process. They further called on Palestinians to settle the
Speaker 1: dispute through direct negotiations with Israel, rather than through an
Speaker 1: appeal to international law. Of course, this statement is rather
Speaker 1: nonsensical given that Nan Yahoo and his government have repeatedly
Speaker 1: made clear they have no interest in a negotiated settlement
Speaker 1: that would grant Palestinians their basic rights to self determination.
Speaker 1: So over the course of three hours on Monday, the
Speaker 1: Palestinian team made the case that Israel's imposed on Palestinians
Speaker 1: the horrifying choice of quote ethnic cleansing, apartheid or genocide. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: Palestine argued that the Israeli occupation violated a core tenant
Speaker 1: of the law surrounding military occupation that it be temporary.
Speaker 1: In reality, the Israelis have made quite clear to their
Speaker 1: own people, to the Palestinians, and to the world that
Speaker 1: they fully intend to permanently exercise full control of the
Speaker 1: entire area from the river to the sea. Palestinian Foreign
Speaker 1: Minister opened by using a series of maps to demonstrate
Speaker 1: this Israeli commitment to total permanent occupation and apartheid.
Speaker 7: Allow me now to show you five maps. The first
Speaker 7: one is historic Palistine. This is the territory over which
Speaker 7: the Parician people should have been able to exercise their
Speaker 7: right to self determination. Instead, the General Assembly recommended the
Speaker 7: partition of Palistine, ignoring the will of our people, as
Speaker 7: shown in the second map, with an akaba that ensued.
Speaker 7: Over two thirds of our people were systematically unforcibly expelled
Speaker 7: by Israel, and three fourth of Palistine became Israel, as
Speaker 7: shown in the third map. This was the start of
Speaker 7: the Napapa, the disposition, the displacement and replacement of our people,
Speaker 7: the denial of rights and discrimination that continues to this
Speaker 7: very day. In nineteen sixty seven, Israel then occupied the
Speaker 7: remainder of Palistine and from the first day of its
Speaker 7: occupation started colonizing and annexing the land with the aim
Speaker 7: of making its occupation irreversible. It left us with the
Speaker 7: collection of disconnected pantustance preventing the independence of our state.
Speaker 7: As shown in Map four, Israel wanted the geography of
Speaker 7: Palistine of not its demography, so it's kept pushing our
Speaker 7: people out out of their homes, out of their land.
Speaker 7: Here is a fifth map. It was displayed by Israel's
Speaker 7: Prime Minister to the General Assembly last September. He called
Speaker 7: this the new Middle East. This is now the There
Speaker 7: is no Palistine at all on this map. On Israel
Speaker 7: comprised of all the land from the Jordan River to
Speaker 7: the Mediterranean Sea. This shows you what the prolonged continuous
Speaker 7: Israeli occupation of Palistine is intended to accomplish. The complete
Speaker 7: disappearance of Palistine and the destruction of the Plastinia people.
Speaker 1: Netanyahu's infamous River to the Sea map displayed there is
Speaker 1: of course, backed up by official government policy across successive
Speaker 1: Israeli administrations. Every single year since nineteen seventy six, the
Speaker 1: number of illegal Israeli settlers.
Speaker 5: In the West Bank has increased.
Speaker 1: This project has been further accelerated by the current terrorists
Speaker 1: running the Israeli government. The number now stands at roughly
Speaker 1: seven hundred thousand settlers, all of whom have been promised
Speaker 1: by the Israeli government they can stay in these legal
Speaker 1: settlements forever, annexing Palestinian land.
Speaker 5: What's more, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Three was the deadliest year for settler violence in history,
Speaker 1: prompting even the Biden administration to take some actions to
Speaker 1: try to check the rampaging settlers, who face no accountability
Speaker 1: from their own government, which both tacitly and explicitly backs
Speaker 1: this entire project. In fact, part of why October seventh
Speaker 1: was so deadly in the Israeli military response so poor
Speaker 1: was because IDF soldiers had been moved from near Gaza
Speaker 1: in order to better aid and a bet these violent
Speaker 1: Israeli settlers. The current hearing also comes at a critical time,
Speaker 1: as eleven Cabinet ministers and fifteen coalition members of the
Speaker 1: Kanesset have made plain their desire to wholly annex the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip and ethnically cleanse the remaining Palestinians living there
Speaker 1: at a conference that was dedicated to this explicit aim.
Speaker 1: One point three million Palestinians have already been pushed up
Speaker 1: against the border with Egypt as Israel bombs them and
Speaker 1: threatens a ground invasion, So the plans that are being
Speaker 1: made by these government ministers at the ethnic cleansing conference
Speaker 1: are hardly an idle threat. In fact, just as in
Speaker 1: the ICJ hearing on genocide, the statements explicit statements of
Speaker 1: numerous Israeli politicians featured prominently in the Palestinian presentation.
Speaker 4: As Israel's Cabinet secretary wrote in June of last year, quote,
Speaker 4: Judea and Samaria were not seized from a sovereign state
Speaker 4: recognized by international law, and the State of Israel has
Speaker 4: a right to impose its sovereignty over these areas as
Speaker 4: they comprise the cradle of history of the Jewish people
Speaker 4: and are an inseparable part of the land of Israel.
Speaker 3: As purported legal authority, the.
Speaker 4: Cabinet secretary invoked the first Book of Maccabee's written in
Speaker 4: the year one hundred BC fifteen, verse thirty three. It
Speaker 4: is not a foreign land. We have taken, nor have
Speaker 4: we seized the property of foreigners, but only our ancestral heritage,
Speaker 4: which for a time had been unjustly occupied by our enemies.
Speaker 4: This was followed in August of last year by a
Speaker 4: message broadcast on Israel Army Radio by Israel's Heritage Minister, sovereignty.
Speaker 4: Sovereignty must be extended within the borders of the West
Speaker 4: Bank and the most prudent way to create international recognition
Speaker 4: that this place is ours. There is no green line.
Speaker 4: It is a fictitious line that creates a distorted reality
Speaker 4: and must be erased. In September twenty twenty three, Israel's
Speaker 4: Prime Minister literally erased the green line in its presentation
Speaker 4: to the United Nations General Assembly. As you saw earlier,
Speaker 4: he depicted the state of Israel as extending from the
Speaker 4: Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, eliminating not only the
Speaker 4: green line but all traces of Palestine. This was no oversight.
Speaker 4: It was an act of the head of government with
Speaker 4: all the attribution that it implies. The same message was
Speaker 4: delivered by Israel's Finance minister in Paris six months earlier,
Speaker 4: when he denied the existence of Palestine and declared that
Speaker 4: Palestinians do not constitute people. Previously, he said, quote, we
Speaker 4: are here to stay. We will make it clear that
Speaker 4: our national ambition for a Jewish state from the river
Speaker 4: to the sea is an accomplished fact, a fact not
Speaker 4: open to discussion or negotiation. This has been Israel's consistent position.
Speaker 4: Here is the map of Israel, produced by its armed
Speaker 4: forces and published by the government in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4: One state Israel from the river to the sea. There
Speaker 4: is no green line. There is no Palestine. Instead, Palestine
Speaker 4: has been replaced by Judea and Samaria, which, according to
Speaker 4: Israel's highest officials, are now integral parts of the.
Speaker 2: State of Israel.
Speaker 4: As these official statements and maps demonstrate, Israel makes no
Speaker 4: secret of its intention to retain permanently the entire area
Speaker 4: east of the green line.
Speaker 1: Whole lot of people on there who rightly gafad at
Speaker 1: Putin's attempt to justify the illegal invasion of Ukraine by
Speaker 1: a one thousand year historical exegesis well nonetheless takes seriously
Speaker 1: claims about quote unquote Judaea and Samaria based on religious
Speaker 1: texts written in one hundred BC. Now these hearings are
Speaker 1: set to continue all week and we'll see a record
Speaker 1: fifty two countries assert claims and counterclaims. The US is
Speaker 1: once again more or less on an island alongside the
Speaker 1: literal island of Fiji when it comes to Israel. Of
Speaker 1: the thirty five states in international organizations which submitted written
Speaker 1: statements with regard to this case, only the US and
Speaker 1: Fiji backed Israel. After this week's hearings, the Court will
Speaker 1: take some time weeks if not months, to deliberate before
Speaker 1: rendering a decision. Should be noted that if they do
Speaker 1: rule against Israel, would not be the first time. Back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four, they found that Israel's West
Speaker 1: Bank barrier wall was illegal and should be dismantled. Not
Speaker 1: only did Israel ignore the ruling, but has since expanded
Speaker 1: that wall. So what difference would this ruling make since
Speaker 1: Israel will certainly ignore the court once again with the
Speaker 1: full backing of the United States of America. Once senior
Speaker 1: Palestinian official explained that quote, politically, this will help in
Speaker 1: achieving a two state solution. We are using the platform
Speaker 1: of the largest judicial body to advance our cause. In
Speaker 1: the hearing, Palestine's legal representative explain the importance of the ruling.
Speaker 5: Thusly, silence is not an option.
Speaker 4: As the immortal Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish wrote, in silence,
Speaker 4: we become accomplices. But he assured us when we speak,
Speaker 4: every word has the power to change the world. Mister President,
Speaker 4: members of the Court, your words have such power. By
Speaker 4: upholding international law, which is all the State of Palestine
Speaker 4: has to you to do, your powerful words will change
Speaker 4: the world.
Speaker 1: The hearings are a timely reminder that history did not
Speaker 1: begin on October seventh, and it will not end after
Speaker 1: the current annihilation of Gaza is complete. This is inconvenient,
Speaker 1: to say the least for those who attempt to defend
Speaker 1: Israel's indefensible actions by pretending that nothing happened before the
Speaker 1: atrocities of October seventh and that those atrocities justify everything
Speaker 1: up to and including a genocide.
Speaker 5: The Palestinians who were murdered.
Speaker 1: By IDF backed settlers prior to October seventh destroy the
Speaker 1: myth that there was peace prior to October seventh, and
Speaker 1: only Hamas destroyed that peace. In addition, the hearings put
Speaker 1: the US in an awkward position, since we theoretically accept
Speaker 1: the international consensus that these settlements are in fact illegal,
Speaker 1: but nonetheless consistently provide the diplomatic umbrella under which Israel
Speaker 1: continues its policy and the weapons.
Speaker 5: It uses to enforce it.
Speaker 1: It also is possible that, at this moment of increasing
Speaker 1: Israeli isolation from the world and the waning influence of
Speaker 1: the United States, these ICJ rulings could hit a little
Speaker 1: bit different. Even as they attempt to appear big and
Speaker 1: bad with their devastation of Gaza, the realities that Israel
Speaker 1: has never been more precarious on the world stage.
Speaker 5: Remember, as we just.
Speaker 1: Covered, the Israeli economy just shrank by twenty percent on
Speaker 1: an annual basis. They were just hit with a credit
Speaker 1: downgrade and negative outlook by Moody's. A reported half a
Speaker 1: million Israelis have left the country already, a devastating blow
Speaker 1: for the demographics obsessed nation. Even the US in Britain
Speaker 1: are considering unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. And while
Speaker 1: the US political class largely uniformly backs Israel in all things,
Speaker 1: they have lost massive ground among the actual American people.
Speaker 1: A majority of Democrats now except that Israel is in
Speaker 1: fact committing genocide. Another thirty percent are not sure global
Speaker 1: public opinion has been fully galvanized behind the Palestinian cause.
Speaker 1: Even the fully self interested MBS of Saudi Arabia has
Speaker 1: felt compelled to make clear there will be no normalization
Speaker 1: of relations with Israel without a Palestinian state.
Speaker 5: So while the ICJ may not.
Speaker 1: Have the enforcement power to actually end Israel's illegal actions,
Speaker 1: their judgment could still have some teeth. And for the US,
Speaker 1: as we steadily undermine the very international institutions and rules
Speaker 1: base order that we endeavor to establish post World War Two,
Speaker 1: our global influence and power continues to wane falls to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world to pick up the mantle.
Speaker 1: Looking into Lula and South Africa. Soccer, what did you make.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 5: All right, soccer, what you're looking at?
Speaker 2: Well, if there's one thing that really grinds my gears,
Speaker 2: it is bad use of history, from constant invoking of
Speaker 2: Hitler for anything we don't like or foreign policy move
Speaker 2: that we want to smear as appeasement, to the invocation
Speaker 2: of Jim Crow when talking about a local racially inflammatory incident.
Speaker 3: The reason it makes me upset is it erases.
Speaker 2: The magnitude of genuinely horrible things that happened in history.
Speaker 2: It insults their memory by drawing a false comparison. This
Speaker 2: latest incident that inspired this monologue is especially egregious. The
Speaker 2: so called best social science experts in the world have
Speaker 2: decided that our current president, Joseph robin At Biden Junior,
Speaker 2: is the fourteenth best president in American history.
Speaker 3: This assessed puts Biden.
Speaker 2: Before American president's Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, hero of the Republic,
Speaker 2: Ulysses S.
Speaker 3: Grant.
Speaker 2: Now I have major differences with Woodrow Wilson, with Ronald Reagan,
Speaker 2: even Grant, who was one of my personal heroes. I
Speaker 2: will admit he did not cover himself in glory at
Speaker 2: all times in the White House. But to say that
Speaker 2: Biden is in any way a better president than these
Speaker 2: world historical figures is literal blasphemy. More so, if you
Speaker 2: read these idiot experts justification, it is some of the
Speaker 2: dumbest historical analysis that I have ever seen. They write, quote,
Speaker 2: Biden's most important achievement may be that he rescued the
Speaker 2: presidency from Trump, he resumed a more traditional style of
Speaker 2: leadership and is gearing up to keep the office out
Speaker 2: of his predecessor's hands this fall. In other words, he
Speaker 2: is in the top third of America's presidents because he
Speaker 2: beat Trump. So not anything that he did, but because
Speaker 2: he beat Trump and is not.
Speaker 3: Running against him. That's how low.
Speaker 2: The bar is for these professional historians to try and
Speaker 2: find some other so called accomplishments for Biden. This is
Speaker 2: what the New York Times says, quote, he has claims
Speaker 2: to history legacy by managing the end of the COVID pandemic,
Speaker 2: rebuilding the nation's roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and leading
Speaker 2: an international coalition against Russian aggression. Yeah, because his response
Speaker 2: to COVID was such a success. Failed Russia policy that too.
Speaker 2: As for infrastructure, time will tell, But I think it
Speaker 2: is nothing compared to let's say, the Eisenhower bills of
Speaker 2: the past, which actually do deserve historical mention. On Trump too,
Speaker 2: the assessment is crazy. The historians say that Trump is
Speaker 2: the worst president in American history by far, according to them.
Speaker 2: These people say the presidents Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and
Speaker 2: Andrew Johnson were actually better than Trump. Keep in mind,
Speaker 2: Pierce and Buchanan, at least in my estimation, should have
Speaker 2: been plausibly shot for treason in their aid to the
Speaker 2: South before the Civil War, and that Johnson single handedly
Speaker 2: destroyed reconstruction and likely is the reason that Jim Crow
Speaker 2: lasted until the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 3: Sorry, mean, tweets in.
Speaker 2: January sixth are not even in the same universe as
Speaker 2: any of that. And if you believe that you're an idiot,
Speaker 2: that's putting it kindly. I mean, even pegging Trump against
Speaker 2: the insanity of the Civil War period is a dumb exercise.
Speaker 2: If you want to ask me who the single worst
Speaker 2: president of the modern era is, it's not a difficult answer.
Speaker 2: It's not Biden or Trump. His name was George W.
Speaker 3: Bush. He took this country to war under false pretenses.
Speaker 2: He's responsible for millions of debts in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of wounded or dead American servicemen, squandered
Speaker 2: seven trillion dollars abroad, and blew the financial crisis. Yet
Speaker 2: these historians go right past this. They actually ranked George W.
Speaker 2: Bush nineteenth ahead of presidents who we can barely name,
Speaker 2: which is something that I wish was true of that man.
Speaker 2: The Biden and Trump ranking show how completely bankruptcy establishment
Speaker 2: mind is when it comes to assessing Trump. Biden is
Speaker 2: good for beating him and for running against him. Nothing
Speaker 2: on Israel, Russia, COVID, the economy is considered at all
Speaker 2: things that affect billions of people, not to mention the
Speaker 2: actual daily lives of the people that Biden is supposed
Speaker 2: to serve. Trump too, the worst president in American history
Speaker 2: for being main and for January sixth. Really, what are
Speaker 2: these historians doing. They are erasing the stakes of real history,
Speaker 2: and they are lowering the bar of our expectations of greatness.
Speaker 2: Abraham Lincoln was one of our great presidents because he
Speaker 2: rose to the occasion. He used astounding brilliance and wisdom
Speaker 2: navigating a task that would likely have ended in total
Speaker 2: disaster if he was not there. Franklin Roosevelt, too, willed
Speaker 2: this country out of the Great Depression and expertly guided
Speaker 2: us through the Second World War. They were titanic men
Speaker 2: who would have, honestly, we would have been screwed without,
Speaker 2: just as we were screwed when we had the wrong.
Speaker 2: Men like Buchanan and Pearce and Johnson. All were proven
Speaker 2: either great or awful because of their actions, not just
Speaker 2: for simply existing or for saying the wrong thing. None
Speaker 2: of this, of course, will stop the Biden team from
Speaker 2: crowing about this ranking. Already, his favorite TV show, Morning
Speaker 2: Joe favorably covered the ranking, and if that's what helps
Speaker 2: him get through his day when he's lucid, then I
Speaker 2: guess it's cool. But in Americans themselves, we'll get the
Speaker 2: verdict to them in November, but they don't seem to
Speaker 2: all agree with these professional historians.
Speaker 3: I mean, Crystal, come on, I mean, we're gonna.
Speaker 1: Put Georgian and if you want to hear my reaction
Speaker 1: to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching shing. We really
Speaker 3: appreciate you.
Speaker 2: If Counterpoints will have a great show for everyone tomorrow
Speaker 2: because Chrystal will be honest, will be extra great. Brian's
Speaker 2: at a fish concert.
Speaker 3: Doing whatever that is. He's in Mexico at a fish
Speaker 3: con him.
Speaker 2: I was like, okay, all right, I mean that's interesting
Speaker 2: when people choose to do with their free time.
Speaker 3: All right, We'll see you guys later