Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at.
Speaker 2: Breaking Points, are already thinking of ways we can up
Speaker 2: our game for this critical election.
Speaker 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 1: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 1: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 1: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 1: We have an amazing show for everybody. Say extra amazing.
Speaker 1: Ryan is here, the Bro Show, first Bro Show of
Speaker 1: the Locals era. It's great to road, my friend. Thank
Speaker 1: you for so much for joining us. Crystal, is that
Speaker 1: what is it her? It's a fifth grade school event.
Speaker 3: That's all I know.
Speaker 1: Family comes first here over at Breaking Points. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and turn to my camera and let's
Speaker 1: see these topics. This is a very difficult part of
Speaker 1: the job. I really don't know how she does it.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about the political fallout here in
Speaker 1: Washington over those ICC arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders
Speaker 1: and Hamas leaders. Some major freak out by the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: By Prime Minister Sonyahu and others. Our own Ryan grim
Speaker 1: Here was at the State Department briefing yesterday, going toe
Speaker 1: to toe with State Department spokesperson Matt Miller. That's going
Speaker 1: to be interesting. We're going to talk about the Trump trial.
Speaker 1: Trump star witness Michael Cohen admitting to stealing some fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars on the stand, arguably more a worse crime
Speaker 1: than what Trump is actually being put on trial for.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about the debates, Donald Trump saying
Speaker 1: he wants a drug test for Joe Biden ahead of
Speaker 1: the debates. I would stipulate a drug test for all
Speaker 1: candidates who are involved in We're going to talk about
Speaker 1: the Congo. Luckily we have got coup expert Ryan grim here.
Speaker 1: There is some wild stuff going on in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Republic of the Congo, a full on coup attempt that failed,
Speaker 1: but it appears that some Americans were involved, maybe some
Speaker 1: three letter agencies.
Speaker 3: We'll get into that.
Speaker 1: And then Jerry Seinfeld going at it with some protesters
Speaker 1: at one of his most recent shows, making headlines. And
Speaker 1: finally Bill aal Hamoud, he was in recently in a
Speaker 1: meeting with Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln going to hear
Speaker 1: from him about what was said in that meeting and
Speaker 1: some political follow out. But before we get to that, Ryan,
Speaker 1: thank you by the way for saying you told our
Speaker 1: audience they were going to be underwhelmed, and you could
Speaker 1: not be more wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they were blown away.
Speaker 1: Okay, So first of all, thank you to everybody for
Speaker 1: all of the excitement over the switch.
Speaker 3: We very very much appreciate it.
Speaker 1: It's just amazing watching everybody's comments flood in on the
Speaker 1: locals page. So that's been awesome. We've gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of comments. We're very proud of the boomers, our boomer audience.
Speaker 1: By the way, you guys keep saying this is seamless.
Speaker 1: I'm amazed by.
Speaker 2: Will you want a switch to be underwhelming? That's what
Speaker 2: you Yeah, you're right, you don't want wanted to just move? Yes,
Speaker 2: samless transition.
Speaker 1: So as we continue to remind everybody, you have an
Speaker 1: email in your inbox which will give you your login
Speaker 1: credentials used to literally click in, sign in and you'll
Speaker 1: get access to your premium subscription over at Locals. We
Speaker 1: know that there were some technical issues yesterday, but it's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot smoother today. Just bear with us,
Speaker 1: you know, it is obviously a new thing. Just continue
Speaker 1: to check your inbox for the links to the show.
Speaker 1: For any issues big and small, can access my account?
Speaker 1: Something's not working properly? How do I connect X, Y
Speaker 1: or Z support At locals dot com, we have concier
Speaker 1: service set up for all of you. Any issues, Like
Speaker 1: we said, big or small, there's going to be a
Speaker 1: link down in the description.
Speaker 3: Just make sure if you have any questions about your account. Now.
Speaker 2: And I did it, okay, and I am I am
Speaker 2: in spirit a boomer uh huh.
Speaker 3: And it took me like thirty seconds.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So Crystal's parents both did it. They're both in their
Speaker 1: late seventies and eighties. My mom is in her sixties
Speaker 1: and she said it took her like fifteen seconds. So
Speaker 1: we're actually really really pleased with how this has been.
Speaker 3: The app is really amazing now video qualities exactly. Video
Speaker 3: quality is fantastic. That's one of the major things.
Speaker 1: So okay, now, the last question we continue to get,
Speaker 1: just to clear up any confusion, Can I still watch
Speaker 1: or listen to the show the way that I always did?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 3: The answer is yes. That is, if you are a
Speaker 3: premium subscriber, check your inbox. Well you have to switch
Speaker 3: the account. Yeah, you just have to switch you account.
Speaker 5: That's it.
Speaker 1: So, like, can I still listen to the show on
Speaker 1: Spotify or Apple via my premium think yes, absolutely, don't
Speaker 1: worry about it. There's gonna be instructions in your email.
Speaker 1: All of that is being sorted out. Same with the
Speaker 1: full show, same with everything. Just check your email. Everything
Speaker 1: here is additive. There's nothing that is great.
Speaker 2: Everything up here stays the same exactly, just moving from
Speaker 2: one back end to another thing.
Speaker 3: And so if you're over here, you just got to
Speaker 3: move over here and it's still going.
Speaker 5: To come right.
Speaker 1: It's like a flower exact season here. We're just we're
Speaker 1: adding new branches to the show. We've got some exclusive
Speaker 1: content that will drop soon in Rumble. You guys can
Speaker 1: check that out. We have a Rumble channel. First video
Speaker 1: on Rumble got over one hundred thousand views. We're pretty
Speaker 1: happy about that. We're only adding things here and no
Speaker 1: stubs quen dropping our YouTube views either.
Speaker 3: Now, this is very important.
Speaker 1: You have until the end of the week to switch
Speaker 1: your account over to locals or you're gonna lose access
Speaker 1: to your premium features. And we don't want that to happen,
Speaker 1: So please, guys, just go ahead. We've had I think
Speaker 1: a pretty decent chunk already have done it in the
Speaker 1: first twenty four hours, which thank you guys so much.
Speaker 3: You know, we were really worried about that.
Speaker 1: We have a week long transition, so just go ahead
Speaker 1: and take care of it now so you don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about it anymore. All right, that's all the
Speaker 1: administrative stuff out of the way there, Ryan, and let's
Speaker 1: actually get started here with the ICC and the fallout.
Speaker 3: So President Joe Biden, we got to give people a
Speaker 3: second to pause.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, pause, Oh yeah, okay, pause, and then go
Speaker 1: he okay, thank you. See you're even better at this
Speaker 1: than I am. Okay, now we're back here. We're doing
Speaker 1: the ICC.
Speaker 3: What are we doing?
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden speaking out very forcefully against the ICC
Speaker 1: or rest warrants issued against the Israeli leaders and HUMMAS leaders,
Speaker 1: but in particular taking exception to the charges against Israeli leaders.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6: Let me be clear, we reject the ICC's application for
Speaker 6: rest warrants against Israelan leaders. Whatever these warrants may imply,
Speaker 6: there's no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.
Speaker 3: It's clear.
Speaker 6: Here's what we all do all it can to ensure
Speaker 6: civil and protection. But let me be clear, contrary to
Speaker 6: allegations against Israel made by the International Court of Justice,
Speaker 6: what's happening is not genocide.
Speaker 5: We reject that.
Speaker 6: And always stand with Israel and the threats against his security.
Speaker 1: We will always stand with Israel and its threat against
Speaker 1: its security. That's pretty significant, Ryan, because if we can
Speaker 1: go to the next part, please, This was an official
Speaker 1: statement from President Biden immediately after the warrant was issued. Quote,
Speaker 1: the ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders
Speaker 1: is outrageous. Let me be clear, whatever this prosecutor might
Speaker 1: might imply, there is no equivalence, none, between Israel and Hamas.
Speaker 1: We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
Speaker 1: So this was the immediate reaction from President Biden, kind
Speaker 1: of reverting back to his original stance here on the conflict.
Speaker 3: What did you make of this, Ryan, I mean, on the.
Speaker 2: One hand, just rhetorically, the prosecutors in a no win
Speaker 2: situation like he tries to bring everyone and Hamas into
Speaker 2: the dock, and so they say how dare you compare
Speaker 2: Hamas to Israel? If he doesn't charge Hamas, then they say,
Speaker 2: how dare you single.
Speaker 3: Out good point Israel.
Speaker 2: They've also been saying, we can talk about this more
Speaker 2: that Well, the prosecutor's team was about to go to
Speaker 2: Israel and he said that, you know, the Israeli government
Speaker 2: said that they were going to cooperate, and you got
Speaker 2: to let the government play out. The Israeli government spent
Speaker 2: the last several weeks practically threatening war against the i
Speaker 2: c C. You know, like meeting, you know, meeting with
Speaker 2: leaders in Washington and making public threats. From the second
Speaker 2: it looked like there was a chance going to be
Speaker 2: a restaurant saying that if they did that, they would
Speaker 2: lobby for sanctions.
Speaker 3: They would they would not even.
Speaker 2: Let the family of people who worked for the ICC
Speaker 2: travel anywhere in the world. So the idea that this
Speaker 2: was a government that was just on the brink of
Speaker 2: cooperating with war crimes charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu is
Speaker 2: just laughable.
Speaker 1: Got it, Well, we have actually a response from Prime
Speaker 1: Minister nets and yah who that we can show everybody here.
Speaker 3: Let's see it.
Speaker 7: The outrageous decision by the ICC prosecutor Kareem Khan to
Speaker 7: seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of Israel
Speaker 7: is a moral outrage of historic proportions. It will cast
Speaker 7: an everlasting mark of shame on the International Court. Israel
Speaker 7: is waging a just war against Ramas, a genocidal terrorist
Speaker 7: organization that perpetrated the worst attack on the Jewish people
Speaker 7: since the Holocaust. Hamas massacred twelve hundred Jews, raped Jewish women,
Speaker 7: burned Jewish babies, took hundreds hostage. Now, in the face
Speaker 7: of these ours, mister Khan creates a twisted and false
Speaker 7: moral equivalence between the leaders of Israel and the henchmen
Speaker 7: of Ramas. This is like creating a moral equivalence after
Speaker 7: September eleventh between President Bush and Osama bin Laden, or
Speaker 7: during World War Two between FDR and Hitler. What a
Speaker 7: travesty of justice, What a disgrace. The prosecutor is absurd
Speaker 7: charges against being Israel's defense minister. I'm merely an attempt
Speaker 7: to deny Israel the basic right of self defense, and
Speaker 7: I assure you of one thing, this attempt will utterly fail.
Speaker 7: Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were totally defenseless against
Speaker 7: our enemies. Those days are over. Now the Jewish people
Speaker 7: have a state and we have an army to defend
Speaker 7: our states. Notwithstanding the blood libels mister Khan is leveled,
Speaker 7: Israel will continue to wage this war in full compliance
Speaker 7: with international law. We will continue to take unprecedented measures
Speaker 7: to get innocent civilians out of harm's way and to
Speaker 7: ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gazam,
Speaker 7: Mister Khan also sets a dangerous precedent that undermines every
Speaker 7: democracy's right to defend itself against terror organizations and aggressors.
Speaker 7: The ICEC has no jurisdiction over Israel, and mister Khan's
Speaker 7: actions will not stop us from waging our just war
Speaker 7: against Amas. But mister Khan's abuse of this authority will
Speaker 7: turn the ICC into nothing more than a farce. He's
Speaker 7: doing something else. He is callously pouring gasoline on the
Speaker 7: fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world. Through
Speaker 7: this incendiary decision, mister Khan takes his place among the
Speaker 7: great antisemites in modern times. He now stands alongside those
Speaker 7: infamous German judges who donned their robes and upheld laws
Speaker 7: that deny the Jewish people their most basic rites and
Speaker 7: enable the Nazis to perpetrate the worst crime in history.
Speaker 7: Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I pledge this,
Speaker 7: no amount of pressure and no decision in any international
Speaker 7: form will prevent Israel from defending itself against those who
Speaker 7: seek our destruction. To all the enemies of Israel, including
Speaker 7: their collaborators in the Hague, I renew that place today.
Speaker 7: Israel will wage our war against Klamas until that war
Speaker 7: is won.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 1: Moral equivalents, that appears to be the line that they're
Speaker 1: going with against Israel's right to self defense is what
Speaker 1: they are saying.
Speaker 3: He is, Yeah, I want to give you the chance
Speaker 3: to have to give us some breakdown. Go ahead?
Speaker 2: Or is it logical fallacy at play here? The United
Speaker 2: States getting attacked by Japan or the United States getting
Speaker 2: attacked by al Qaida would not be a get out
Speaker 2: of jail free card for its war criminals. You're still
Speaker 2: responsible for what you do in response. I don't think
Speaker 2: anybody would even claim like, oh, well, they flew the
Speaker 2: planes into the towers, they killed three thousand Americans. Therefore
Speaker 2: there rules no longer apply to you. Right, that's the
Speaker 2: opposite of the We did actually act that way for
Speaker 2: a while and it was a disastrous.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah we did.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It was called Abu Grab, it was called the Black
Speaker 2: Sites where torture was going around on waterboarding. And so
Speaker 2: our argument would would be and is like, we do
Speaker 2: not support it's it's funny. We wanted to build up
Speaker 2: this kind of rules based international order post World War two.
Speaker 2: This is part of that idea, but we only want
Speaker 2: it to apply, you know, to our adversaries. It looks
Speaker 2: like and so con in the in the interview that
Speaker 2: you guys talked about yesterday yes on the show, he
Speaker 2: said that he heard from an elected American leader that, hey,
Speaker 2: the ICC is for Africa and thugs like Putin. Now
Speaker 2: we also know that Lindsay Graham met with Khan recently.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that Lindsey Graham said that, but people,
Speaker 3: I mean, come on, how.
Speaker 5: Good is that?
Speaker 3: I bet about Russia?
Speaker 1: A nuclear armed power and great power in its own right,
Speaker 1: And I don't mean like comparable to the United States.
Speaker 3: Just it's a great power.
Speaker 1: It's a big nature, it has a lot of land masks,
Speaker 1: so big military, and it's got nu because you're a
Speaker 1: great power in my opinion. Well, then it's fine, and
Speaker 1: not only fine, it's good. We laud those decisions. You
Speaker 1: have a great point that you bring up with the
Speaker 1: State Department that we'll get to later. But I want
Speaker 1: to tug on this threat because we are watching the
Speaker 1: entire bipartisan machine here in Washington move to Israel's defense.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there for example, on the screen,
Speaker 1: there's a statement from Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1: Immediately afterwards, he says, the ICC has no authority over
Speaker 1: Israel or the United States. Today's baseless and illegitimate decision
Speaker 1: should face global condemnation. International bureaucrats cannot be allowed to
Speaker 1: use lawfair to usurp the authority of democratic nations that
Speaker 1: maintain the rule of law. Israel is fighting a war
Speaker 1: for survival, just war for survival. The ic C is
Speaker 1: attempting to equate Israeli officials to the terrorists who perpetrated
Speaker 1: the October seventh massacre. It is clear ICC's decision has
Speaker 1: been advanced due to the Biden administration's pressure campaign against
Speaker 1: Israel and its outlandish State Department investigations. So that is
Speaker 1: an interesting little turn, isn't it, Because here we have
Speaker 1: on the one hand, President Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln,
Speaker 1: and Mike Johnson all decrying it. But in this case
Speaker 1: we have Mike Johnson who said it's actually Biden's fault
Speaker 1: for doing this. So let's take some twisted logic. I also,
Speaker 1: there's something so naked about the Israelis that I can't
Speaker 1: just help but admire. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. They openly just tweet this out live updates.
Speaker 1: Israeli Foreign Minister Catz asks APAC leaders to work with
Speaker 1: Congress against the ICC decision. So, Ryan, since you're more
Speaker 1: readin than I am, just explain what steps remain that
Speaker 1: Congress could take. And also this ICC thing, it's not
Speaker 1: a done deal yet per se. So what actions remain
Speaker 1: in terms of levers of power for the United States
Speaker 1: and for its Congress to try and to push back
Speaker 1: against this decision.
Speaker 2: So I think we're going to absolutely see a resolution.
Speaker 2: You those are the easiest.
Speaker 3: Things, right, but that's not finding it. Congress can do it.
Speaker 2: It'll be a temper tantrum resolution, right, and there'll be
Speaker 2: a contest to see who can come up with the
Speaker 2: wildest adjectives to you know, this is the end of.
Speaker 3: The free world.
Speaker 2: But yes, sanctions like some like going directly after the
Speaker 2: family of the prosecutor, uh, targeting any institutions like basically
Speaker 2: think about b DS and the way that this the
Speaker 2: Palstatian grassroots organization has urged the world to boycott, divest,
Speaker 2: and sanction Israel, like the US is going to try
Speaker 2: to do the same thing to the i c C.
Speaker 2: Like any lever that they have, They're going they're going
Speaker 2: to push on.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: Pessimists from the Palestinian side that I've been speaking to
Speaker 2: have said they think, you know, within a couple of months,
Speaker 2: there'll there will be so much pressure that you'll just
Speaker 2: see these that you just see this dropped, that the
Speaker 2: that the application for the arrest warrant will not turn
Speaker 2: into an actual arrest want arrest warrant, and that but
Speaker 2: then the hamas ones will go forward because there will
Speaker 2: be so much pressure and the and the idea that
Speaker 2: Lindsey Graham or whoever was in that meeting was saying
Speaker 2: that this is for Africa and thugs like Putin will
Speaker 2: be will be uh you know, reinstated, will be restored.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, That's the interesting question though, in terms of
Speaker 1: the Hamas thing, because part of the US response has
Speaker 1: been that they don't have jurisdiction over any of what's
Speaker 1: happening here. We would be remiss if we didn't show
Speaker 1: what all of the responses from our own representatives in Washington.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: Brian mass do you remember him for wearing an IDF
Speaker 1: uniform even though he's not a Jew?
Speaker 3: In the United States Congress.
Speaker 1: He says, America doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court, but
Speaker 1: the court sure as hell will recognize what happens when
Speaker 1: you target our allies. Next, we have a response, very
Speaker 1: long one from Lindsey Graham. He says, this outrageous decision
Speaker 1: is truly a slap in the face to the independent
Speaker 1: judiciary in Israel, renowned for their independence. We must not
Speaker 1: forget as a nation the ICC threatened to bring actions
Speaker 1: against American forces in Afghanistan, and we are a non member.
Speaker 1: I will be issuing a detailed statement, However, these are
Speaker 1: my initial thoughts. Most importantly, I want the world to
Speaker 1: know that I, along with Republican Democrat colleagues, engage the
Speaker 1: ICC on this issue. Weeks ago, we were told there
Speaker 1: would be discussion with Israel before any actions were taken.
Speaker 1: We stress the principle of complementarity which should be applied
Speaker 1: in this case, which requires the ICC to let the
Speaker 1: nation in the questions legal system move first before any
Speaker 1: action is taken by the court. What do you make
Speaker 1: of that, Ryan? That might be the only interesting objection
Speaker 1: that I've seen about this issue of complimentary And then, last,
Speaker 1: but not least, by the way, Elist Dephonic, who was
Speaker 1: actually in Israel when this came out, tweeting the ICC
Speaker 1: is an illegitimate court that advocates a peaceful nation protect
Speaker 1: its rights to exist with radical terror groups that commit genocide.
Speaker 1: Congress must pass my bill that will punish those in
Speaker 1: the ICC that made this baseless, undemocratic decision.
Speaker 3: But what do you explain to Lindsay Graham?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the argument is that, yeah, if a country
Speaker 2: has its own robust, non corrupt justice system, then the
Speaker 2: international system recognizes that and allows the sovereignty of that
Speaker 2: system to play out. And so then it's just a
Speaker 2: judgment call, Like, do you think does a prosecutor believe
Speaker 2: that there is any chance that an Israeli judicial system
Speaker 2: will investigate and prosecute war crimes by its leaders. He
Speaker 2: clearly made the call, no, he does not think that
Speaker 2: that is remotely possible, and I think the statements coming
Speaker 2: from the Israeli government would support that. Like they have
Speaker 2: said that it is an anti Semitic attack on the
Speaker 2: state of Israel to even remotely suggest that it is
Speaker 2: committing war crimes against the Heinus Amas terrorists like that,
Speaker 2: So if the entire idea of that is itself anti Semitic.
Speaker 2: In his response, NETANYAHUO said we are the most moral
Speaker 2: army in the world. Yes, Like that is the line
Speaker 2: that they've been using for decades. So if your stated
Speaker 2: position is that you are running the most moral army
Speaker 2: in the world, like, in what world are you going
Speaker 2: to prosecute yourself for war crimes? And so the prosecutor
Speaker 2: just clearly came to the conclusion that the only the
Speaker 2: only avenue for accountability here was going to be through
Speaker 2: the iccate that there.
Speaker 3: Was no chance.
Speaker 1: You also see some of the political response institutionally inside Israel.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: Times of Israel reports outcry in Israel as the ICC
Speaker 1: prosecutors seek warrants against nets On Yahu and Gallant to
Speaker 1: the Foreign Ministry is to establish a command center to
Speaker 1: counter move. Benny Gantz, who is the opposition leader, says
Speaker 1: that the decision is a deep distortion of justice, and
Speaker 1: the is x Israeli Prime Minister calls on other countries
Speaker 1: to cut their funding for the court. So the Foreign
Speaker 1: Minister of the government says, this is an unrestrained direct
Speaker 1: attack actually on the victims of October seventh, because it
Speaker 1: draws moral equivalents that the entire institution is kind of
Speaker 1: moving to protect both Netson Yahu and to eof Gallant.
Speaker 1: So this does demonstrate to us something that we try
Speaker 1: and highlight.
Speaker 3: Benny Gantz, maybe.
Speaker 1: The opposition leader, he doesn't like nets Yahu, right Gallant.
Speaker 1: He also looked particularly like that does not mean that
Speaker 1: they disagree really with the prosecution of the war, and
Speaker 1: in fact they mostly agree with it. They would probably
Speaker 1: just finesse and do things a little bit differently to
Speaker 1: maintain in Israel's international isolation. So right yesterday Crystal and
Speaker 1: I were talking about this. I said, there's really only
Speaker 1: two ways that this plays out. A. It actually leads
Speaker 1: to a reduction of the rules based international system. As
Speaker 1: for whatever is left of it because it's just obviously
Speaker 1: it's farce. It's just one of those where, yeah, it
Speaker 1: does only exist for Russians and for Africans because those
Speaker 1: are the people.
Speaker 3: That the West doesn't like.
Speaker 1: The other way is that this is a very convenient
Speaker 1: way for these Raelies just shove bb out and they're like, listen, man,
Speaker 1: you causes us too much trouble. We'll put Benny Gantz
Speaker 1: in there and you know, he'll talk to Biden more.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll let in ten percent more AID trucks and
Speaker 1: we'll just move on our lives.
Speaker 3: What do you think is going?
Speaker 2: But apparently Nyahu has to say in that, and you
Speaker 2: know he you know, he's been pressured recently to come
Speaker 2: up with a plan by Gans and others say like, look,
Speaker 2: come up with a com and it's a it's a
Speaker 2: kind of funny demand, like the is that you come
Speaker 2: up with a strategy for ending this war and for
Speaker 2: what the war looks like after it's over. Like that's
Speaker 2: that's it just just tell us where this is headed.
Speaker 2: And for him to say no just to that demand,
Speaker 2: that no, because his his idea is we're going to
Speaker 2: continue just to prosecute this war like this is the
Speaker 2: day after his answers, we're just going to continue because
Speaker 2: now you've seen about eight they're estimated about eight hundred
Speaker 2: thousand people have left Rafa and moved there to Derera
Speaker 2: Belite and Conyunis and elsewhere around the God's Trip. Maybe
Speaker 2: next they go there, like just chase them all over
Speaker 2: the place for you know, endlessly, because the second that
Speaker 2: the war ends, that, you know, then the kind of
Speaker 2: political reckoning that YAHOO is on their right.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, it's not just political reckoning,
Speaker 1: it's like he doesn't want to commit to either. He
Speaker 1: says he's already said there's going to be no Palsinian state.
Speaker 1: He literally said that. So it's like, okay, well, now
Speaker 1: what And then that's the base is of our negotiation
Speaker 1: from the United States. Remember this is just the US,
Speaker 1: not just the UN and the rest of nations. And
Speaker 1: I left out all the Arab powers who apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: that's their number one demand.
Speaker 3: They're like, sure, we'll work with you, but it has
Speaker 3: to have he wants them to pay for it state.
Speaker 1: He wants them to pay for it. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: even fine if they even get a state. But their
Speaker 1: question is like fine, but you have to have the States.
Speaker 1: So a lot of irreconcilable differences. All we can say
Speaker 1: is that the US, basically American foreign policy right now
Speaker 1: exists to advance the interests of Israel. I think there's
Speaker 1: no other way for me to say it. And I'll
Speaker 1: put Ukraine in there too, and that's it.
Speaker 2: Mac flagged this this morning, this bill from two Republicans, Yeah,
Speaker 2: Max Miller and another guy, I think Michael Tracy posted
Speaker 2: this on Twitter, where it says, in general, for the
Speaker 2: purposes of this Chapter, to the extent practicable, the service
Speaker 2: of a citizen of the United States in the Israeli
Speaker 2: Defense Forces shall be treated in the same manner as
Speaker 2: service in the uniformed Services. It's actually called israel Defense Forces.
Speaker 2: So maybe that won't count. You could too and be
Speaker 2: like this it wrong.
Speaker 3: What does that even mean?
Speaker 2: Basically, it means that if you become a foreign fighter,
Speaker 2: you've been watching YouTube, you've been radicalized, TikTok has convinced
Speaker 2: you to.
Speaker 1: Go join the you make ali a you know, you
Speaker 1: do your IDF service, that if you get wounded or if.
Speaker 2: Or if you need like time toward a pension, that
Speaker 2: it could count. But yes, let's say you get wounded
Speaker 2: over there, that you would come home and you would
Speaker 2: have veterans benefit.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 3: That makes sense, right, Yeah, that totally makes sense.
Speaker 1: It's just that it only says, you know, whene you
Speaker 1: open your passport. Anybody's got their passport, do this. I
Speaker 1: actually went and I rechecked it just to make sure
Speaker 1: that I was correct. It says it right there. It says,
Speaker 1: if you serve in a foreign military, you're going to
Speaker 1: lose your passport, You're going to lose your citizenship. This
Speaker 1: is the only country in the world where we allow
Speaker 1: that you can fight for the French foreign legion as
Speaker 1: an American, not only do not and yeah.
Speaker 2: Under this law, not only would you not lose your citizenship. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we're gonna pay for it. We would pay for it, right,
Speaker 2: it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly why we pay all taxes. Right. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you don't have to like Palestine
Speaker 1: or or whatever not to just be like, what, like,
Speaker 1: can our foreign policy advance my interests as a citizens?
Speaker 3: It's so difficulty. Why are we expending.
Speaker 1: You know, if they're coming after our soldiers, that's a
Speaker 1: different story. Okay, all right, fine then maybe but all
Speaker 1: of This is just nonsense. It's like the entire thing
Speaker 1: is geared towards protecting them. And then this also shows
Speaker 1: the total incoherence of the Biden administration. We want more
Speaker 1: aid to go into Gaza, so we'll build them a
Speaker 1: peer Oh the peers only. We just looked at the
Speaker 1: stats this morning. Ten percent of the aid that could
Speaker 1: have been let in via a truck. So actually it's
Speaker 1: leading to net probably less than what's getting in.
Speaker 3: We're footing every lot. Yeah, everything got looted yesterday.
Speaker 1: Oh, congratulations, right, and on the Israelis are inspecting it
Speaker 1: or whatever the hell.
Speaker 3: All of that means. The entire thing is a farce,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 1: And it's like, Oh, I'm gonna withhold weapons, but I'm
Speaker 1: gonna send weapons. Would I would respect him more if
Speaker 1: he just picked a side at this point, which he has,
Speaker 1: but rhetorically he just won't be honest about it.
Speaker 3: So Ryan, I'm going to ask you to analyze some
Speaker 3: of this for us.
Speaker 1: We'll play first this clip of Matt Lee, he's the
Speaker 1: AP reporter, rockstar guy, puts up with no bs in
Speaker 1: the State Department, just going back and forth ruthlessly with
Speaker 1: the State Department spokesperson.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: Who does have jurisdiction here?
Speaker 9: So the government of Israel has jurisdiction.
Speaker 4: Occupied over Gaza, which is not.
Speaker 9: They have jurisdiction into looking at at the actions.
Speaker 4: Military that they have. They have to bring it to
Speaker 4: his rey.
Speaker 9: We have jurisdiction we have with the use of our equipment.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry with how do you have with the use of.
Speaker 9: Our military equipment that we have provided.
Speaker 4: How do you have if you.
Speaker 9: Look at the lay law, if you look at that's.
Speaker 4: That's not jurisdiction and a criminal process, not in.
Speaker 9: The criminal process, but it has to do with the
Speaker 9: determinations that we make in the policies that But Matt,
Speaker 9: long term, you were right that we want to use
Speaker 9: you were on.
Speaker 4: Us.
Speaker 9: It does not have jurisdic There are different quess I
Speaker 9: wasn't referring to criminals stiction at There are different ways
Speaker 9: to look at this. Long term, we agree with you
Speaker 9: that the Palestine people should be a state that has
Speaker 9: the and have the ability to make these determinations. But
Speaker 9: that's not where we are today. That's where we're trying
Speaker 9: to get to.
Speaker 3: Okay, what the hell is going on here?
Speaker 2: What does, he saying, yeah, So the fundamental question he's
Speaker 2: asking there, He's like, Okay, if you are a Palestinian
Speaker 2: and you feel like you've been the victim of a
Speaker 2: war crime or a crime against humanity, who do you
Speaker 2: appeal to?
Speaker 3: Like what is your venue that you can go to?
Speaker 2: Because Miller is saying they can't go to the International
Speaker 2: Criminal Court even though Palestine as a non member kind
Speaker 2: of stayed at the UN, is a signatory to the ICC,
Speaker 2: to the rom Statute. They're saying, because you're not an
Speaker 2: official state, you can't go through that venue. So Lee
Speaker 2: is asking, well then who, like where can where can
Speaker 2: that Palestinian go? And Matt Miller's first answer was Israel.
Speaker 2: And you hear them like, wait, they have to go
Speaker 2: to through Israel, Like just you live in Gaza and
Speaker 2: you're going to like get a lawyer and you know,
Speaker 2: sue in an Israeli court, like.
Speaker 3: If you can get into Israel, Like they're not evenna
Speaker 3: let you what are you talking about? That's completely absurd.
Speaker 2: And then he says, well, we have jurisdiction, and I
Speaker 2: think Matt probably realized Matt Miller probably realized he stepped
Speaker 2: in and immediately when he said that, and Matt Lee, wait,
Speaker 2: you have jurisdiction, Yeah, like the United States, and there
Speaker 2: there would be a world because anybody can sue around
Speaker 2: the world in a US court. That would be kind
Speaker 2: of funny if that's what Matt Miller meant that, Okay,
Speaker 2: you can sue the government of Israel through an American court.
Speaker 3: It's not what he meant. And also it's not criminal.
Speaker 2: He just means, well, if they commit some crimes, then
Speaker 2: we'll send fewer weapons according to the Lady Law.
Speaker 3: Not that they're actually going to ever do that, but
Speaker 3: he's saying we could do that. So it's not jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: And so it ends with nobody would really have criminal
Speaker 2: jurisdiction over Israel according to according to the US posture here,
Speaker 2: and that's actually what I picked up on in my
Speaker 2: exchange with him.
Speaker 1: Well, let's get to that. So do you want to
Speaker 1: set up anything else? Yeah, no, give us a background
Speaker 1: before you get to change.
Speaker 2: So the point that Matt Miller and the State Department
Speaker 2: and President Biden, when he is able to kind of
Speaker 2: put together a coherent argument that they would make is
Speaker 2: they'd say, well, look, Palestinians are not a state and
Speaker 2: we believe that you can only have an ICC prosecution
Speaker 2: if one member state is involved. Now neither Ukraine nor
Speaker 2: Russia are signed on to the Rome Statue. We're totally
Speaker 2: fine with that, but people have pointed out that that
Speaker 2: hypocrisy before. I looked back at the original prosecutions back
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen of African warlords.
Speaker 3: If you remember Joseph Coney, I remember that viral guy
Speaker 3: Regid completely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was not a state and he was prosecuted
Speaker 2: by he was charged by the ICC as well as
Speaker 2: the first prosecution this DRC militia leader, and the State
Speaker 2: Department at the time celebrated that at Jensaki, yeah was
Speaker 2: the State Department spokesperson really at the time, so we
Speaker 2: can so I asked him about that one to say,
Speaker 2: hold on a second, and you know, these are so
Speaker 2: the problem I have with these and I'm the ones
Speaker 2: doing them, so I'm criticizing myself here is we know
Speaker 2: they're hypocrites. And so yeah, the beginning and this is
Speaker 2: all about power, right, It's still good, but the.
Speaker 1: More you get to that I think is important. Okay,
Speaker 1: So with all of that lead up, let's actually take
Speaker 1: a listen to.
Speaker 2: It on the back on the question of jurisdiction with
Speaker 2: kath the International, you said that because the Palasenians are
Speaker 2: not a state actor, they don't jurisdiction over your side.
Speaker 8: But back in twenty fourteen, I just googled this one up.
Speaker 2: Jensaki was up here, or colleague, the statement was, Today,
Speaker 2: the ICC convicted Jermaine Katanga, the commander of the FRPI militia,
Speaker 2: for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Speaker 2: The ICC's DRC cases represent a significant step towards delivering
Speaker 2: justice for victims in the DRC. She then went on
Speaker 2: to say the United States reiterates it's called for the
Speaker 2: apprehension of Sylvester Muda Kumora, another leader of an abuse
Speaker 2: of rebel militia in the DRC, who is subject to
Speaker 2: an arrest warrant by the ICC. The Department of State
Speaker 2: continues to offer a reward of up to five million
Speaker 2: dollars for information leading to his arrest. So, at least
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen, it was the position of the administration
Speaker 2: that you could even put out a reward for the
Speaker 2: arrest of somebody that would then go to the ICC
Speaker 2: and would have jurisdiction, So why does not that apply
Speaker 2: to the current consty.
Speaker 9: So we have supported the work of the ICC in
Speaker 9: previous cases. I can't speak to this case because I
Speaker 9: don't know the fundamentals of it. I don't know the
Speaker 9: jurisdictional questions. Ultimately, the main way that the ICC is
Speaker 9: jurisdiction is if one of the two state parties to
Speaker 9: a case is a signatory to the Rome Statute and
Speaker 9: comes in under the ICC's jurisdiction. That is not the case. Here.
Speaker 9: You have Israel, who course is not a signatory to
Speaker 9: the ICC, the Palesitnians who do not represent a state
Speaker 9: at this time time, and so in our view, cannot
Speaker 9: sign the Rome Statute and become come under the ic
Speaker 9: C sturt stiction. I can't speak to other cases. I'd
Speaker 9: have to look into it in more detail.
Speaker 3: All right, Explain to that, well, what's happening here.
Speaker 2: So he's basically saying, you need you need all of
Speaker 2: these different elements. You would need both parties Israel and
Speaker 2: Palestine to one of one or two of them have
Speaker 2: to be members of the Rome Statute of the ICC.
Speaker 2: Palestine is Israel has rejected it.
Speaker 3: The most moral army in the world. Why would they
Speaker 3: ever need to be part of that. They're not. We're
Speaker 3: not part of it either, Ryan, which second most moral
Speaker 3: in the world.
Speaker 2: And so you do have you do meet that because
Speaker 2: the Palestinians have signed the Rome Statute through the UN
Speaker 2: because they're like a it's called a.
Speaker 3: Non members of state or state. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: But what Miller is saying, well, that doesn't count, like
Speaker 2: you have to be a member state in order for
Speaker 2: your application, in order for your signature on the Rome
Speaker 2: Statute count. Now nobody, nobody else in the world agrees
Speaker 2: with that. The ICC certainly doesn't with that. They believe
Speaker 2: they have jurisdiction here. So what that is essentially saying
Speaker 2: to the Israelis is that there can be no accountability
Speaker 2: through the ICC as long as you don't sign the
Speaker 2: Rome Statute and as long as you prevent the Palestinians
Speaker 2: from gaining statehood. The war that they are currently conducting,
Speaker 2: which the ICJ says is a plausible genocide, in which
Speaker 2: the ICC is saying includes war crimes and crimes against humanity,
Speaker 2: is aimed, according to ntyahu At, preventing Palestine from becoming
Speaker 2: a state, in other words, from preventing Palestine from having
Speaker 2: access to the venues through which they would be prosecuted
Speaker 2: for keeping them from getting statehood. So it's this kind
Speaker 2: of sick circular reasoning where as long as they can
Speaker 2: keep their boot on the neck of the Palestinians and
Speaker 2: keep them from having member state status through the UN,
Speaker 2: then the United States is going to say, well, those
Speaker 2: can't be war crimes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because it's not a state.
Speaker 2: Even though you're like, wait a minute, these these militia
Speaker 2: leaders and so their argument there would be okay, Well,
Speaker 2: Uganda and Congo signed the ICC, so therefore it's okay.
Speaker 1: But I thought your strongest point was just, hey, you
Speaker 1: celebrated in the past when he's non ICC or whenever
Speaker 1: it's a nastuate actor, So what's the difference.
Speaker 2: And he's like, he's like, we have of course you've
Speaker 2: supported the past word the past Africans, Yes, but the
Speaker 2: real one is Russia, because again, Russia is a non
Speaker 2: member party state we all recognize, though the US government
Speaker 2: says at that time, there's no way the Russian courts
Speaker 2: are going to hold Putin exactly accountable, So we're going
Speaker 2: to have to go outside of that.
Speaker 1: If we believe in this hole. Now by the way,
Speaker 1: as you said, I don't believe this. I think this
Speaker 1: whole sysem is fake and that it is all about
Speaker 1: power and it always has been, even going back to Nuremberg,
Speaker 1: which you know, there are lot of people who didn't
Speaker 1: get to go to Nurmberg because they started working on
Speaker 1: the NASA program.
Speaker 2: Right, And his whole point falls apart when you go
Speaker 2: back to you Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a yeah
Speaker 2: exactly either. I'll say, well, Ukraine said it was okay
Speaker 2: if we prosecuted Okay, what are you talking about? And
Speaker 2: Ukraine had said like that they would allow some prosecutions
Speaker 2: around the Maydan. So like they're like, so that counts
Speaker 2: that that bring that brings them in. It's like, but okay,
Speaker 2: Israel also said we will work with the i c
Speaker 2: C here, so boom. According to that rationale, they would
Speaker 2: then have jurisdiction.
Speaker 3: Point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Ukraine's just like, hey, don't go over to the
Speaker 1: a's off, you know, just forget about that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we don't. We don't need to open up old
Speaker 3: wounds all rights.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they did a Ukraine did an independent investigation into
Speaker 2: whether or not Maydan was a false flag. Uh huh
Speaker 2: that perpetrated by the far right in the US and
Speaker 2: they never released that report.
Speaker 1: Oh really interesting, All right, Seinfeld, let's do this quickly.
Speaker 1: This is a funny moment, depending on how you look
Speaker 1: at it. There was a moment here where Jerry Seinfeld,
Speaker 1: whose wife recently has been found to be donating to
Speaker 1: some of those Israel counter protesters you may remember, who
Speaker 1: beat up some of those protesters at the Palestinian encampment
Speaker 1: over at U c l A. And more recently, Seinfeld
Speaker 1: himself has become much more outspoken about pro Israel issues. Well,
Speaker 1: he was interrupted by a protester at his show and
Speaker 1: it led to some serious chaos.
Speaker 3: So let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 1: I recommend if you're just listening, I would actually watch
Speaker 1: this happen because the video really hits it all home.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 2: Jetta side supporter, you're a genocide supporter, honey, time.
Speaker 5: He let go of him, Let go of him over there.
Speaker 9: You're ruined for everybody else, No good, getiside supporter.
Speaker 5: You're gonna break his neck, all right.
Speaker 1: So we could see their prote audience members attacking the protest.
Speaker 3: So they said he's going to break his leck.
Speaker 1: Seinfeld at one point, what did he say, Griffin, something
Speaker 1: along the lines of, you, I love it when the
Speaker 1: jew haters always I love the jew hater. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: love when the Jewish haters spiced up the show.
Speaker 2: And then he finished by kind of mockingly saying like, yeah,
Speaker 2: SA saved the children. I'm going to finish the show
Speaker 2: and say, right, save the children of Gaza. Okay, So
Speaker 2: that's what has happened. I find this amusing. I just
Speaker 2: did a whole monologue that's part of the words when
Speaker 2: we want to talk about this where Seinfeld has been
Speaker 2: convinced now but woke ism is what is destroying comedy,
Speaker 2: And I'm like, yeah, I think he would have had
Speaker 2: a point, you know, maybe ten years ago, but at
Speaker 2: this point. Actually, and I did my monologue comparing Seinfeld's comments,
Speaker 2: immediately followed by the Tom Brady roast and the you know,
Speaker 2: Shane gillis hosting.
Speaker 3: SNL after their fine.
Speaker 1: In fact, I opened up my Netflix app like two
Speaker 1: days ago, and Shane has a new comedy series which
Speaker 1: has come on Netflix, and there he's like the star
Speaker 1: of the show from what I understand. So anyway, I
Speaker 1: guess I'm looking at this and I'm like, yeah, man,
Speaker 1: I don't really see that anymore. I think you had
Speaker 1: a point at one point. But it seems interesting that
Speaker 1: you're starting to say these things at the exact moment
Speaker 1: about what's going down in Israel where it appears to
Speaker 1: be that you care a whole lot about what's happening. Right,
Speaker 1: so insane ten years ago when Luis c k and
Speaker 1: all these other people are getting canceled, But you know,
Speaker 1: when your wife's given money to a bunch of people
Speaker 1: were beating people up in UCLA.
Speaker 2: Now now the woke left is out of control. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that is an interesting point, and I might be in them.
Speaker 2: I'm probably in the minority on this on the left
Speaker 2: when it comes to this opinion. But if I would say,
Speaker 2: leave Jerry steinfeldt alone, interesting, So what do you mean
Speaker 2: by that? I mean, by the way I agree with
Speaker 2: you bout Seinfeld is clearly an outspoken supporter of Israel.
Speaker 2: His wife has donated to do these counter protests, so
Speaker 2: he has like actively gotten himself involved in this conflict.
Speaker 2: But I think the average American who's watching it doesn't
Speaker 2: know those details. And it's and it's and it's just
Speaker 2: going to say, like, why are people yelling at Jerry
Speaker 2: sivil just because he's Jewish? And it will if you
Speaker 2: know the details, you're like, no, no, it's not anti submity.
Speaker 2: They have these particular grievances that are not related to
Speaker 2: him being Jewish, but for the average person, they don't
Speaker 2: know about that, and so it's going to feed into
Speaker 2: that criticism certainly. I mean, you can't buckle to all
Speaker 2: of all of the misperceptions out there, but sometimes you
Speaker 2: can like make some tactical adjustment.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with you at all, especially because Jerry
Speaker 1: is not a person in actually any power, right, it's
Speaker 1: a serious influence on policy.
Speaker 3: It's just Jerry Seinfeld, now, you.
Speaker 1: Know, like when he's talking about comedy, then sure I'll
Speaker 1: do them a logue being like, yeah, I think he's
Speaker 1: totally wrong, you know, in X, Y and Z. But
Speaker 1: I'm not, like, I have no under illusion that Jerry
Speaker 1: Seinfeld is like affecting US policy.
Speaker 3: Now, if you're a U.
Speaker 1: S Secretary of State, I have no sympathy for you, right,
Speaker 1: and people are going to interrupt you.
Speaker 2: The only the only amendment that would be that his
Speaker 2: wife is affecting things by donating to those counter protesters,
Speaker 2: but then protest his wife.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, all right, well it's not like she's making
Speaker 1: policy statements.
Speaker 2: My colleague, my colleague saying over the interscept I said
Speaker 2: that let's all give a thanks to Larry David for
Speaker 2: that waying and publicly we must we must keep curb
Speaker 2: your enthusiasm from being politicized. It's the one thing we
Speaker 2: can all agree on.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, though, Larry himself became a very anti Trump boomer
Speaker 1: for a while.
Speaker 3: Apparently he was caused in a funny way, not really, he.
Speaker 1: Was called he refused to speak to Alan Derschwitz at
Speaker 1: the chill Mark Library on Martha's Vineyard, which was it
Speaker 1: just blew up.
Speaker 3: He didn't refuse to speak to me. He came up
Speaker 3: to him in a restaurant. That also happened.
Speaker 1: It was tiring Martha's Vineyard apart. We just we cannot
Speaker 1: have we cannot have this on Martha's Vineyard. It's supposed
Speaker 1: to be a place for Kamala Harris and for you know,
Speaker 1: former Trump administration officials to mix the cocktail party. That's
Speaker 1: if we can't have that, that's what America is all
Speaker 1: about for the ultra rich to seclude themselves away to
Speaker 1: rule the world. Okay, what lack David does in Martha's vineyard,
Speaker 1: I forgive him, yeah, but I forgive him. You know,
Speaker 1: he's given so much to America. Ryan, you have a
Speaker 1: booked a great guest for us, bilaal Hammoud, let's get
Speaker 1: to it.
Speaker 2: On Friday, a group of Arab Americans met with Secretary
Speaker 2: of State Anthony Blincoln. One of those Arab Americans who
Speaker 2: met with him was bilal Hamood, who is the executive
Speaker 2: director of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 3: He joined us. Now, Bela, also, can you hold.
Speaker 2: Up for us what you were just showing us right
Speaker 2: before we started this interview.
Speaker 8: We got ourselves a classic breaking points mug are.
Speaker 1: There you go, made in the USA Union. So thank you,
Speaker 1: We appreciate you, Belave.
Speaker 3: You love to see it.
Speaker 2: Okay, So Belall, on Friday you had this meeting for
Speaker 2: how long was it scheduled for?
Speaker 3: How did the meeting come about? And how long did
Speaker 3: it end up going.
Speaker 8: A good question. Just to clarify, I represent the American
Speaker 8: Air Chamber of Commerce, not the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 8: The meeting was scheduled with Lincoln's office for forty five minutes.
Speaker 8: We ended up going nearly two hours, discussing the various
Speaker 8: issues and talking points that had been brought up, and
Speaker 8: going well beyond that, pushing on the administration for action,
Speaker 8: action that I don't think we saw in any capacity.
Speaker 2: What were the debates internally about whether or not to
Speaker 2: even take the meeting and did some refuse to show up.
Speaker 2: How many people were in this two hour meeting with
Speaker 2: Blncoln Friday, It.
Speaker 8: Was about six individuals from both sides, the administration and
Speaker 8: the of American community. There's always a discussion about whether
Speaker 8: there's value in coming to the table, and it's one
Speaker 8: that we discussed quite a bit just understand if this
Speaker 8: was the right discussion to have. And I think in
Speaker 8: past there have been campaigns, staff and officials that have
Speaker 8: come trying to discuss this from an electoral stance, and
Speaker 8: as many have said before, it's not a time for
Speaker 8: electoral politics. But this was a discussion with the Secretary
Speaker 8: of State leading us to believe there may be some
Speaker 8: room for action and some opportunity to discuss the issue
Speaker 8: and actually see a ceasefire at least some semblance of
Speaker 8: a plan, give us some insight that there's a direction
Speaker 8: this administration is heading in which we can feel confident
Speaker 8: that something is being put together. And that was not
Speaker 8: the case. That there wasn't even an indication that it's
Speaker 8: a priority for there to be in a mediate solution.
Speaker 1: So your takeaway was that there was not only you
Speaker 1: know that they were listening to for electoral purposes, but
Speaker 1: that on a policy level, that nothing was going to change.
Speaker 8: Following that meeting. Correct, I didn't see any indication that
Speaker 8: there was a plan in place, and that was one
Speaker 8: of the questions I posed. Just at the end of
Speaker 8: that discussion. I stated that I'm here representing Michigan, representing
Speaker 8: my community, representing decades of years of partnership with this administration.
Speaker 8: The go well beyond me, and not just tens of
Speaker 8: thousands of folks who worked dilligently to get this administration
Speaker 8: I liked it in twenty twenty, but hundreds of thousands
Speaker 8: that voted. And this is not just Arab and Muslim Americans.
Speaker 8: This is its allies, its partners, its friends, the communities
Speaker 8: from all ethnic backgrounds, communities and cultures and religions that
Speaker 8: it is spent decades building authentic relationships with and so
Speaker 8: I tried to ensure that coming from Michigan and being
Speaker 8: the only one at that table representing an organization from Michigan,
Speaker 8: that there was a takeaway that there was something that
Speaker 8: made this meeting worth it, that led us to believe
Speaker 8: that this was something that respected those years of partnerships.
Speaker 8: And that wasn't the case. We didn't see that any
Speaker 8: of that was honored and valued and taken to a
Speaker 8: point where we would see a ceasefire or see any
Speaker 8: indication that the plan was being put together. In fact,
Speaker 8: it seemed like instead of that, there was just obstacles
Speaker 8: being put in the way.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 2: So one of the live issues has been the US
Speaker 2: posture toward Palestinian statehood at at the UN, which the
Speaker 2: US urged everybody to vote against. And we were talking earlier.
Speaker 2: You told me that you brought that up with him.
Speaker 2: What was how did you bring that up? And what
Speaker 2: was what was his response there? How did he explain
Speaker 2: the US rationale?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 8: And I wrote from our discussion, well, I told you
Speaker 8: that the way that the UN issue was brought up
Speaker 8: was centered around what is going to be the way
Speaker 8: that US resolves this restores its reputation of being a peacemaker, right,
Speaker 8: because that is at the core of I think what
Speaker 8: they're thinking is next steps. They don't care about reaching
Speaker 8: the solution, or at least we're not seeing indications that
Speaker 8: there is a goal for that. But I asked, how
Speaker 8: do you plan on restoring that dynamic and being able
Speaker 8: to come out on as that peacemaker once again and
Speaker 8: showcasing that those the relationships weren't just burned. And I
Speaker 8: didn't get too much of an indication that there was
Speaker 8: an acknowledgment that the relationships needed to be restored, but
Speaker 8: nothing beyond that. And so I made it very clear
Speaker 8: that the US obviously has the keys for an immediate
Speaker 8: cea spire and immediate resolution, and then some for what
Speaker 8: we need to see. And so when the topic of
Speaker 8: statehood got brought up, we had asked for both a
Speaker 8: free and independent Palestine, a statehood and a seat at
Speaker 8: the UN Security Council table, and the response was disappointing
Speaker 8: because it made the comparison to well, first and foremost,
Speaker 8: that a vote for a Palestinian statehood from the US
Speaker 8: would lead to the defunding of the from the US.
Speaker 8: Being its primary funder. But then the example brought up
Speaker 8: was that it would be within the right of the
Speaker 8: UN to then cut programs like the World Food Program.
Speaker 8: And so the fact that the comparison was made that
Speaker 8: the world would have to go hungry just like the
Speaker 8: Gozzens are, and the fact that it's US policy to
Speaker 8: starve the world if Palestinians have a free state, regardless
Speaker 8: of if that's the law or not, is indicative of
Speaker 8: something severely wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Anthony Blinken said, we have to oppose Palestinian
Speaker 2: statehood or else the World Food Program budget will be
Speaker 2: cut and people will starve around the world. Like that's
Speaker 2: the Secretary of State's assessment that he's making to you guys.
Speaker 3: In this meeting.
Speaker 8: The example was given that if the UN had to
Speaker 8: cut its funding, it would have to cut programs like
Speaker 8: the World Food Program, and that was the example shared,
Speaker 8: followed by the explanation that then the world would have
Speaker 8: to starve as the Gozens are. And so that is
Speaker 8: not the comparison you make to make an argue and
Speaker 8: for why Oustingens should not have a free state.
Speaker 3: Wow, Bill out.
Speaker 1: My question here is about some reach out from the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. I saw news just yesterday that Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: campaign affiliate Richard Grenell is holding leaders with Arab Americans
Speaker 1: in Michigan actually sometime this week. I'm curious if you
Speaker 1: think that, you know, so called disaffected Michigan Arab voters
Speaker 1: and or leaders are going to entertain this reach out
Speaker 1: from the Trump campaign.
Speaker 3: What do you make of it?
Speaker 8: I think the onus is not on the voters, It's
Speaker 8: on the candidate to earn the vote, and at this
Speaker 8: point neither have.
Speaker 2: All Right, Yeah, have you heard among other chairmier of
Speaker 2: commerce types of whether or not they're going to take
Speaker 2: Grenelle up on this?
Speaker 8: No, I can't speak to it. I'm not familiar with
Speaker 8: what the discussion currently is and if the conversation will
Speaker 8: be had. But from a inside looking out perspective, having
Speaker 8: the discussion is always beneficial if it can lead to
Speaker 8: some action. But if this is going to center around
Speaker 8: electoral politics and not giving the community some guarantees and
Speaker 8: some confidence this administration or otherwise that there's going to
Speaker 8: be some action and steps taken forward, I don't see
Speaker 8: much manifestation of productive meetings at this point.
Speaker 2: I also wanted to just ask your overall impression of
Speaker 2: the meeting with the Secretary of State and how it
Speaker 2: compared to your expectations going in, and what was the
Speaker 2: what was the overall what was it the overall tone
Speaker 2: and vibe that you think the Secretary of State was
Speaker 2: trying to send.
Speaker 8: I think the tone going in and the thought process
Speaker 8: was that this could be an opportunity for the administration
Speaker 8: to have a reason to take action, right say that
Speaker 8: you've met with this group, you've met with the community,
Speaker 8: and now you need to take action. We were hoping
Speaker 8: some level of justification. Now there's no naive nature to
Speaker 8: the folks that were at that table. We understood what
Speaker 8: we were getting ourselves into, but there was some hope,
Speaker 8: at least some that something would come from it. The
Speaker 8: tone in the meeting ended up centering more around addressing
Speaker 8: those specific policy points and concerns like respecting the territorial
Speaker 8: boundaries of Lebanon, preventing this from becoming more regional and
Speaker 8: from things like two thousand and six repeating itself and
Speaker 8: impacting the nation because we're getting there. And then that
Speaker 8: was at a point that I had shared a story
Speaker 8: from my past where me and my family were in
Speaker 8: Lebanon at that point and had to be evacuated via
Speaker 8: the military camps because the airport had been blown up,
Speaker 8: and we are getting to that point, that level of escalation.
Speaker 8: So the asks were being made and the responses didn't
Speaker 8: still much confidence that there was anything besides a logical
Speaker 8: response given, but not a pathetic, not based in humanity,
Speaker 8: and not one that would carry if you were to
Speaker 8: look at it with a microscope. Just one that is
Speaker 8: the traditional talking points that are given. And so the
Speaker 8: tone didn't feel productive. As much as there were conversations
Speaker 8: had and the table did have a back and forth dialogue,
Speaker 8: there wasn't any promises given or any commitments made.
Speaker 2: If you knew now what you knew back then when
Speaker 2: you were asked to meet, would you still have met?
Speaker 2: Like was it was it worth it? Was it useful?
Speaker 8: It was disappointing, it was not worth it, And going
Speaker 8: forward discussions that need to be had, there are no
Speaker 8: more discussions to be had. I think at this point
Speaker 8: it's clear what needs to be done. The administration knows
Speaker 8: it had known, but now especially the only way forward
Speaker 8: is through action, and so at this point that's the
Speaker 8: only thing we can see as a next step towards
Speaker 8: any sort of relationship with the administration or others going forward.
Speaker 8: And again, I think this isn't just the air of
Speaker 8: American community and Muslim community, but far beyond that, the
Speaker 8: allies and folks and relationships that have been built over
Speaker 8: those decades that feel the same. Right, It's not just
Speaker 8: this community in Michigan, it's across the US, across the globe,
Speaker 8: and so that sentiment I believe is shared globally.
Speaker 1: All Right, Well, we appreciate you your time, Bill, I'll
Speaker 1: appreciate the mug as well.
Speaker 3: Send you a new one. We'll check in. Yeah, we'll
Speaker 3: send you a new one.
Speaker 4: Appreciate you.
Speaker 8: No, thanks for having me all We'll see absolutely.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: So, also kind of related to this entire question, we
Speaker 2: wanted to do a quick follow up to the reporting
Speaker 2: that we did over the last couple of weeks around
Speaker 2: the third Congressional district race that's going on today in Portland, Oregon.
Speaker 2: It pits Maxine Dexter, a doctor who has the support
Speaker 2: of a lot of APACT owners, against Sushila Jayapaul, who
Speaker 2: is Primila Giapaul's an older sister.
Speaker 4: Wo.
Speaker 2: So we've reported over the last couple of weeks that
Speaker 2: the dark money flowing into this race, to the tune
Speaker 2: of millions of dollars, had links to APAC and APEX network.
Speaker 2: We were able to firmly demonstrate that enormous amount of
Speaker 2: money flowing into her campaign was coming directly from APACK donors.
Speaker 2: They structured these dark money superpacks such that they wouldn't
Speaker 2: have to release their donors until May twentieth, which was yesterday,
Speaker 2: the day before the election, which is not enough time
Speaker 2: for any campaign to do anything with, especially when you
Speaker 2: have a state like Oregon, which is mail balloting, so
Speaker 2: everybody's pretty much already voted by the time it has happened. However,
Speaker 2: it's still interesting to look at the disclosures. One of
Speaker 2: the dark money super PACs spending all sending millions against
Speaker 2: Sushila Jayapaul was called Voters for Responsive Government. It was
Speaker 2: created on April first, which is the day after it
Speaker 2: would have been required to disclosed donors earlier, so that
Speaker 2: it didn't have to disclose until Yester say so, let's
Speaker 2: put up their FEC filing here so that we can
Speaker 2: all figure out. Okay, there's not enough time yet to
Speaker 2: do much with this information, but let's look at the filing.
Speaker 2: Well wait a minute, what is that If you're listening
Speaker 2: to this on the podcast, this organization filed a multi
Speaker 2: page report with nothing but a bunch of goose eggs
Speaker 2: on it, just zeros in every single form, and so
Speaker 2: they have met the letter of the law that in
Speaker 2: this sense that they have filed their paperwork with the FEC,
Speaker 2: but they have disclosed literally zero. So what is going
Speaker 2: to happen here is that at some point the FEC
Speaker 2: will probably get around to fining them for not filing
Speaker 2: accurate information. They will later file an amendment and then
Speaker 2: they will pay whatever fine the FEC declarre, you know,
Speaker 2: deems that is necessary. That could be weeks, it could
Speaker 2: be months, could be years.
Speaker 3: For all we for all we know, we just have
Speaker 3: no idea how much their money.
Speaker 2: Basically just you just we know the amount of money
Speaker 2: we just won't know, like who wow. Now the other
Speaker 2: dark money super pac three fourteen three fourteen action Fund
Speaker 2: disclosed some but not all of its donors because the
Speaker 2: amount of money that they spent does not equal the
Speaker 2: amount that they disclosed for having raised in April. So
Speaker 2: clearly they were able to push some of it into May,
Speaker 2: which means they'll have to disclose it like June twentieth,
Speaker 2: but we do know one of the donors is Robert Granniery,
Speaker 2: who is a major A Pack donor, gave through hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands of dollars to the A Pack super Pack
Speaker 2: in October. Also, interestingly, according to this finally, he gave
Speaker 2: about five hundred thousand dollars to Women Vote, which is
Speaker 2: the Emily's List pack, and that money appears to have
Speaker 2: been earmarked against Dave min which is this other A
Speaker 2: Pack race that they were running in California. And so
Speaker 2: the other the five hundred thousand dollars donor was Michael
Speaker 2: Blueberg we just learned about yesterday.
Speaker 3: We're gonna learn much.
Speaker 2: More on June twentieth, when three fourteen Action has to
Speaker 2: disclose its may donors. By then the primary will be
Speaker 2: well over because it is today, so you can watch
Speaker 2: the Oregon primary results come in tonight. It's basically a
Speaker 2: three way race between two candidates who wanted a PAC
Speaker 2: support Eddie Morrahilson Maxine Dexter. Maxine Dexter won it against
Speaker 2: Sushila Giapaul. The millions in spending against Giapaul and four
Speaker 2: Dexter is very likely to have tipped this race. However,
Speaker 2: because of the reporting that we did, the local press
Speaker 2: did pick up on.
Speaker 3: The fact that this was a PAC money.
Speaker 2: It's a low turnout, it's an educated and it's an
Speaker 2: edge caated electorate that is following the news pretty closely.
Speaker 2: So they they may they may rebel against the idea
Speaker 2: that APAC can come in.
Speaker 3: We'll find out. You get to cover it tomorrow on counterpoints.
Speaker 3: We will definitely cover it tomorrow on counterpoints.
Speaker 1: All right, We will have they will have a great
Speaker 1: counterpoints show for everybody tomorrow. We will have a great
Speaker 1: show for everybody on Thursday, and we will see you
Speaker 1: all later