Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: It's been a long time since I said that we
Speaker 2: have an amazing show.
Speaker 3: What do we have for this?
Speaker 4: Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing person Foremost because Sager is that thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks nice to have you here, my friends. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed your time. I do much deserved.
Speaker 3: I certainly did.
Speaker 1: All right, lots to get to this morning. So actually
Speaker 1: just breaking, I just saw this. HESBLA says that one
Speaker 1: of their commanders was killed in a strike. This comes
Speaker 1: as the US defense establishment seems to be kind of
Speaker 1: freaking out about the chances of a broader warshole. Break
Speaker 1: all of that down for you. Also, this was really
Speaker 1: something the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin was secretly hospitalized
Speaker 1: and in the ICU did not tell the White House,
Speaker 1: the President didn't tell, The president didn't tell. The person
Speaker 1: who took over for him had no idea, just as like.
Speaker 4: First in command.
Speaker 1: A crazy story, and apparently he's still hospitalized.
Speaker 4: So we'll break that down for you.
Speaker 1: I've got Obama freaking out about Biden's reelection prospects and
Speaker 1: trying to intervene. We've got a billionaire freaking out about
Speaker 1: plagiarism accusations against his wife.
Speaker 4: Lots to say about that.
Speaker 1: One we'll talk Saga is taking a look at that
Speaker 1: horrifying situation on an airplane where the whole door blew out.
Speaker 1: Thank god everybody was safe, but it has grounded again
Speaker 1: a number of planes. And excited to talk today to
Speaker 1: Ahmed Khan. He is a former Biden donor who was
Speaker 1: done and had it over Biden's unconditional support of Israel.
Speaker 4: So we'll speak with him about his thinking.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right, but before we get to any of that,
Speaker 2: it is the new year, an election season is officially on.
Speaker 3: It's twenty twenty four, So if you can.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and sign up to help us out, we
Speaker 2: would greatly appreciate it, just to show you that we're
Speaker 2: very serious, and we're already hitting the ground. This week
Speaker 2: on Thursday in the state of Michigan, we will be
Speaker 2: conducting a focus group with ORFK Junior supporter. So this
Speaker 2: is I believe the first time that a media organization
Speaker 2: has done a focus group. We're going to spend just
Speaker 2: as we did previously with Trump and with Democrats, voters,
Speaker 2: talking to them about why they support OURFK Junior, what
Speaker 2: independent views that they have, which particular ones, whether they
Speaker 2: just hate Trump or Biden.
Speaker 3: We're going to get really down into the specifics.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're going to treat him as I think
Speaker 2: that he should be treated like the ross puro really
Speaker 2: of this election. And I'm honestly most excited and going
Speaker 2: to be fascinated by their responses. Yeah, more so, I
Speaker 2: think even than the Trump and the Biden people, just
Speaker 2: to be like, what do you think?
Speaker 3: Why do you support our FK Junior.
Speaker 1: It was interesting, of course talking to the Republicans and
Speaker 1: the Democrats, but to be honest with.
Speaker 4: You, like they get focused, grouped and pulled all the.
Speaker 1: Time exactly, so we had a little bit more of
Speaker 1: a sense of who they are, how they're thinking about things,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so it was very edifying to see
Speaker 1: that confirmed with our focus group. But you know, I
Speaker 1: really have a lot of interest in who are.
Speaker 4: The people who are saying I'm with RFK.
Speaker 1: How strong is their support do they consider themselves, form're Democrats, Republicans?
Speaker 1: Where are they on the political spectrum? A lot to
Speaker 1: get into. So super excited about that. So if you're
Speaker 1: able to support us on that front, it would be fantastic.
Speaker 1: And like Sager said, the Iowacaucuses are freaking'.
Speaker 3: Next next week. We're already planning.
Speaker 2: We got our New York, New New Hampshire plans, like
Speaker 2: we're ready to go.
Speaker 3: Wild, yea.
Speaker 1: So it is all upon us, all right. So speaking
Speaker 1: of things that are upon us, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: put this first element up on the screen. As I
Speaker 1: just mentioned, haswell as saying one of their top commanders
Speaker 1: was killed in a strike in southern Lebanon. And this
Speaker 1: comes as the US defense establishment is leaking furiously to
Speaker 1: the press about their concerns that what is happening right
Speaker 1: now in the Middle East with our unconditional support, could
Speaker 1: spark a broader war that.
Speaker 4: Draws US into it.
Speaker 1: This was a really quite bombshell report from the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: Israel's talk of expanding war to Lebanon alarms the US.
Speaker 1: Let me read you a little bit of this report.
Speaker 1: US officials are concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnah
Speaker 1: who may see an expanded fight in Lebanon as key
Speaker 1: to political survival amid domestic criticism of his government's failure
Speaker 1: to prevent Hamas's October seventh attack. This is something we've
Speaker 1: been warning about from day one, that the fact that
Speaker 1: NANYAHUU is on the rocks pushes him to continue the war,
Speaker 1: to continue to escalate, and it seems like our concerns
Speaker 1: are very well founded. I'll read you a little bit
Speaker 1: more here. They say in private conversations. The administration has
Speaker 1: warned Israel against the significant escalation in Lebanon. If it
Speaker 1: were to do so, a new secret assessment from the
Speaker 1: Defense Intelligence Agency found it will be difficult for IDF
Speaker 1: to succeed because its military assets and resources would be
Speaker 1: spread too thin given the conflict in Gaza. Since Samasa's
Speaker 1: October assault, Israeli officials have discussed launching a preemptive attack
Speaker 1: on HESBLA US officials said that prospect has faced sustained
Speaker 1: US opposition through the likelihood it would draw a run
Speaker 1: which supports both groups and other proxy forces into the conflict,
Speaker 1: and eventuality that could compel the US to respond militarily
Speaker 1: on Israel's behalf. And you know, this is something we
Speaker 1: have been tracking soccer from the beginning. The incredible danger,
Speaker 1: the incredible risks of escalation here. You know, the one
Speaker 1: time when there was a little bit of a lull
Speaker 1: intentions during the ceasefire, you saw the attacks on our
Speaker 1: troops in.
Speaker 4: A rock stopped.
Speaker 1: The Huthies dramatically scaled back their attacks.
Speaker 4: And yet it's remarkable.
Speaker 1: You know, the Biden administration is trying to figure out, Okay,
Speaker 1: how do we avoid this escalation without ever floating the
Speaker 1: one obvious thing, which is to push for a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: which would immediately dramatically less intentions and avoid this potential disaster.
Speaker 2: Well, it's obviously that's not going to happen at this point.
Speaker 2: We'll talk a little bit about the diplomatic front, but
Speaker 2: on the warfront, I mean, they should be terrified about this.
Speaker 2: And one of the ways that I really began to
Speaker 2: understand that this was real is when some of the
Speaker 2: most pro Israel voices in the US began warning about it.
Speaker 2: So let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is Jonathan Chanzer. I'm going to contextualize him a
Speaker 2: little bit for it, which is Chancer works at the
Speaker 2: Foundation for Defensive Democracies, which is basically one of the
Speaker 2: largest pro Israel, anti Iran think tanks here in the
Speaker 2: United States and in Washington a bit quite literally are
Speaker 2: funded by the Israeli government. So when they start warning,
Speaker 2: we should definitely take listen. Let's keep this up here
Speaker 2: so I can read it.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 2: In the aftermath of the idea of strike, the killed
Speaker 2: Hamas leader salle A l A Ruri in Lebanon, and
Speaker 2: the subsequent increase in the intensity of Hesbela attacks, the
Speaker 2: risk of a full war between Israel and Hesbola is
Speaker 2: now the most serious since the war began on October seven.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next one here, please.
Speaker 2: He says that the Israeli media is now openly speaking
Speaker 2: about a two front war. Nusrella, the leader of Hezbolah,
Speaker 2: has now told Shiah residents of southern Lebanon vacate to
Speaker 2: the north. Netanyahu is now hinted that Nusrella could be next.
Speaker 2: The US wants to prevent such a war. This was
Speaker 2: a reason that we dispatched the carrier group to the Mediterranean.
Speaker 2: Officials are now leaking that Israel cannot afford such a war.
Speaker 2: Israel is not standing down, nor as Hezbola, as evidence
Speaker 2: now by continued strikes. I will say this, a war
Speaker 2: between Israel and Hezbela is inevitable. These are his words.
Speaker 2: He says, Israel's northern residents will not return until the
Speaker 2: security situation has changed, and what change will not likely
Speaker 2: come through clever diplomacy about the US or France, and
Speaker 2: not the UN go to the next one. This is
Speaker 2: to me the most important, he says. It now becomes
Speaker 2: a question of when, if not when not if. My
Speaker 2: sense is that Israel not just a few high value
Speaker 2: kills of Hamas leaders in Gaza. The leadership may then
Speaker 2: be willing to look north, but make no mistake, a
Speaker 2: war in the north will be highly destructive, the worst
Speaker 2: war that Israel has seen ever, and the destruction is
Speaker 2: only part of it. International pressure will escalate, the Iranians
Speaker 2: could escalate two. This would be a regional war, very
Speaker 2: difficult decisions lie ahead, mistakes can be easily made. All
Speaker 2: eyes on Israel's northern front. So when a pro Israel voice,
Speaker 2: I mean this, entire groups you know exists specifically to
Speaker 2: defend Israel and to advocate for war with Iran. We
Speaker 2: actually have interviewed people from FDD in the past over
Speaker 2: on rising. I think it was after the Soleimani strike
Speaker 2: and he was one of the people who is defending it.
Speaker 2: So the context in all of this to be seen
Speaker 2: here is that the battlespace quote unquote for the in
Speaker 2: the Internet and in the war of opinion is now
Speaker 2: playing out. The Biden administration doesn't want this to happen,
Speaker 2: but it's pretty clear to me that the Israelis do.
Speaker 2: I mean that quote that from the Washington Post article
Speaker 2: of the Israeli Defense minister. He says, we prefer the
Speaker 2: path that agreed upon diplomatic settlement, but we are getting
Speaker 2: close to the point where the hourglass will turn over.
Speaker 2: This is not Gaza Hamas has you know, basically is
Speaker 2: mounting an insurgency campaign. I think there'll be a low
Speaker 2: grade military insurgency there for many years to come, but
Speaker 2: that's I'm not going to say it's manageable because it's
Speaker 2: going to be horrible, but it is a difficult It's
Speaker 2: a different military situation. Hes Bolah, with their military capabilities,
Speaker 2: they've been preparing for this since two thousand and six,
Speaker 2: and don't forget two thousand and six was one of
Speaker 2: the worst wars that Israel has ever engaged in, and
Speaker 2: it caused significant strife in the country and the IDF.
Speaker 2: Right now, you know they're sending reservists back. It's pretty
Speaker 2: clear the Israeli economy is suffering pretty badly from the
Speaker 2: overall effects of the war. The Houthy blockade is disrupting
Speaker 2: global shipping. That is nothing compared to what happens if
Speaker 2: this goes hot with Hezbolah, the Hoothy attacks, the Iranian attacks,
Speaker 2: the attacks on American soldiers, and the likelihood. I actually,
Speaker 2: I'm pretty willing to state that if Hezbola enters this war,
Speaker 2: and especially if Irani and proxy attacks continue, there's simply
Speaker 2: no way the US will stay out of it.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying we shouldn't stay. I believe that we should,
Speaker 3: but there's just I.
Speaker 2: Mean, given the current environment, given the political situation, the
Speaker 2: Biden administration, and our number of thousands of troops in
Speaker 2: the Middle East. If you attack us, then what is it?
Speaker 2: I mean, there's no other choice. Yeah, that I think
Speaker 2: a lot of US face. So this is this is
Speaker 2: a very very dangerous moment the war.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's ever been more fraud and dangerous
Speaker 1: and more clear the escalatory track that we're already on.
Speaker 4: Than it is right now at this moment.
Speaker 1: There was another report Huffing and Post has actually done
Speaker 1: some good reporting on Israel's assault on Gozolo's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Bronco Marcatic was tweeting about this.
Speaker 1: He says, all US war games, this is from the
Speaker 1: Huffing to Post report show an Israeli Lebanon war quote
Speaker 1: escalating into something terrible. But the Biden White House still
Speaker 1: not considering putting conditions on arms transfers to Israel. One
Speaker 1: US official set as the problem is no one can
Speaker 1: rain in Biden and Bronco says this is alarming and damning,
Speaker 1: which I would have to agree with.
Speaker 4: So you have the you know, various defense officials.
Speaker 1: Leakol in the huffn and Posts, leaking in the Washington Posts,
Speaker 1: leaking to the Wall Street Journal, leaking to all of
Speaker 1: these papers and media outlets, and maybe or maybe not,
Speaker 1: behind the scenes, Biden and co. Were saying, hey, please
Speaker 1: don't start a war with HESBLO. We really don't want
Speaker 1: you to. But there is zero indication that they are
Speaker 1: actually willing to do anything to use US leverage to
Speaker 1: try to prevent an outcome which they know would be
Speaker 1: completely disastrous. And so it's just yet another emblem of
Speaker 1: the completely pathetic and impotent.
Speaker 4: Direction of US policy.
Speaker 1: And you know, to be honest with you, does Biden,
Speaker 1: you know, what is his actual view of the risk here?
Speaker 1: Doesn't really understand the actual risks here. I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but at this point, given them months we've had of
Speaker 1: you know, US actions being unconditional support, We're going to
Speaker 1: bypass Congress. We're going to bypass our normal State Department
Speaker 1: procedures to ship weapons into the region. We're going to
Speaker 1: tell them absolutely red lines, and then we're going to
Speaker 1: have these little comments about how we're concerned about civilians,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I mean, at this point we have to
Speaker 1: say all of that is nonsense. They actually completely support
Speaker 1: what Israel is doing with regards to Gaza.
Speaker 4: With this, do they support it. Do they not support it?
Speaker 1: I have no idea, but what I can tell you
Speaker 1: is they're not doing anything to forestall the possibility that
Speaker 1: we get dragged directly into this thing, whether we want
Speaker 1: to or not.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right on.
Speaker 2: In Israeli media, they're already talking about some of the
Speaker 2: effect of what this war will look like. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen to this. This is from I twenty four
Speaker 2: News Inside of Israel.
Speaker 5: Has bla's claim to struck a very strategic air force
Speaker 5: ready air force facility that is a raidar facility of
Speaker 5: the Israeli Air Force on Mount Mirrole that's sort of
Speaker 5: a raidar facility is the one that enables these ready
Speaker 5: air force to control all of its aerial activity in
Speaker 5: the North, like we saw perhaps in that strike in
Speaker 5: Beirut last week and so many other is ready airstrikes
Speaker 5: in the region. I can also remind you in our
Speaker 5: viewers that just prior to the October seventh attack, Hamas
Speaker 5: has struck so many of Israel's surveillian systems, the cameras
Speaker 5: and other more advanced facilities, and even on October seventh
Speaker 5: itself was able to use drones to hit some of
Speaker 5: the very important strategic defense and radar.
Speaker 3: Systems on the border.
Speaker 5: What's enabled Hamas to go on with that attack, and
Speaker 5: of course that is extremely worring if Israel's surveillance systems
Speaker 5: in the northern part of the next to the Levities
Speaker 5: border will also severely hit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Chris sol and that came right after forty different
Speaker 2: projectiles put this please up on the screen. Has Bulah
Speaker 2: fired dozens of rockets in their quote initial response to
Speaker 2: the killing of the Hamas leader. This is all across
Speaker 2: of northern Israel. We've flagged this before, but we haven't
Speaker 2: touched on it quite a long time.
Speaker 3: Don't forget.
Speaker 2: One hundred thousand people inside of Israel have been relocated
Speaker 2: from the northern border. It is the largest internal migration
Speaker 2: in Israeli history actually since nineteen forty eight, which demonstrates
Speaker 2: the really fear on their part that the civilians will
Speaker 2: get caught into it, and the Israeli government is paying
Speaker 2: I mean billions of dollars just to house these people
Speaker 2: inside their own country. This just demonstrates us what it
Speaker 2: will continue and may look like. And the two front
Speaker 2: war I think would be genuinely catastrophic because they would
Speaker 2: have to make the same choices that we did in
Speaker 2: Iraq and Afghanistan. And we are one of the world,
Speaker 2: We were probably the world's greatest military, and we had
Speaker 2: to call up all of our National Guard and all
Speaker 2: of our reserves, and we were stretched very thin. This
Speaker 2: is a much smaller country. The reservists, many of them
Speaker 2: have already been sent home. Some you know, many hundreds
Speaker 2: people have been killed IDF soldiers. This would be the
Speaker 2: big getting and the worst and the bloodiest incident in
Speaker 2: them so far. So I think we should take these
Speaker 2: warnings very, very seriously and diplomatically. I think I just
Speaker 2: come down to this. I don't see a way out.
Speaker 2: You know, Netsa Yah, who is cut you know, he's stuck.
Speaker 2: So between what is it? Ben Gavie and Smotrich and
Speaker 2: these guys are openly dissing America and public which you
Speaker 2: guys did a great job of.
Speaker 3: Covering, being like, hey, we're different.
Speaker 2: You know, you guys are a friend, but you're not
Speaker 2: where Israel is not the fifty first state. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I agree, we shouldn't treat you as one. And yeah,
Speaker 2: exactly the way. It's interesting, you know, loyalty runs one way.
Speaker 2: What's the client state? In this relationship. It's just like
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and all these other people. It's
Speaker 2: like we're apparently just we cut the checks and we
Speaker 2: have too much. I don't know, we don't have enough
Speaker 2: pride to actually stand up for ourselves. Separate that, though,
Speaker 2: politically inside Netsa yah Who, this is a good thing
Speaker 2: for him. His right wing coalition is the only thing
Speaker 2: keeping into power. They want war with Hesbola. They're openly
Speaker 2: going out and they're saying it. So this would also
Speaker 2: stave off any more questions of the longer we get
Speaker 2: away from October seventh, it's no longer about it October seven.
Speaker 2: It's just like Iraq, and it would just drag things
Speaker 2: on for longer and longer. The real question is about
Speaker 2: the Israeli public, and we haven't seen polling yet though
Speaker 2: to that effect. At a certain point, though, polling doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: If we see a series of you know, escalatory strikes,
Speaker 2: this thing could go hot in just a matter of days.
Speaker 2: It only takes one facility struck, then you strike another
Speaker 2: person and that's it. You know, a ship goes down,
Speaker 2: and then we're in a totally different situation.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the other thing is that the truth of
Speaker 1: the matter is as horrific as the Israeli assault on
Speaker 1: Gaza has been for Palestinians living in Gaza, it has
Speaker 1: not been that successful in terms of getting yoa Sinwar
Speaker 1: who you know, is like the big name that they
Speaker 1: were supposed to be going after.
Speaker 4: They haven't succeeded in that.
Speaker 1: They're claiming that they've basically, you know, not eliminated Hamas
Speaker 1: in northern Gaza, but they've you know, severely degraded their
Speaker 1: fighting capabilities. But Hamas is still taking out top Israeli
Speaker 1: military officers in northern Gaza. So is that even accurate
Speaker 1: you'll buy their own estimates of which is the rosiest
Speaker 1: possible projection of how many Hamas militants they've taken out,
Speaker 1: it's nowhere close to even half of the fighters that
Speaker 1: they have.
Speaker 4: They've had to shift their.
Speaker 1: Language even you know, within Israel of oh, you know,
Speaker 1: the goal is no longer eliminate Hamas, it's more like
Speaker 1: degrade Hamas, you know, So they've had shift their language.
Speaker 1: So the other piece of the incentive here with Netanyahu
Speaker 1: is he's got to bring home a victory if he
Speaker 1: has any prayer of staying in power, and so if
Speaker 1: victory is not going to come in Gaza, well, I
Speaker 1: guess we got to start a war on another front,
Speaker 1: which is something, by the way, they've been teasing from
Speaker 1: the beginning, even though keep in mind Heswell was not
Speaker 1: involved in October seventh, Right, it's sort of like us
Speaker 1: going into a rock when they had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with nine to eleven. And it's the very similar vibes
Speaker 1: here because Heswell had nothing to do with October seventh.
Speaker 4: You'll recall Yev.
Speaker 1: Galant, who is the Defense Minister in Israel, saying they
Speaker 1: could do in Beirut what they did in Gaza. This
Speaker 1: was very early on, so they have been teasing this
Speaker 1: for quite some time now. You also had I believe
Speaker 1: it was you of Galant as well, saying we are
Speaker 1: fighting a seven front war and we are taking actions
Speaker 1: already on six fronts. So in some ways this in
Speaker 1: some manners of speaking, this is already underway. And just
Speaker 1: to underscore that video that we showed you a moment ago,
Speaker 1: that analyst on an Israeli news stage news channel senior
Speaker 1: editor of I twenty four News. He was talking about
Speaker 1: the fact Hesbela they've acknowledged now the idea of his
Speaker 1: acknowledged Hesbela was able to inflict severe damage on this
Speaker 1: Israeli bas, this important strategic Israeli bas pretty close to
Speaker 1: Lebanon border. They were able to inflict severe damage. They
Speaker 1: have significantly more military capability than Hamas. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not comparable at all. So you already see the escalatory chain.
Speaker 1: You had these tit for tat, you know, attacks between
Speaker 1: Hesbla and Israel that's been going on for some time.
Speaker 1: Then you have Israel target and assassiny a top Hamas
Speaker 1: leader in the suburbs of Beirut. That was a huge escalation.
Speaker 1: Then in response, you have Hesbla able to inflict severe
Speaker 1: damage on the Israeli air base. And now this morning
Speaker 1: we get the word that Israel has been able to
Speaker 1: kill a top Hezbla commander. So you can see the
Speaker 1: way that this is already building and US hand ringing
Speaker 1: is not going to do a damn thing unless we
Speaker 1: actually are willing to back it up with some actions.
Speaker 1: Speaking of that, speaking of our impotence in this whole conflict,
Speaker 1: are feigned impotence, I should say, pretending like oh there's
Speaker 1: nothing we can do, and we're doing our best. Antony
Speaker 1: Blancn is back in the region. I believe that this
Speaker 1: is his fourth time traveling there since October seventh. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He was meeting with
Speaker 1: various leaders in the region and King of Dullah of Jordan,
Speaker 1: warning Antony Blancn, Secretary of State that there would be
Speaker 1: catastrophic ramifications if the war in Gaza does continue.
Speaker 4: This is the full.
Speaker 1: Redout of their meeting in Aman. Yashar Ali tweeted this out.
Speaker 1: His Majesty, King of Dullah, during a meeting on Sunday
Speaker 1: with US Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln, warned of the
Speaker 1: catastrophic ramifications of the continued war on Gaza, stressing the
Speaker 1: need to end the tragic humanitarian crisis in the Strip.
Speaker 1: This goes on at the meeting, attended by His Royal Highness,
Speaker 1: His stressed the important role of the US and pushing
Speaker 1: towards an immediate ceasefire in Gaza protection of civilians, while
Speaker 1: guaranteeing the sustainable delivery of sufficient humanitarian and relief aid
Speaker 1: to the Strip. The King reaffirmed there will be no
Speaker 1: stability in the region without a just solution to the
Speaker 1: Palestinian issue and adjust and comprehensive peace on the basis
Speaker 1: of a two state solution. His Majesty expressed Jordan's rejection
Speaker 1: of the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank
Speaker 1: and Gaza is something that many Israeli politicians at this
Speaker 1: time have been pushing for, which constitutes a clear violation
Speaker 1: of international law. The King also reiterated Jordan's rejection of
Speaker 1: attempts to separate Gaza and the West Bank, as they
Speaker 1: are both part of the Pala to me in state
Speaker 1: and soccer. We also had two Democratic senators it was
Speaker 1: Chris van Holland and someone else and blanking on who
Speaker 1: the other person was, who were just in the region
Speaker 1: as well, and they are calling out Israel for blocking
Speaker 1: aid delivery and imposing this insanely cumbersome process that makes
Speaker 1: it impossible to get anywhere close to sufficient aid into Gaza.
Speaker 1: This at a time when you know the un IS
Speaker 1: reporting path of Gozin's are starving and ninety percent are
Speaker 1: regularly going full days without eating anything. So even apart
Speaker 1: from you know, the bombs and the bullets, the starvation,
Speaker 1: dehydration and disease is likely to ultimately claim more lives
Speaker 1: than even we've seen from the direct assault.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a direct assault, looting, all of that.
Speaker 2: There's also some breaking news I want to mention Crystal
Speaker 2: is tying us a little bit back that just came
Speaker 2: from Haratz. One hundred and three Israeli soldiers were just
Speaker 2: wounded yesterday in the war. Only nineteen of those in Gaza.
Speaker 2: So that's over eighty Israeli soldiers wounded in a single
Speaker 2: day by Hesbolo.
Speaker 3: I mean those are stunning numbers. I mean this just
Speaker 3: just came out.
Speaker 4: Now, this.
Speaker 3: Is at the northern front, you know, in for israel I.
Speaker 2: Just wanted to mention it because I mean that's what
Speaker 2: they It took them weeks to lose one hundred people
Speaker 2: or to even have a wounded casualties in Gaza, just
Speaker 2: to demonstrate again the military capabilities. This is what actual
Speaker 2: ballistic missiles look like, not you know, pittily little rockets
Speaker 2: that are launched from Gaza. So all that situation, you know,
Speaker 2: together is really really terrifying. We have this last piece
Speaker 2: we can put up here about the escalating attacks between
Speaker 2: the US and the HOO. This they say the US
Speaker 2: six to contain the running proxies is concerns about a
Speaker 2: wide middle East war is breaking out are increasing and honestly,
Speaker 2: this policy has been a failure of been watching from
Speaker 2: Afar to watch.
Speaker 3: I mean, we've watched the vast.
Speaker 2: Majority of traffic that was supposed to go through the
Speaker 2: Red Sea now divert around the Horn of Africa. The
Speaker 2: big problem with that is it costs a lot of
Speaker 2: money and all of us are the ones who are
Speaker 2: going to be paying for it. So congratulations, inflation is
Speaker 2: almost certainly going to be back. This is a devastating
Speaker 2: blow actually to the European economies. This was an easier
Speaker 2: way for a lot of them to get goods. You know,
Speaker 2: the Chinese and others are going to be going around
Speaker 2: in different ways. But this level of disruption to global
Speaker 2: shipping is absolutely unprecedented. We have not seen anything like
Speaker 2: it since the Russian invasion, and before that, honestly, we
Speaker 2: had not seen anything like that in decades, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe the Suez crisis.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, the Houthis are very clear about why they're doing this.
Speaker 1: It is in direct response to Israel's assault on Gaza
Speaker 1: and our enabling of that, by the way, and they
Speaker 1: actually put on a statement saying listen, we're actually upholding
Speaker 1: you know, the Genocide Convention, which obligates you not only
Speaker 1: to not commit genocide, but to take actions to prevent genocide.
Speaker 1: They say, hey, that's what we're up to here, that's
Speaker 1: why we're taking these actions that we're taking. So again,
Speaker 1: you have this long CNN report, you know, defense officials
Speaker 1: leaking to them, freaking out about the risk and the
Speaker 1: possible broader war. And nowhere in it do they indicate
Speaker 1: there's a very clear your direction to go in to
Speaker 1: stop and to cease these hostilities and to you know,
Speaker 1: eliminate the risk that this blows up into some larger
Speaker 1: conflict and that's a ceasefire. That's to push for a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: Nowhere is that reported in the press. They don't put
Speaker 1: that context in whatsoever that you know, we're trying to
Speaker 1: pull this coalition together. It is like a new coalition
Speaker 1: of the well it did. There were countries that initially
Speaker 1: joined that back down. We never really had significant regional participation.
Speaker 1: Bahrain that was the only regional country that participated at all.
Speaker 1: People didn't want to be associated with it. And so
Speaker 1: it really has been yet another humiliating failure for the
Speaker 1: US here in terms of their attempt to deal.
Speaker 2: With that, I want to spend some just a few
Speaker 2: moments on this because I've seen a lot of people like,
Speaker 2: let's bomb them, and I'm not above bombing. You kill
Speaker 2: an American soldier, you target a US flagship, we should
Speaker 2: bomb the hell out of you. Here's the issue. The
Speaker 2: Cassaudis have carpet bombed Yemen to Kingdom.
Speaker 3: Come right, what happened? Who these won? They won the war.
Speaker 2: So it's like if bombs could solve this issue, then
Speaker 2: the Saudi would have already done it. And if you
Speaker 2: think that, you know they're incompetent or whatever. They're using
Speaker 2: our weapons. Just so everybody knows. We were helping them
Speaker 2: pick targets and we were helping, you know, supplying their
Speaker 2: entire war and Yemen it became a horrific humanitarian disaster.
Speaker 2: And the Hohothis still have the capabilities. This is Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: this is not a problem which can be solved with
Speaker 2: airpower alone. To solve this and to actually put an
Speaker 2: end to the attacks, we could pursue diplomacy, or we're
Speaker 2: going to have to occupy Yemen.
Speaker 3: We there's just no other way around it.
Speaker 2: Actual, you know, ground soldiers would have to go in
Speaker 2: and they would have to dig them out of the
Speaker 2: fortifications that they've had now throughout the entire civil war,
Speaker 2: they have huge stockpiles of weapons. I mean, the military
Speaker 2: capability of the Hoothies.
Speaker 3: And of Hesbola.
Speaker 2: I would put it on par with like Europe, a
Speaker 2: small European nation. It's it's not a paramilitary force in
Speaker 2: the same way that Hamas is. So I just want to,
Speaker 2: you know, to put that out there because people are like, well,
Speaker 2: why isn't the military doing anything?
Speaker 3: They would if they could.
Speaker 2: That's not you know, if it was as simple as
Speaker 2: just bombing a single ballistic missile state or whatever inside
Speaker 2: of Yemen, it would be easy. But you know, we
Speaker 2: have learned from the Saudis that it's not that simple.
Speaker 2: And in fact, the Saudi's in the middle of there
Speaker 2: were they often had missiles raining down on their own
Speaker 2: country and they have freaking patriot batteries and all of that.
Speaker 2: This would take billions of dollars and there was just
Speaker 2: no there would be no way of quote unquote solving
Speaker 2: this problem without American ground troops. Also, Saudi campaign shows
Speaker 2: us up for sure.
Speaker 1: There's an ongoing peace negotiation with Saudi and the Houthi's
Speaker 1: I mean, the Hoothy's control portion of Yemen, including the
Speaker 1: capital city. The Saudi backed you know forces control another
Speaker 1: part of Yemen. So there's this ongoing process to come
Speaker 1: to some sort of negotiated terms. US is also concerned
Speaker 1: about upsetting that process. The Saudis don't want that process upset,
Speaker 1: So there's those considerations as well. But you know, from
Speaker 1: the Houthis perspective, this has been tremendously.
Speaker 4: Prestige building for that of course.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's tremendous disrupting global shipping.
Speaker 1: This little force that's able to like disrupt the whole
Speaker 1: globe and have massive and now go and toe to
Speaker 1: toe with the you know, world's great superpower if we
Speaker 1: struck them directly, if we hit them directly, that would
Speaker 1: only further enhance their prestige. I mean for them, this
Speaker 1: is really a win win situation that they have figured
Speaker 1: out here because there was some you know, discontent among
Speaker 1: their own people, as you know, as the war is
Speaker 1: coming to a close, and so the Palestinian cause is
Speaker 1: one that unites everyone in Yemen. So they're able to
Speaker 1: demonstrate that they're fully behind that they're able to raise
Speaker 1: their profile globally, and you know, if we were to
Speaker 1: hit them, that's we're saying like they've been bombed to hell.
Speaker 1: If bombs were the answer, that would have been solved
Speaker 1: long ago. I just want to come back finally, and
Speaker 1: then we'll move on to some of the information that's
Speaker 1: come out about the way the media is reporting on
Speaker 1: all of this conflict. That there is a very simple
Speaker 1: way for this to all to end, and that's sort
Speaker 1: a ceasefire.
Speaker 4: And then you know, the hu this have made it
Speaker 4: clear this is their beef.
Speaker 1: They will stop messing with the Red Sea if you
Speaker 1: have a ceasefire. The attacks in a rock, those will
Speaker 1: stop if there's a ceasefire, the escalation with HESBLA, if
Speaker 1: there's a So there is a very clear direction we
Speaker 1: should be going in if we are concerned about these things,
Speaker 1: and more bombs and more aircraft carriers and more handring
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post is not going to solve the problem.
Speaker 2: I unfortunately think you're probably right, and I don't see
Speaker 2: a situation. But I mean, the political wins in Israel
Speaker 2: are just so far, you know, beyond that that until
Speaker 2: something really truly breaks here in Washington, which I think
Speaker 2: we're still a very very long way away from this
Speaker 2: is the more likely page, and it.
Speaker 4: Really is Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's very clear now that even his top
Speaker 1: defense officials seem very unhappy with the direction things are
Speaker 1: going in.
Speaker 4: This really does come down.
Speaker 3: When they're conscious and more. We see you go again
Speaker 3: to that.
Speaker 1: This was quite a report from the intercept. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. So Daniel Boguslaw reported this
Speaker 1: out for them. The headline here as CNN is running
Speaker 1: Gaza coverage past their Jerusalem team, operating under the shadow
Speaker 1: of the IDF censor. So here's a little bit of context.
Speaker 1: Any foreign news outlet rating in Israel is obligated to
Speaker 1: run all their stories past the IDF sensor, and with
Speaker 1: very predictable results. Now, other news organizations have made the
Speaker 1: choice to route their Israel coverage through other bureaus outside
Speaker 1: of Israel to try to avoid this censorship. CNN has
Speaker 1: not done that. Let me read you a little bit
Speaker 1: of the report. This is sort of laying out what
Speaker 1: I just said. Like all foreign news organizations operating in Israel,
Speaker 1: CNN's Jerusalem bureau is subject to the rules of the
Speaker 1: IDF Censor, which dictates subjects that are off limits for
Speaker 1: news organizations to cover, and sensors articles it deems unfit
Speaker 1: or unsafe to print. As The Intercept reported last month,
Speaker 1: the military censor recently restricted eight different subjects, including security
Speaker 1: cabinet meetings, information about hostages, reporting on weapons captured by
Speaker 1: fighters in Gaza. In order to obtain a press pass
Speaker 1: in Israel, foreign reporters must sign a document agreeing to
Speaker 1: abide by the dictates of that sensor. Only democratcs see
Speaker 1: in the Middle East people. Also in October, CNN hired
Speaker 1: a former IDF soldier to contribute writing and reporting to
Speaker 1: CNN's war coverage. Tomar Mchayley's first byline appears on October seventeenth,
Speaker 1: just ten days after Hamas's attack. Since then, her name
Speaker 1: has appeared on dozens of stories citing the IDF spokesperson
Speaker 1: and relaying info about the IDFs operations in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: At least one story that has her byline alone is
Speaker 1: little more than a direct statement released from the IDF,
Speaker 1: So this is who they brought in for their coverage,
Speaker 1: which they are also choosing to run by the IDF censor.
Speaker 1: She apparently served in the IDF's spokesperson unit, a division
Speaker 1: of Israeli military charge with carrying out positive pr both
Speaker 1: domestically and abroad.
Speaker 4: Seems like she still works for that unit actually, and.
Speaker 1: Israel coverage is subject to a special review process that
Speaker 1: is unique to just exclusively to Israel coverage. A CNN's
Speaker 1: staff member described how the policy works in practice. Quote
Speaker 1: war crime and j side are taboo words. Israeli bombings
Speaker 1: and Gaza will be reported as quote blasts attributed to
Speaker 1: nobody until the Israeli military ways into either acceptors and
Speaker 1: i responsibility. Quotes an info provided by Israeli army and
Speaker 1: government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from
Speaker 1: Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed. Sober
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if a news outlet was running all
Speaker 1: of their stories by Hamas Yes before publishing it, how
Speaker 1: people would feel about that, And yet CNN thinks that
Speaker 1: this is all fine and well and good and counts
Speaker 1: as journalism.
Speaker 3: It's just outrageous.
Speaker 2: You know. There's so many ways in which there's media
Speaker 2: manipulation that happens behind the scenes and eventually just comes
Speaker 2: really forward. At moments like this, we saw a glimpse
Speaker 2: of that earlier when you had reporters who went in there,
Speaker 2: and actually, I'll give them credit at least for this
Speaker 2: is that they admitted it. They're like, look, the only
Speaker 2: way we could have this footage is if we gave
Speaker 2: it to the Israelis and they were able to edit it.
Speaker 3: That you're in a tough situation.
Speaker 2: I probably I think that on par as long as
Speaker 2: you disclose that, it's okay. But here they're not disclosing
Speaker 2: how much of the editing is happening and screening behind
Speaker 2: the scenes to a direct foreign government. And it just
Speaker 2: goes to the question like, who are you working for here?
Speaker 2: Are you just supposed to be reporting the news about
Speaker 2: what's happening. I mean, we are a small little YouTube show.
Speaker 3: We would never.
Speaker 2: Adhere to anything like this, And I want to give people,
Speaker 2: you know, an idea. People try this crap all the time.
Speaker 2: So when we were over at the Hill and I
Speaker 2: interviewed Trump, this is a fun story.
Speaker 3: So the whatever, who was that woman?
Speaker 2: Egen Carroll had just she had just that day she'd
Speaker 2: come out against Trump and said she's sexually assaulted her.
Speaker 2: Before we went in there, Sarah Sanders looks me directly
Speaker 2: in the face. She's like, look, just don't ask about
Speaker 2: the Egen Carroll thing. We were like, yeah, totally, of course.
Speaker 2: And what do you think we asked about at the
Speaker 2: end Egen Carroll? You know why cause it's like, sorry.
Speaker 3: I don't work for you. And then and there's another one.
Speaker 2: So in that they said Trump had said something about
Speaker 2: how he was going to go meet Kim Jong un
Speaker 2: at the DMZ the famous meeting, and she was like, hey,
Speaker 2: if you guys report that, then the.
Speaker 3: Meeting won't happen. It's a national secure risk.
Speaker 2: And we're like, okay, well we can hold off, but
Speaker 2: we're going to put it out there the moment that
Speaker 2: the meeting happens or you know, before security situation. So
Speaker 2: that I think was a reasonable one, because you know,
Speaker 2: if we report that and a meeting doesn't happen, it's
Speaker 2: one of those where if there's a genuine security risk
Speaker 2: and all that, but the eg and Carroll thing, we're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this will look bad for us.
Speaker 3: It's like I'm sorry each shit.
Speaker 2: Honestly, I mean, that's just one of those where you
Speaker 2: don't get to tell us what to do. I'm going
Speaker 2: to I'll lie to your face just to get into
Speaker 2: the room. But you know, after that, okay, don't invite
Speaker 2: me back. I don't know what to tell you. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where that's how you're supposed
Speaker 2: to operate in the media. That's that's what actual journalism
Speaker 2: is supposed to look like. That's a small thing, but
Speaker 2: it's just a demonstrative of an attitude as opposed to
Speaker 2: and you and I when we do this, we do
Speaker 2: not adhere to any preconditions when we do interviews. Part
Speaker 2: of the reasons many politicians are afraid to come on
Speaker 2: the show is because they will say things like, oh,
Speaker 2: he only wants to talk about taxes, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: that's fine, but you know, just so you know, that's
Speaker 2: not going to happen, right, or we'll be like, yeah, sure,
Speaker 2: come on in and then we'll ask you about whatever
Speaker 2: we want. That is how traditionally you're supposed to operate
Speaker 2: with anyone in power, Republican, Democrat, anyone. And yet this
Speaker 2: is just I mean shocking, it's too shocking.
Speaker 1: There's a dance that goes on with these politicians where
Speaker 1: they routinely, you know, they want to know what you're
Speaker 1: going to ask about they want to limit the conversation,
Speaker 1: and if you are worth your salt, you say no.
Speaker 4: You can say no. And I think you can.
Speaker 1: Tell by the interviews we conduct here that we don't
Speaker 1: abide by the US and guidelines.
Speaker 4: That they're asking for, you know.
Speaker 1: So obviously we have no transparency into what has been blocked,
Speaker 1: what has been censored, what language has been changed, what
Speaker 1: stories never got run or surfaced at all. So all
Speaker 1: you can do is look at what they're publishing and
Speaker 1: see the way that it is framed.
Speaker 4: So I kids, you not.
Speaker 1: After I read the story, I went on CNN's website
Speaker 1: and this was literally one of the first stories that
Speaker 1: popped up.
Speaker 4: And the impact of the sensor is plainly obvious. Like
Speaker 4: the language that they talk about here, Oh, it's going
Speaker 4: to be blast, but we're not going to attribute.
Speaker 1: To Israel is manifestly clear. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is a horrifying story. More than ten children a
Speaker 1: day are losing one or both legs in Gaza, according
Speaker 1: to Save the Children. So their headline does not attribute
Speaker 1: the fact that these kids are losing their limbs to Israel,
Speaker 1: which is the reason that they're losing these limbs.
Speaker 4: And then when you read the story, here's what they say.
Speaker 1: More than ten children on average have lost one or
Speaker 1: both of their legs every day in Gaza since October seventh. Again,
Speaker 1: like the limbs just fell off. No, they lost them
Speaker 1: because they were bombed by Israel. While many of the
Speaker 1: amputations are conducted without anesthetic. Again, why because Israel is
Speaker 1: blocking medical supplies from coming in. The charity Save the
Speaker 1: Children said in a statement Sunday, referencing statistics released by
Speaker 1: the UN. And then they quote someone as saying doctors
Speaker 1: and nurses are completely overwhelmed when children are brought in
Speaker 1: with blast wounds, blast wounds. So again the language is
Speaker 1: specifically cited in the intercept report. Nowhere in here in
Speaker 1: this first part of the report do they explain why
Speaker 1: these kids are losing their limbs. Ten kids a day
Speaker 1: losing one or both legs and having to be operated
Speaker 1: on with no anesthetic. No responsibility attributed there. Now, if
Speaker 1: it was in the other direction, if it was talking
Speaker 1: about the October seventh attacks and the atrocities that Hamas
Speaker 1: were committed, no problem attributing responsibility, no problem using visceral
Speaker 1: language about those horrors. But here when it's Israel totally different.
Speaker 2: That's what's so stupid is that obviously we should do
Speaker 2: it when you're talking about the victims of October seventh,
Speaker 2: then usually should just talk to when you're talking about
Speaker 2: the victims of war. And again, let's be very clear,
Speaker 2: we should use it when we're talking about anyone who
Speaker 2: is a non combatant civilian. I mean, and you can't
Speaker 2: even argue that these like small kids at least in
Speaker 2: this you know instance, are not working for or not
Speaker 2: like fighting for Hamas.
Speaker 3: It's just look passive.
Speaker 2: And the way that you do use language and all
Speaker 2: of that is one of the oldest forms of medium
Speaker 2: manipulation and of the way of presentation and all that
Speaker 2: of a story. And I think the passive language, the
Speaker 2: way that you use it is always, you know, the
Speaker 2: most is the most significant for the way that they
Speaker 2: frame something. It's like the traditional thing when Democrats do
Speaker 2: something bad and the New York Times will be like,
Speaker 2: Republicans pounce and the fact that Republican Democrats and it's like, well,
Speaker 2: just say they did a bad thing. Okay, we don't
Speaker 2: have to be we don't have to play dancing games here.
Speaker 2: And look, the right wing media does it too obviously.
Speaker 2: So it's just you can present things without trying to
Speaker 2: spin them at all times.
Speaker 3: But apparently that's that's not what they want to do
Speaker 3: over there.
Speaker 1: Adam Johnson flagged another example where you can see the
Speaker 1: potential impact of the IDF censor here.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen. He's his commentary.
Speaker 1: Says, losing my mind, you wann special Robert Or on
Speaker 1: the Human Rights of internally Displaced Persons correctly accuses Israel
Speaker 1: of work and to expel civilian population of Gaza. CNN
Speaker 1: reports it as mere allegation without mentioning Netanyahu himself explicitly
Speaker 1: said this is his goal just yesterday, and then he
Speaker 1: posts the report where yeah, they're just saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: they're accusing them of this, without providing any of the
Speaker 1: context that literally, the Prime Minister, the dude who's in
Speaker 1: con has made it clear that this is also his goal.
Speaker 1: And this is the same game that the State Department
Speaker 1: and the Department of Defense has been playing as well, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we condemn the statements from these extremists Smotrich and Bezaleel,
Speaker 1: and this is totally contradictory to the Israeli's actual policy
Speaker 1: and it's like, what makes you think that when everyone
Speaker 1: from the President of Israel to the Prime Minister of Israel,
Speaker 1: to numerous cabinet ministers and top lacued party members and
Speaker 1: military officials are all saying this is their goal, how
Speaker 1: can you claim that this is just some fringe opinion
Speaker 1: not to mention when you look at public sentiment in
Speaker 1: favor of the mass displacement of Palestinians on of Gaza.
Speaker 1: So these are the sort of games that they are playing, which, listen,
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't need the IDF censor in order to
Speaker 1: frame things in this way. There are plenty of Western
Speaker 1: media outlets who are doing equally poor jobs without running
Speaker 1: things by the IDEF censor. They're self censoring. But when
Speaker 1: you have this intentional policy of rooting everything through jrualism,
Speaker 1: of having an underneath the shadow of the idea of censor,
Speaker 1: these are the results you are guaranteed to get.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, let's move on to the next part here. This
Speaker 2: is one of the most insane stories that we've ever
Speaker 2: seen from a public official. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apparently
Speaker 2: has now been hospitalized for more than a week and
Speaker 2: did not inform his superiors. The President of the United States,
Speaker 2: any of his peers at the National Security Council, or
Speaker 2: his number two. Let's go ahead and put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen because the details are genuinely shocking.
Speaker 2: So the Pentagon's number two official did not learn that
Speaker 2: her boss was hospitalized on January first until four days later,
Speaker 2: after she had to assume some of his duties. This
Speaker 2: is according to the US military themselves. That's the Deputy
Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense, Kathy Hicks. She was actually scheduled on
Speaker 2: leave in Puerto Rico at the time and had already
Speaker 2: assumed some of Austin's duties, but did not know what.
Speaker 3: Had happened to them at the same time. Crystal.
Speaker 2: We are now learning that, according to these officials, the
Speaker 2: President of the United States was not informed until four
Speaker 2: days after it was known that Secretary of Defense Lloyd
Speaker 2: Austin is laid up continued to this day in the
Speaker 2: hospital for some sort of unknown condition. So according to them,
Speaker 2: the details of this are super vague. On the evening
Speaker 2: of January one, Austin bien experiencing quote severe pain. He
Speaker 2: was taken to Walter Reid, where he was then admitted
Speaker 2: to a hospital's intensive care unit. Now Previously, officials had
Speaker 2: said that he had undergone an elective procedure during his
Speaker 2: scheduled leave on December twenty seconds, so that's eight days
Speaker 2: prior to experiencing these pains. The officials have not described
Speaker 2: to us yet, though, what that elective surgery procedure was.
Speaker 2: A lot of us are speculating here. I mean, at
Speaker 2: a certain point, you got to release it. We were
Speaker 2: saying on the phone, like what is it like a
Speaker 2: BBL or something like? Is it a face slipped?
Speaker 3: I mean, is it?
Speaker 2: What is a light boat section? I mean, what's happening here?
Speaker 2: I know there's a lot of different types elective surgery.
Speaker 1: I looked in here, yeah, okay, looked first of all,
Speaker 1: what are the most dangerous plastic surgery that you can
Speaker 1: have done? And BBL is actually dangerous. But I don't
Speaker 1: want to laugh. His condition could be very serious. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's this man is still in the hospital, but he
Speaker 1: is out of ICU as far as I understand. But
Speaker 1: I also looked into I mean, this is this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But I also looked into what are the most common
Speaker 1: elective procedures for a man his age, And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of things like to do with your colon and hernia,
Speaker 1: stuff like that, which you know, when you hear elective,
Speaker 1: you do think something like, oh, you're getting a nose
Speaker 1: job or something like that. But they can be things
Speaker 1: that are like needed, but they still somehow get classified
Speaker 1: as elective. In any case, whatever it is, it must
Speaker 1: be sort of embarrassing or else there wouldn't be all
Speaker 1: of this reluctance to release the information, not only to
Speaker 1: the public, which whatever, the public's one thing, but to
Speaker 1: the people who were taking over for your job. And
Speaker 1: the irony here is of horse by it tempting to
Speaker 1: hide it. He has made the whole world, yes, aware
Speaker 1: of what's going on.
Speaker 3: Right, and let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: They again, to their own, by their own admission, it
Speaker 2: did not inform President Biden the White House for days
Speaker 2: about his hospitalization. This man was in the ICU. So
Speaker 2: I have a lot of questions about this. Number One,
Speaker 2: I guess I'm just naive and assumed that the President
Speaker 2: would talk to his Defense secretary every day in the
Speaker 2: middle of a global international crisis.
Speaker 3: Apparently that's not true.
Speaker 2: Apparently the President, the National Security Advisor, the top team
Speaker 2: at the White House just doesn't talk to the sect
Speaker 2: deaf all that much. I'm actually very disturbed by that
Speaker 2: they don't find out until four days later. Now I
Speaker 2: understand everyone's on vacation, there's no vacation when you're the president.
Speaker 2: Then you have the means here of Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2: Lloyd Austin did not inform his number two until days
Speaker 2: after he was in the ICU. Now, you guys are
Speaker 2: not going to believe what his or excuse for this is.
Speaker 2: Put this up there. The excuse is that the Pentagon's
Speaker 2: chiefest staff was sick. Therefore she could not notify the
Speaker 2: number two about his hospitalization for four days. Are we
Speaker 2: really supposed to believe that the Secretary of Defense only
Speaker 2: has one person who is capable of notifying the number two.
Speaker 3: I covered the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: He is surrounded at any one time by up to
Speaker 2: fifteen to twenty people.
Speaker 3: There are actually crystal over.
Speaker 2: One hundred people who work in the office of the
Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon. And so that tells
Speaker 2: me that actually the number two was the only or
Speaker 2: his chiefest staff was the only person who even knew
Speaker 2: about what was going on. So he's not only hiding
Speaker 2: things from his staff, he's hiding it from his superiors,
Speaker 2: from the Secretary of State. I mean, imagine if a
Speaker 2: global conflagration had kicked off and this man is.
Speaker 3: A real one, Like what if? What if the who
Speaker 3: he's fired on the US ship? What happens? You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, if anybody has ever done this, go and
Speaker 2: read the minute by minute account by Daniel Ellsberg of
Speaker 2: the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I mean that Secretary McNamara
Speaker 2: was literally issuing minute by minute orders, but like, do
Speaker 2: not fire until I tell you to do so, I'll
Speaker 2: speak to the president. And you know he was giving
Speaker 2: orders at certain points during the Cuban missile crisis and
Speaker 2: during the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which demonstrates, like, imagine
Speaker 2: a situation of something like that that could have happened,
Speaker 2: which is why this is never supposed to be allowed.
Speaker 2: And I would actually put it this way. Secretary of
Speaker 2: Austin was a four star.
Speaker 3: General in the army. Imagine if any there are a.
Speaker 2: Lot of people who are in the US military in
Speaker 2: the show, who watched the show, Imagine if you in
Speaker 2: a superior position, a commanding officer would disappeared for four
Speaker 2: days straight and did not tell his subordinates about what
Speaker 2: was happening, leading to chaos and a leadership vacuum in
Speaker 2: a time of peace. Even that's it, you're fired or
Speaker 2: at the very least boom. That is a career ending move.
Speaker 2: That's genuinely psychotic, you know, to be doing something like this. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, in my opinion, I don't think he can last.
Speaker 2: I think he's gotta be fired. There's just no, you can't.
Speaker 2: You can't stay for this. We cannot stand you to
Speaker 2: have somebody who's clearly hiding their medical issue.
Speaker 3: He can date with dignity and be like I'm sick.
Speaker 3: I got to go, you know, something like this. But
Speaker 3: that's it.
Speaker 2: I mean, in my opinion, if I was Biden, I
Speaker 2: would fire. I would have fired. His asked the day
Speaker 2: I found.
Speaker 1: Out Biden is basically yeah, cover for him. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a few thoughts that come to mind. First of all,
Speaker 1: the fact that you know you said if there is
Speaker 1: a pobe compagation, It's not like there isn't a lot.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a pivotal moment. There's kind of a
Speaker 1: lot going on. There's a lot of risks that are
Speaker 1: unfolding that we just covered extensively. There's obviously our you know,
Speaker 1: ongoing support for the horrors that being inflicted on Gaza.
Speaker 1: There's all sorts of concerns that are unfolding before our
Speaker 1: eyes globally right now, So not a great time to
Speaker 1: take time off Number two.
Speaker 4: It also raises the question of, like, what are you
Speaker 4: even doing on in.
Speaker 1: Daily I know that you thought that it would be
Speaker 1: fine to just like vanish for a few weeks and
Speaker 1: not even tell. The one that in some ways is
Speaker 1: the craziest to me is that the person who was
Speaker 1: in having to take command, who was in charge, didn't
Speaker 1: even know like that the number two didn't even know
Speaker 1: that they were now in charge. That to me is
Speaker 1: in some ways the craziest thing. But yeah, I'm looking
Speaker 1: like so, I guess you're just not really doing all
Speaker 1: that much if you feel like you can just go
Speaker 1: willy nilly and take a significant break and that you
Speaker 1: think you're going to be able to get away with
Speaker 1: not telling anyone.
Speaker 4: That was to me maybe the most.
Speaker 3: Revealing, the saddest thing.
Speaker 2: When I was eighteen years old, I came to the
Speaker 2: city to college, and I had these grand ideas about
Speaker 2: what politicians and all of them were like, and I
Speaker 2: was very lucky. I got an internship, you know, my
Speaker 2: first fluid, my first day of college, I show up
Speaker 2: to Capitol Hill and I was like, oh no, this
Speaker 2: is not uh you know what kind of what I
Speaker 2: thought it would be. The best and the brightest are
Speaker 2: not the ones who are working here. And more than
Speaker 2: decade now of living in the city and working in
Speaker 2: very close proximity and covering people in power, really what
Speaker 2: I've learned is that it's far more mediocre, incompetent, and
Speaker 2: awful than anyone is really led to believe. We want
Speaker 2: to believe that the people who are in power are
Speaker 2: you know, very are intelligent, and they work very hard and.
Speaker 3: All of that.
Speaker 2: But what comes across these people are like white collar
Speaker 2: employees all over the world.
Speaker 3: They're just checking out over Jan one to Jan. Five.
Speaker 2: And that's fine when maybe you're a host of a show,
Speaker 2: a YouTube show, and you have a competent co host
Speaker 2: who's capable of taking over for you. It's not fine
Speaker 2: whenever you're working in public service. And I think it
Speaker 2: just you know, whenever we talk about the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and all that, these people just want to have it
Speaker 2: both ways. They want to be like their peers in
Speaker 2: corporate life, who are able to jet set to wherever.
Speaker 3: They want to go.
Speaker 2: But you can do that when you're in charge of
Speaker 2: a corporation, you can't do it when you are in
Speaker 2: charge of the world's most powerful military. And you would
Speaker 2: think that a former four star general of the United
Speaker 2: States Army would know that more than anybody.
Speaker 3: So he should be fired.
Speaker 2: He should be kicked out, He should be unceremoniously dismissed,
Speaker 2: as he would if he were still a member of
Speaker 2: the US Armed Forces. We should never accept this from
Speaker 2: people who are in.
Speaker 4: Power, you know.
Speaker 1: He also made some of the I thought most honest
Speaker 1: comments about Israel's star. Yeah, Za was the one that
Speaker 1: said they were facing a strategic defeat, which you know,
Speaker 1: raised a lot of eyebrows at the time because that
Speaker 1: was early on that he made those comments. But I
Speaker 1: think he must have gotten used to that bord of
Speaker 1: directors of raytheon life. That's true when he was in
Speaker 1: the private sector. And it's like, listen, that option is
Speaker 1: still available to you, sir.
Speaker 4: That's right, you could go and do that any.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they will take you right back, no problem whatsoever.
Speaker 3: So they'll pay you wild situation. You can get your
Speaker 3: tummy tucks.
Speaker 2: You know, you can do whatever you want, but you
Speaker 2: can't be doing that when you're the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2: And again, I just want to underscore this. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there. As of last night, he's still in
Speaker 2: the hospital. According to the Pentagon Press, Secretary quote Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense Lloyd Austin, this is the next one, guys, says,
Speaker 2: we will remain hospitalized at Walter Reed National Medical Center,
Speaker 2: but is quote recovering well and in good spirits.
Speaker 3: Crystal, you and I.
Speaker 4: Don't have a specific date for his release, so you
Speaker 4: were still in series.
Speaker 2: No, I know enough to say this. If you were
Speaker 2: in the hospital for a week straight, things are not good.
Speaker 2: Things are absolutely that could be an infection, that could
Speaker 2: be mean, who knows. I mean, he's not particularly a
Speaker 2: fit guy and he's only seventy years old, so it's
Speaker 2: really this could be a bad situation. But regardless his secrecy,
Speaker 2: the people around him, there's just this cannot stand.
Speaker 3: He's got to go.
Speaker 4: That terrible judgment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, also just on the basic level, like terrible judgment
Speaker 1: to think that you were going to be able to
Speaker 1: pull this.
Speaker 3: I totally agree all right.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of things that aren't going well the Biden campaign,
Speaker 1: Obama apparently raising a lot of concerns directly over the
Speaker 1: direction of the Biden campaign. This was a report from
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, which, again it's interesting not only what's
Speaker 1: said in this report, but also the fact that it
Speaker 1: is leaked to the press is in and of itself
Speaker 1: interesting and very intentional.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Former President Barack Obama has raised questions about the structure
Speaker 1: of President Biden's reelection campaign, discussing the matter directly, with
Speaker 1: Biden telling the President's aids and allies the campaign needs
Speaker 1: to be empowered to make decisions without clearing them with
Speaker 1: the White House. According to three people familiar, the headline
Speaker 1: is Obama worried about Trump, urges Biden's circle to bolster campaign.
Speaker 1: I'll read you some of these details because they are interesting.
Speaker 1: On that first part, where he's saying, like people need
Speaker 1: to be empowered, this is something. Biden is a famous micromanager.
Speaker 1: He's the worst combination of micromanaging and indecisive. So and
Speaker 1: he relies on this small circle of advisors.
Speaker 4: Who've been with him since the eighties.
Speaker 1: And so even when he brings in someone new to
Speaker 1: the circle, like, he doesn't delegate responsibility to them, and
Speaker 1: they're completely disempowered. So they're over in Wilmington on the campaign.
Speaker 1: The people he actually trusts are in DC, and so
Speaker 1: there's this huge disconnect which has, apparently, according to Obama
Speaker 1: in this report, completely hamstrung the campaign. It's a very
Speaker 1: different model from what the Obama campaign did in twenty twelve. Which, listen,
Speaker 1: whatever you think of him, the man ran two very
Speaker 1: effective campaigns in two thousand and eight and twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Couldn't get anybody but himself elected, wasn't good at that,
Speaker 1: but in terms of getting himself elected president, he was
Speaker 1: very effective, all right.
Speaker 4: More from the report.
Speaker 1: Obama grew animated in discussing the twenty twenty four election
Speaker 1: and former President Trump's potential return to power, and has
Speaker 1: suggested to Biden's advisors the campaign needs more top level
Speaker 1: decision makers at its headquarters in Wilmington, or it must
Speaker 1: empower the people already in place. Obama has not recommended
Speaker 1: specific individuals, but he has mentioned David Pluff, who managed
Speaker 1: Obama's two thousand and eight race, as the type of
Speaker 1: senior strategist needed at the Biden campaign. So he saying, like,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure you got the right folks here. Maybe
Speaker 1: talk to some of my people, maybe you'll do better.
Speaker 1: Very arrogant guy, but anyway, Obama's conversation with Biden on
Speaker 1: the subject took place during private lunch recently. During the lunch,
Speaker 1: Obama noted the success of his own re election campaign
Speaker 1: structure when some of his top aids, including Axelrod and Messina,
Speaker 1: left the White House to take charge of the reelection
Speaker 1: operation in Chicago. That's a sharp contrast from Biden's approach.
Speaker 1: He also recommended Biden seek council from Obama's own former
Speaker 1: campaign aids, which Biden officials say they have done. People said,
Speaker 1: and they also so quote Alyssa Slotkin here, Well, this
Speaker 1: was not a direct quote. She denies that she's concerned
Speaker 1: about the re election campaign, but she's running for Senate
Speaker 1: in Michigan and she has apparently expressed concern to allies
Speaker 1: she might not be able to win if Biden is
Speaker 1: at the top of the ticket. So there are a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats who are freaking out, even Biden. This
Speaker 1: was kind of remarkable to me. Zagarin just shows you
Speaker 1: what kind of a quote unquote leader. This man is
Speaker 1: even Biden's frustrated by his public standing, frequently complaining about
Speaker 1: his low public low poll numbers in private conversations with AIDS.
Speaker 1: In one meeting, he demanded to know what his team
Speaker 1: and his campaign staff were doing about it.
Speaker 4: Dude. Maybe it's not their fault.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's the fact that your unconditional support for Israel
Speaker 1: has horrified key voting blocks. Maybe it's the fact that
Speaker 1: you have literally promised nothing to do in a second term,
Speaker 1: and they're like, literally nothing, and you have given people
Speaker 1: no reason to vote for you.
Speaker 4: Maybe you to look a little bit.
Speaker 1: At your own actions here run thinking that a new
Speaker 1: message or a new advisor is going to really be
Speaker 1: the thing that does the trick here.
Speaker 2: It's so far beyond that. Go to the grocery store
Speaker 2: once like that, that's all it takes. I see people
Speaker 2: all the time at the grocery store with coupon books.
Speaker 2: You know, I've told you this previously about how YouTube
Speaker 2: channels about Grandma's cooking Great Depression recipes are more popular
Speaker 2: than ever right now. Just you know, if you're if
Speaker 2: you like to like look at recipes or whatever, go
Speaker 2: on Instagram or you know, any of these other places
Speaker 2: and scroll through your reels.
Speaker 3: You know what half of it is.
Speaker 2: It's like how to feed a family of five on
Speaker 2: one hundred bucks from Costco? And look, that's always one
Speaker 2: of those like that should always be popular, but it
Speaker 2: is exploded because of inflation. It's horrifying. I you know,
Speaker 2: I'm obsessed kind of recently with cat nutrition. Make sure
Speaker 2: my cat is treated the best. And on the cat subreddits,
Speaker 2: you know, the number one concern about feeding your cat
Speaker 2: the healthiest wet food and all that cost. They're like, hey, guys,
Speaker 2: how am I supposed to pay for this? I got
Speaker 2: X amount of mount You know, I don't want to
Speaker 2: love him so much. He's got kidney disease or whatever.
Speaker 2: I need to make sure he's got you know, he
Speaker 2: or she needs enough moisture in their diet.
Speaker 3: But I just can't afford it. I mean, that is
Speaker 3: a horrible situation to be in.
Speaker 2: And then you get to the you know, even worse
Speaker 2: case of oh now you're in a situation where you
Speaker 2: have to make trade off choices and all of that
Speaker 2: which previously you never had to do. And I think
Speaker 2: that that is a horrible lot. That is just the
Speaker 2: degradation of quality of life in the United States over
Speaker 2: the last three years for a variety of multifast in factors.
Speaker 2: Whether it's Biden's fault or not, it is still up
Speaker 2: to him to speak to those concerns, and he doesn't
Speaker 2: do it. You know, he just doesn't do it on
Speaker 2: a daily basis. At their entire gamble, Crystal is January sixth.
Speaker 2: I just don't think that's gonna Look, it's possible jan
Speaker 2: and six an abortion. I would give him at least
Speaker 2: to a forty eight percent shot, just because electoral successes
Speaker 2: over the last couple of years have demonstrated that. I
Speaker 2: read a really interesting piece over the break about how
Speaker 2: this could be really analogous to the nineteen forty eight election.
Speaker 2: So in nineteen forty eight, Harry Truman was historically unpopular.
Speaker 2: You have the war, yeah, you had the post war period.
Speaker 2: He was almost certain to lose the election according to
Speaker 2: the press, the gallop poles and all that had it
Speaker 2: against him. But what ended up saving him was that
Speaker 2: he rallied the you know kind of he rallied the
Speaker 2: populace against the quote unquote do nothing Congress. He was like,
Speaker 2: it's their fault that we're not doing more about this.
Speaker 2: And even though we have historic strikes and all that,
Speaker 2: you should stick with me because I got us through
Speaker 2: the World War two and I'll pull us out again.
Speaker 2: But reading it, you know, to see the way that
Speaker 2: Truman did win that extraordinary election with the famous you know,
Speaker 2: Dewey defeats Truman headline is Truman was an editor at
Speaker 2: a guy. You know, he was only twelve or so
Speaker 2: years younger, but he relentlessly talked about the issues that
Speaker 2: really faced people at that time who were very upset
Speaker 2: about inflation. And so I just don't structurally, I don't
Speaker 2: see the same thing. You just have a different man
Speaker 2: at the top of the ticket. Yeah, he's just he's
Speaker 2: a husk. I mean, there's just no way to describe it.
Speaker 2: We have to stop being polite at a certain point.
Speaker 1: So let me tell you what their cope is with
Speaker 1: their theory of the cases. And listen, you're right. I
Speaker 1: don't want to say he's going to lose. I think
Speaker 1: he's in a very poor position, as the lowest approval
Speaker 1: ratings of any income and president seeking reelection.
Speaker 4: It doesn't look good.
Speaker 1: But people also really hate Donald Trump and really don't
Speaker 1: want that chaos back and they were horrified by January
Speaker 1: six and by the ongoing legal issues. They do think
Speaker 1: that he's a criminal, and so you know, and then
Speaker 1: you add on top of that Roe versus Wade, and
Speaker 1: you know, you have a real contest.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: It's not a slam dunk either way. But this is
Speaker 1: what they'll tell you. This is an Axios report says
Speaker 1: when pressed on why Biden allies think that things are fine,
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen, guys as a second element.
Speaker 1: They say, the war they think will be far in
Speaker 1: voter's rear view mirror by November fifth. Okay, I think
Speaker 1: that is insane. I do not think that they understand
Speaker 1: the break that they have made with younger voters. I
Speaker 1: think they are completely in a bubble if they think
Speaker 1: that's the case.
Speaker 4: Okay, so that's number.
Speaker 1: One, number two, By then, the economy will be so
Speaker 1: good voters can't ignore it. Voter confidence the whole is
Speaker 1: we'll catch up with the encouraging macro signs.
Speaker 4: Also delusional.
Speaker 1: Also delusional because over the course of the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: what has happened. The Social Safety net constructor during COVID
Speaker 1: was systematically reduced and eliminated so that people have less
Speaker 1: money in their bank accounts. That happened on Biden's watch.
Speaker 1: Also delusional abortion rights. Now this may not this one.
Speaker 1: They have a point. Dems will be boosted by the
Speaker 1: anti GOP backlash following the Dobbs decision overturning Roe versus Weight.
Speaker 1: Swing voters won't want to give Trump a chance to
Speaker 1: appoint another Supreme Court justice as second Gentleman Doug M
Speaker 1: Hoff has put it privately, Dobbs and democracy.
Speaker 4: That's the plan.
Speaker 1: Biden and allies will spend more than a billion dollars
Speaker 1: telling voters Trump is terrible. Oh, they've never tried that before.
Speaker 1: In the end, Biden's inner circle contends most independents won't
Speaker 1: look themselves in the mirror on election day then go
Speaker 1: vote for Trump. They go on to say they worry
Speaker 1: though people close the White House fear there aren't enough
Speaker 1: people willing to give Biden bad news. And there's this
Speaker 1: sense of complacency that has come out and multiple articles
Speaker 1: where because Biden sort of defied the odds last time,
Speaker 1: they think that all of this is just like handwringing
Speaker 1: and bed wedding, and oh, normal people don't care about
Speaker 1: these things.
Speaker 4: And they don't really understand the landscape, and we do.
Speaker 4: And this is.
Speaker 1: A very different situation than when you had Trump actually
Speaker 1: in the White House, when you had people feeling really
Speaker 1: horrified at his handling of COVID and upset about it,
Speaker 1: when you had on a daily basis reminders of why
Speaker 1: you didn't like this man being president.
Speaker 4: And I thought this was a I saw somebody make
Speaker 4: this point on Twitter. I thought this was a really
Speaker 4: good point.
Speaker 1: The superpower that Biden used to have is the sense
Speaker 1: that like he's a nice guy and he's empathetic. That
Speaker 1: has been destroyed by what people see unfolding every day
Speaker 1: in Gaza.
Speaker 4: That's gone.
Speaker 1: Like the sense that this is some nice, grandfatherly figure
Speaker 1: who's not going to do anything terribly evil the way
Speaker 1: that you feel like Trump might.
Speaker 4: That's gone.
Speaker 1: You no longer have that advantage, especially with young voters.
Speaker 1: So again I come back to I think, especially with
Speaker 1: regard to their view of the war, that they think
Speaker 1: people are just going to forget it and it's going to
Speaker 1: be in the review mirror, if anything, After the worst
Speaker 1: of the hostilities, after the worst of the assault on
Speaker 1: Gaza is over, that's when people will actually be able
Speaker 1: reporters will be able to get into the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: and actually document what has happened here and how unprecedent
Speaker 1: it is, and the lives that have been ruined, and the
Speaker 1: people that have been killed, and the long term impact
Speaker 1: of the hunger that they're facing right now in the disease,
Speaker 1: and the fact that Gaza they'll already saying the entirety
Speaker 1: of the Gaza Strip is completely uninhabitable, unlivable. This is
Speaker 1: all going to be documented over these coming months. So
Speaker 1: I just think that they are completely detached from reality
Speaker 1: with almost all of these points.
Speaker 3: Well, I actually don't believe that the war will be
Speaker 3: over at all.
Speaker 2: I think Israel is going to have to occupy the
Speaker 2: Gaza Strip, and I think they're going to be stuck
Speaker 2: there and dealing with a very similar situation that we
Speaker 2: did with Iraq. But you know, it doesn't stop that,
Speaker 2: because that means that there will just be continuing, ongoing hostilities.
Speaker 2: But I truly believe that his single biggest problem is
Speaker 2: just the general sense of malaise and chaos that has
Speaker 2: engulfed both the United States and the world. And the
Speaker 2: more that you read the news and all that you
Speaker 2: don't have to be a geopolitical genius, to be like, well,
Speaker 2: this is a bad situation. You know, he got the
Speaker 2: Red Sea, you've got Ukraine, we had Afghanistan previously. And
Speaker 2: while I defended him for that, he didn't exactly rouse
Speaker 2: the public as to why it's a great idea and
Speaker 2: defend his decision. He mostly just retreated and got ornery
Speaker 2: that the American people didn't believe in him then on
Speaker 2: the economic front and all that. And yet, as you
Speaker 2: say with Trump, Trump is his own worst enemy and
Speaker 2: always has been. He easily he lost one of the
Speaker 2: most easily winnable elections in twenty twenty just from his
Speaker 2: shown sheer idiocy, and he has refused to drop much
Speaker 2: of that sense. I wouldn't count him out because I
Speaker 2: do think he's a very savvy political player. And if
Speaker 2: he returns to some of that twenty sixteen energy, and
Speaker 2: you do have husk of Biden up there, and you
Speaker 2: have the deep unpopularity that you don't need to win
Speaker 2: the popular vote. We all learned that in twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: you could just win the electoral college. So it's one
Speaker 2: of those where I see deep peril for Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: And I think that his arrogance from his campaign of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. He doesn't understand that it was not him.
Speaker 2: He got elected because of COVID. He got dragged across
Speaker 2: the finish line through circumstances that were not that were
Speaker 2: out of his control. And this time COVID is not
Speaker 2: going to save you, my man. And you know, possibly
Speaker 2: abortion will. But again that's not something that you have
Speaker 2: done on anything. You should always try as if you're
Speaker 2: going to lose. There's this, you know, great politicians, even
Speaker 2: LBJ for example, he always believed that he was on
Speaker 2: the precipice of losing, or he would always act as
Speaker 2: if he was. He would have to do absolutely everything
Speaker 2: to win, because he said, you can only control what
Speaker 2: you can control. You got to ruthlessly exploit that to
Speaker 2: your advantage. He won one of the greatest electoral victories
Speaker 2: in all of our history. But he ran that race
Speaker 2: in nineteen six as if it would have been, you know,
Speaker 2: within a margin of a point. That's what the great
Speaker 2: ones actually do in order to present something. But you know,
Speaker 2: we're a long way away from that.
Speaker 3: Yes, for sure.
Speaker 1: So their plan as first what is it called the
Speaker 1: second first husband, what is it.
Speaker 3: Called Doug m it's the second second.
Speaker 4: Gentleman, there we go a.
Speaker 3: Second to dress better if he wants to be a.
Speaker 1: Jail anyway, as he put it, dobbs in democracy, that's
Speaker 1: the plan. Well, Joe Biden did this big, you know,
Speaker 1: highly touted speech near the anniversary of January sixth. Partly,
Speaker 1: I mean this was sort of like the official like
Speaker 1: launch of his actual campaign, and he is leaning into
Speaker 1: this democracy message, which I find extremely hypocritical, which I'll
Speaker 1: get into in just a moment, but let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to a little bit of what he had to say.
Speaker 6: I promise you I will not that Donald Trump, for
Speaker 6: the Maggan Republicans.
Speaker 7: Forced us to walk away.
Speaker 6: I determined minority. He's doing every other his power try
Speaker 6: to destroy our democracy for their own agenda. The American
Speaker 6: people know it, and they're standing bravely in the breach.
Speaker 6: Remember after twenty twenty January sixth Insurrection, don't do the
Speaker 6: election in which more Americans had voted than any other
Speaker 6: in American history. America saw the threat posed to the country.
Speaker 6: They voted him out in twenty twenty two historic midterm
Speaker 6: election and state after state election after election. The election
Speaker 6: deniers were defeated. Now in twenty twenty four, Trump is
Speaker 6: wanting as the denier in chief, the election denier in
Speaker 6: chief once again. He's saying he won't honor the results
Speaker 6: of the election if he loses. Trump says he doesn't understand. Well,
Speaker 6: he still doesn't understand the basic truth that is, you
Speaker 6: can't love your country only when you win.
Speaker 1: Now, how are you going to claim to be the
Speaker 1: guardian of democracy when you and your party are actually
Speaker 1: right now canceling primaries democratic primary elections across the country.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen. This is just the latest.
Speaker 1: You know how, I think five states that have just said, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to put your opponents on the ballot,
Speaker 1: We're just going to cancel the primary. So the DNC
Speaker 1: is blasting New Hampshire Democrats over what they call a
Speaker 1: meaningless primary. The DNC scolded New Hampshire Democrats for selecting
Speaker 1: delegates for the state's unsanctioned primary. You'll recall this all
Speaker 1: goes back to Joe Biden, the Dance's attempt to rig
Speaker 1: the primary for him.
Speaker 4: He did really badly. It was a fourth fifth place
Speaker 4: last time in New Hampshire. Didn't even stay for the results.
Speaker 1: To come in went to South Carolina, and so they
Speaker 1: didn't want anything to do with New Hampshire this time,
Speaker 1: or Iowa for that matter, and so instead they're like,
Speaker 1: we'll put South Carolina first because of diversity.
Speaker 4: No, it's not because of diversity. It's because you.
Speaker 1: Were terrified of what voters of New Hampshire actually big
Speaker 1: of you. Yes, So in New Hampshire, their state constitution
Speaker 1: actually has provision that says no, we go first, and
Speaker 1: New Hampshire is even though it's typically a blue state
Speaker 1: or swing state, it's actually governed right now by Republicans.
Speaker 1: So even if New Hampshire Democrats wanted to change this provision,
Speaker 1: they can't. So they're going ahead with their primary, and
Speaker 1: the DNC has sat is trying to like scold them
Speaker 1: and punish them and say their delegates aren't going to
Speaker 1: even mean anything. So if you're a voter in New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: they're saying we are, You're just out. You're not going
Speaker 1: to get to vote, You're not going to get to
Speaker 1: have your say. And there's a very awkward situation that
Speaker 1: Biden has put himself in where he's not going to
Speaker 1: appear on the ballot. So people who want to even
Speaker 1: select him, have to write his name in. But again,
Speaker 1: what a hypocrite. How are you going to pretend like
Speaker 1: you care a bit about democracy when you have completely
Speaker 1: blocked any debates. It's not clear he's going to debate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, by the way, which obviously Trump should be
Speaker 1: debating the Republican primary as well.
Speaker 4: And you have actively had these states just completely.
Speaker 1: Even cancel their primaries, So you know, listen, do I
Speaker 1: think the January sixth message has some potency you even
Speaker 1: though it's been a while now, you know, or four
Speaker 1: years later, I still think it has some potency. I
Speaker 1: do think it is a reminder of some of the
Speaker 1: worst things that people hated the most about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Is this sufficient at a time when voters are disgusted
Speaker 1: with you, when young people see you as enabling absolute
Speaker 1: atrocities and war crimes in the Gaza strip? No, No,
Speaker 1: it's not sufficient, and you are a complete hypocrite.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the democracy point is one Actually a
Speaker 2: shout out to Joe Rogan. Maybe he's been watching us
Speaker 2: or you're seeing the news where he was talking about
Speaker 2: that recently he's been canceling his primaries. He's like, I
Speaker 2: don't like that at all, So hey, that's good. But
Speaker 2: then he was like, Dean, who are you, fella? And
Speaker 2: I was like, you know, kind of a good news. Yes, fair, honestly, fair.
Speaker 1: Listen, I want to give credit to d Yeah.
Speaker 3: I didn't see it, but I saw that it happened.
Speaker 1: I really didn't expect it to because the first time
Speaker 1: we had him here it was very you know, we
Speaker 1: had quite a debate over Israel.
Speaker 4: I sort of.
Speaker 1: Thought that, you know, like we'd already had it out,
Speaker 1: but it got pretty hey again. But listen, credit to
Speaker 1: him for coming back. At least he's willing to go
Speaker 1: out there make the case.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 1: The point is people want choices. They deserve choices. If
Speaker 1: you really were so concerned about democracy, and if you
Speaker 1: really believe your own rhetoric about Trump being a direct
Speaker 1: threat to democracy, which I think is fair at this point,
Speaker 1: then you would actually care about putting up the best
Speaker 1: possible candidate to defeat this man.
Speaker 4: And you'd have to be.
Speaker 1: On another planet to think that Joseph Robin and Biden
Speaker 1: at this point in his life, is the strongest possible
Speaker 1: candidate to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: You don't have to take my word for it. You
Speaker 4: look at the polls.
Speaker 1: Actually, Dean Phillips, you know, is just sort of like
Speaker 1: generic Democrat.
Speaker 4: He would beat Trump. I mean you would, You would
Speaker 4: probably beat Trump by like ten points eight points.
Speaker 1: On the on the converse, if you had NICKI Haley
Speaker 1: against Joe Biden, she would win by probably like ten points.
Speaker 1: Much as I like can't stand her, But somehow we
Speaker 1: ended up with these two people that everyone is just
Speaker 1: like disgusted by, tired, you know, tired of, et cetera,
Speaker 1: because of the basic failures of democracy that enabled this
Speaker 1: rotten and corroded system.
Speaker 2: Speaking of corroded systems, I don't know how of transition
Speaker 2: to this. I have watched with great and I cannot
Speaker 2: tell you, Crystal how much self control it took for
Speaker 2: me not to weigh in on Harvard and the.
Speaker 3: Sharing I'm baring take was story ready to roll.
Speaker 2: But Gillian looked at me and she was like, if
Speaker 2: you start going into this in vacation, we're gonna have
Speaker 2: a problem, and you know what, shut my mouth, and
Speaker 2: I followed her orders and she was right, she was
Speaker 2: certainly right. But now I'm back and I have to
Speaker 2: weigh in. So a little bit on the latest of
Speaker 2: what is going on here. Bill Ackman, the famous multi
Speaker 2: billionaire hedge funder extraordinary who lied to the American people
Speaker 2: on CNBC in twenty twenty he said, you know, terrible
Speaker 2: things are coming. Meanwhile, bet two billion dollars after he
Speaker 2: helped crash the market on CNBC.
Speaker 3: People have forgotten a little bit about that. I certainly haven't.
Speaker 2: But he has led kind of the plagiarism campaign, a
Speaker 2: cancelation campaign, I should say, against the Harvard University president,
Speaker 2: MIT president, and UPenn president. It's very important, I think,
Speaker 2: for us to separate all the separate actors that are
Speaker 2: involved here. Ackman was not involved in this fight over
Speaker 2: any original concerns over DEI, about plagiarism or anything. He
Speaker 2: was mad that these university presidents did not say that
Speaker 2: calling for the genocide against Jews was not a direct
Speaker 2: call in and of itself, you know, in order to
Speaker 2: have expulsion from any of these ivy the universities. Also
Speaker 2: was one of the people who helped basically try to
Speaker 2: cancel all of these Harvard students who had signed some
Speaker 2: BLM you know. And look, I don't say pro hamas,
Speaker 2: but those statements actually were insane. We talked about them
Speaker 2: at the time. If people want to go back and
Speaker 2: look at some of the justification language that they used,
Speaker 2: we just.
Speaker 3: You know, talked about it.
Speaker 2: I personally thought it was disgusting, but that does not
Speaker 2: mean I don't believe that it is false within the
Speaker 2: realm of free space.
Speaker 4: Can I just on that.
Speaker 1: The part I took issue with was they attributed sole
Speaker 1: responsibility in over seven to Israel and denied complete agency
Speaker 1: from Hamas, who were you know, directly targeting civilians. So
Speaker 1: that was my issue with it. Do what I cancel
Speaker 1: them or whatever, you know, blacklist them. This is a
Speaker 1: man who wanted to get them permanently canceled and never
Speaker 1: get hired anywhere in America.
Speaker 4: Absurd, Yes, ridiculous.
Speaker 2: So that began on October eight, and then we eventually
Speaker 2: got to a point where people like Christopher Rufo and
Speaker 2: Aaron Sabarium, two people who I know and I know
Speaker 2: you don't like them, but I respect them both because
Speaker 2: they both were original DEI activists. They did not, you know,
Speaker 2: mount this as some sort of Israel campaign. They started
Speaker 2: reporting about plagiarism accusations against Claudine Gay, who was the
Speaker 2: Harvard University president. She eventually was forced out because of
Speaker 2: these plagiarism accusations, and it was very clear. I did
Speaker 2: a monologue, but the last monologue of the year, people
Speaker 2: can go and watch it about the clear cut examples.
Speaker 2: Is very obviously she violated the Harvard student conduct. But
Speaker 2: you cannot ignore that the original reason why all of
Speaker 2: them wanted to be expelled was because of Israel and
Speaker 2: a free speech.
Speaker 3: Okay, so I think that's the ground.
Speaker 2: Now we are at a point though, where Akman has
Speaker 2: opened kind of a Pandora's box, And in that Pandora's box,
Speaker 2: now it turns out that there is a controversy erupting
Speaker 2: over Ackman's wife, who is an Israeli American entrepreneur, former
Speaker 2: professor at MIT.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: So now it turns out that Narry Oxman, that his
Speaker 2: Bill Ackman's wife is now apologizing for plagiarism in her
Speaker 2: twenty ten dissertation. Now, currently Ackman is caught up in
Speaker 2: a war of words on Twitter or and or known
Speaker 2: as X in which he is defending his wife with
Speaker 2: great aplom saying no, it's not plagiarism because she incorrectly
Speaker 2: did not cite basically direct copy paste from Wikipedia and
Speaker 2: several other instances. I think it is worth noting that
Speaker 2: Narry Oxman herself has apologized for the incident. If you
Speaker 2: don't want to call it plagiarism, I don't know. I
Speaker 2: mean I remember being in college and they were like,
Speaker 2: you can't copy and payte from Wikipedia? Is it technically plagiarism?
Speaker 2: I don't you know what through Wikipedia? Why don't we
Speaker 2: put this academic integrity? Shall I just call it that?
Speaker 2: Do we have to call it plagiarism?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: According to Akman in this instance, let's put this up
Speaker 2: there please on the screen, He says, it does not
Speaker 2: strike me as platio. Oh really, Nor do I think
Speaker 2: it takes anything away from her work. I am not
Speaker 2: sure who would even complain that they were not cited properly.
Speaker 2: I also wish I knew how to reach a human
Speaker 2: being at Wikipedia, as my Wikipedia biography needs correcting and
Speaker 2: would be meaningfully improved if there was someone that I
Speaker 2: could speak to. He truly is one of the most
Speaker 2: He's just one of the most cloudl entitled figures that
Speaker 2: I've ever seen operate in politics. And I just want
Speaker 2: to note this when the original plagiarism accusation came against
Speaker 2: Claudine Gay. Here's what he said the day that it dropped.
Speaker 2: He said, new whistleblower complaints alleged forty instances of plagiarism.
Speaker 2: They raise serious issues about the initial investigation in their
Speaker 2: work was conducted. The whistleblower levels have credible accusations against Harvard.
Speaker 2: Now whenever it's wife, he says a few questions, how
Speaker 2: can one defend one's self against an accusation of plagiarizing
Speaker 2: Wipedia for a dissertation written fifteen years ago in two
Speaker 2: thousand and nine.
Speaker 3: Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia.
Speaker 2: It's a dynamic source of information that changes minute by
Speaker 2: minute based on edits and contributions.
Speaker 4: It's like, dude, come on, you know, it's such.
Speaker 3: A clear thing.
Speaker 2: His new tack is like, it's disgraceful that they are
Speaker 2: attacking my wife.
Speaker 3: I'm like, well, dude, here's the thing.
Speaker 2: Normally I would have a lot of sympathy because you know,
Speaker 2: he's involved, and she didn't necessarily enter the fray. But
Speaker 2: Narry Oxman is a public figure in the same way
Speaker 2: that I'm a public figure, and you are as well, Crystal.
Speaker 2: She's appeared on Alex Friedman podcast, and I think more importantly,
Speaker 2: I think for our purposes is some of the past
Speaker 2: work that she engaged in with a man named Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: And just by the way, to underscore Ackman's Titanic ego,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there, please on the screen. He
Speaker 2: is literally bragging and reposting a meme that shows him
Speaker 2: as a Roman emperor talking about quote, this guy literally
Speaker 2: beat out Brad Pitt competing for his wife, and he's
Speaker 2: not hiding it. He continues to kind of flaunt that,
Speaker 2: which if I was his wife, I'm not sure I
Speaker 2: would be too happy about that. But whatever, There's a
Speaker 2: lot of questions that are happening here. Just again, to
Speaker 2: underscore miss Oxman, let's put this please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Narry Oxman was deeply involved in a gift to Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein a bizarre giant glass marble after helping solicit a
Speaker 2: donation from him. This goes back to twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 2: I actually did a couple of things about this at
Speaker 2: the time because one of the ways that Epstein kind
Speaker 2: of whitewashed his reputation is that he would constantly he
Speaker 2: would solicit like meetings with MIT scientists and others, so
Speaker 2: he could give them money and he would then be
Speaker 2: seen appearing with all these prestigious scientists. Some say he
Speaker 2: may have been working for a foreign intelligence agency, but
Speaker 2: at the very least, what they do show is that
Speaker 2: her lab received one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
Speaker 2: gift directly tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and she then presented
Speaker 2: a gift to Jeffrey Epstein of this weird glass marble. Now,
Speaker 2: I personally find that to be the most objectionable thing
Speaker 2: that involves his wife. Bill Ackman has said now that
Speaker 2: you know, he says there will be more to say
Speaker 2: on the Epstein accusation.
Speaker 3: He's like, but to be.
Speaker 2: Clear, I never knew him, and he's now saying that
Speaker 2: it's very unfair because there has been no due process,
Speaker 2: because his wife was only given ninety minutes to respond.
Speaker 2: Here's my like, once again, did you give Claudine Gay
Speaker 2: to process? And two process is a legal term. We're
Speaker 2: talking about journalism right now, Business Insider. They only gave
Speaker 2: her ninety minutes to respond to a six thousand word article.
Speaker 2: I personally think they should have given her a data
Speaker 2: respond I think I don't think that was the right
Speaker 2: thing to do. If I had written this article, I
Speaker 2: would not have done that because I do understand that
Speaker 2: there should have been some back and forth. So I'm
Speaker 2: not going to defend that, but I will defend the
Speaker 2: idea that Bill Ackman himself basically made it so that
Speaker 2: anybody is up for grabs. You know who was involved
Speaker 2: in this situation. His wife has appeared publicly, has engaged
Speaker 2: in public discourse. His wife previously was connected to Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein in a very weird and bizarre incident that she
Speaker 2: has now apologized for, and all of that, And so
Speaker 2: I think that, you know, it's fair enough in this situation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And while I do believe the Business Insider should have
Speaker 2: given him her more time to respond to the allegations,
Speaker 2: she did apologize. So she did admit that many of
Speaker 2: the facts in the story have not been disputed. But
Speaker 2: that gets us, crystal to the media company of the
Speaker 2: owns Business Insider, who it now appears maybe censoring their
Speaker 2: own reporters for having the temerity to report about Bill
Speaker 2: Ackman's wife.
Speaker 3: That's a whole other situation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So let me get to that one. In a minute.
Speaker 1: First of all, Number one, you'll live by the sword. Yeah, diagree,
Speaker 1: sword right, this is the standard you set. And he
Speaker 1: has some nerve too, now you know, it was, oh,
Speaker 1: this is plagiarism, she must go. He was mad that
Speaker 1: she only got pushed out as president and did not
Speaker 1: also lose her teaching job.
Speaker 4: He complained about that.
Speaker 1: He said that she should be fired completely due to
Speaker 1: quote serious plagiarism issues, So not his real concern of
Speaker 1: you know, quote unquote anti Semitism. No, he decided to
Speaker 1: take what was available to him, this plagiarism quote unquote scandal,
Speaker 1: and to.
Speaker 4: Use that to great effect.
Speaker 1: And he was mad that she was not fired completely
Speaker 1: because of these serious plagiarism issues. Now when it's his wife,
Speaker 1: he is posting these lengthy diatribes on Twitter. I'm talking
Speaker 1: like freaking five thousand words that it's like what even
Speaker 1: is plagiarism really? And it's you know, five thousand words
Speaker 1: of nuance trolling about well, who's to say? And the
Speaker 1: world has changed, and I don't know, is Wikipedia is
Speaker 1: just like lifting passages from Wikipedia?
Speaker 4: Can we even say? That's place? Who's to judge? And
Speaker 4: it's a whole new world now with Ai, et cetera,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So now that it's his wife, it's like, what even
Speaker 1: is plagiarism really? But when it was Claudine Gay, it
Speaker 1: was bring out the acts. She needs to be gone,
Speaker 1: She needs to be gone forever, not even hold on
Speaker 1: to her teaching job, et cetera. So the double standard
Speaker 1: here is amazing. This is also a person who has
Speaker 1: complete double standard with regard to quote unquote free speech.
Speaker 1: Claims to be some free speech warrior until it's an
Speaker 1: issue that he cares deeply about and suddenly he wonts censorship.
Speaker 4: This is classic.
Speaker 1: This is what the overwhelming majority of elites, Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans have actually pushed in terms of a quote unquote
Speaker 1: free speech agenda. They don't want free speech, they want
Speaker 1: to be able to control what can be said and
Speaker 1: what cannot be said.
Speaker 4: That is very clear here.
Speaker 1: This is a man who thinks, because he is extremely
Speaker 1: wealthy and because he has given certain large gifts to
Speaker 1: these various institutions, he thinks he should be able to
Speaker 1: run the show. He should be able to dictate who
Speaker 1: can stay, who can go, who can say what on
Speaker 1: what campus, when, where, et cetera. He thinks he should
Speaker 1: be able to set the standards. And since he's setting
Speaker 1: the standards, he's got a little carunt exception for his wife.
Speaker 1: So that's what's going on with Bill Ackman. So Sager
Speaker 1: to your point about the media reporting here, and by
Speaker 1: the way, this story I have Barrett like, I don't
Speaker 1: really care who the Harvard University president is, but it
Speaker 1: does say something important about these powerful elites which do
Speaker 1: have a lot of power and influence. And this comes
Speaker 1: out too in terms of this media reaction. So Business
Speaker 1: Insider does this report, it's obviously tremendously important, impactful, gets
Speaker 1: a lot of traction, et cetera. They you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they should have given her more time to respond, but
Speaker 1: it's not like she's rebutting the allegation.
Speaker 4: They didn't meant anything wrong. They did not get anything wrong.
Speaker 1: So what is the reaction now of Axel Springer, which
Speaker 1: owns Business Insider, Well, they're they're concerned about this. This
Speaker 1: may be, this may have been anti semitic. Actually, what
Speaker 1: this journalism that unfolded here? Put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen from them, This is incredible, incredible. This is reported
Speaker 1: out by Semaphore, say bi's report and Naryosmen has caused
Speaker 1: division within the top ranks of its owner, Axl Springer.
Speaker 4: Some actual leaders question.
Speaker 1: Whether the article was newsworthy and are concerned the report
Speaker 1: could be seen as anti Semitic and anti Zionist. What
Speaker 1: what How in the world is pointing out accurate instances
Speaker 1: of plagiarism, anti Semitic or anti Zionists Complete insanity And
Speaker 1: by the way, part of the course for Axel Springer,
Speaker 1: which actually requires their employees, their big media conglomerate they
Speaker 1: own Political and Business Insider and a number of other
Speaker 1: media outlets, they actually require their employees. This is crazy
Speaker 1: to me to sign a pro Israel pledge. It's on
Speaker 1: their website that one of their second like founding prints
Speaker 1: is a commitment to Israel and the right of Israel
Speaker 1: to exist. So this is, you know, sort of par
Speaker 1: for the course for them, but it's complete insanity. And
Speaker 1: it just shows you again the way that the billionaire
Speaker 1: class has so much control over what gets reported, how
Speaker 1: it gets reported, who gets apologized to, who can keep
Speaker 1: their job, who can't keep their job?
Speaker 4: Total total insanity.
Speaker 1: And the last thing I'll say soccer is there been
Speaker 1: allegations that the attacks on Claudine Gay were racist. She's
Speaker 1: a black woman. I didn't see because they went after
Speaker 1: everybody who didn't toe their line on canceling, you know,
Speaker 1: people who are advocating for Palestinian rights. So I didn't
Speaker 1: see that as having to do with her race. But
Speaker 1: if you're going to say this is anti Semitic, then
Speaker 1: I think it's totally fair game to say, Okay, well
Speaker 1: then it's racist that you went after a black woman.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you point that out, because you're right
Speaker 2: is that it was both not anti semitism and it
Speaker 2: was both not racism.
Speaker 3: And that's what That's really why.
Speaker 2: I wanted to weigh in because I was getting so
Speaker 2: inn is that many of the liberals who are trying
Speaker 2: to defend Claudine Gay were.
Speaker 3: Like, this is an attack on a black woman. It's like, well,
Speaker 3: not always an attack on a black woman. It's about race. Okay,
Speaker 3: maybe sometimes in this case it.
Speaker 2: Actually is all about Israel and about our free speech.
Speaker 2: And there's a genuine conversation I think to be had
Speaker 2: about DEI and all of that. But the real tell
Speaker 2: to me about this is that Acman does not seem
Speaker 2: to be annoyed that the person who has succeeded Claudine
Speaker 2: Gay is a pro Israel, pro Dei Jew and now
Speaker 2: all of a sudden he has nothing to say, yeah,
Speaker 2: because he claims that is concern is about Dei. But
Speaker 2: the moment that you have somebody who's in charge now,
Speaker 2: who has given you your little Israel carve out on DEI,
Speaker 2: now we're good to go.
Speaker 3: And that's what I've been trying to say here from
Speaker 3: day one. Folks.
Speaker 2: If you want to make common cause with Bill Ackman
Speaker 2: and all that, you are signing up just for an
Speaker 2: Israel exception, for a Jewish exception on DEI. And guess what,
Speaker 2: I think the whole regime is bad. And so if
Speaker 2: you legitimately are concerned about all these things which I
Speaker 2: dam about race, quotas and all this other crap going
Speaker 2: on in American society, this is not somebody you want
Speaker 2: to be.
Speaker 3: And also it's just so obvious too, this is about him.
Speaker 3: He doesn't care now, it's.
Speaker 5: Just in.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and he just wants control. He just wants control.
Speaker 1: And so that's why you know, Christopher Ruffo is out
Speaker 1: there like gloating, Oh I got a scalp et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's like, congratulations, you got someone who's just going to
Speaker 1: sensor war. It's just going to sensor on more topics.
Speaker 1: I would give Waiting go this.
Speaker 2: He would actually continue to he would continue to wage
Speaker 2: war against the new Harvard president.
Speaker 3: Of the reason I don't believe he.
Speaker 1: Did this was because she wasn't censorious enough. Like That's
Speaker 1: where this is so insane to me. It's like she
Speaker 1: actually gave the right answer in the congressional hearing and
Speaker 1: maybe could say she could word about or whatever, But
Speaker 1: I had zero issue with what she said. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I just always have to remind people, it's
Speaker 1: not like there is a single documented instance of college
Speaker 1: kids running around saying genocide the Jews. What they're talking
Speaker 1: about are protest chance from the river to the sea.
Speaker 1: Palestine will be free, That's what they're talking about. And
Speaker 1: so for you to come in over the top and
Speaker 1: cancel this person, get her fired effectively for not censoring,
Speaker 1: for actually having a free speech position, I just don't
Speaker 1: know what we're talking here.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree with any of the substance of what
Speaker 2: he said. The only reason I'm to defend Chris is
Speaker 2: Chris and Aaron have an acceleration of his view of this,
Speaker 2: where any scalp in higher education is a good scalp.
Speaker 3: They will continue to go after him. They've been doing
Speaker 3: it on Yale Law School and all these other places. Aaron,
Speaker 3: I'm not so sure.
Speaker 2: But Chris is working and has always been to go
Speaker 2: after Dei for him, but he wants.
Speaker 3: To perch and Dei.
Speaker 1: How is this going after DEI? What you're doing is
Speaker 1: you're saying we need another protected class.
Speaker 2: Well, no, he doesn't believe it, but that's what you're enforcing.
Speaker 2: So that is what he's enforcing. He's willing to make
Speaker 2: common cause.
Speaker 3: With Bill, which I think is the wrong decision.
Speaker 2: Again, I'll say that one hundred percent, but he's not
Speaker 2: going to stop his war whether Bill stays with him
Speaker 2: or not. He's going to try and get the next
Speaker 2: guy fired. He'll continue to try and get Dei and
Speaker 2: all of that dismantled. This is not his goal. He
Speaker 2: was willing to work with him now in this one instance.
Speaker 2: I just think it's important to separate actual actors here.
Speaker 2: Acman and the pro Israel crowd are temporary allies, but
Speaker 2: there are genuine people here who have been working on
Speaker 2: this for a long time. Now, where do I think
Speaker 2: that this was the right decision. I don't think it
Speaker 2: was the right decision. I think that they could have
Speaker 2: gone about it, and should have done it in a
Speaker 2: very different way. I would not have made this a
Speaker 2: whole I mean the plagiarism story. The thing is that
Speaker 2: it is genuine on his face. It's just that the
Speaker 2: people were pushing it were doing it for one reason,
Speaker 2: and I think that for motivational Actually, you know what,
Speaker 2: we need to say this because there's there's a lot
Speaker 2: more to be said.
Speaker 3: We can't we can't be hashing this out.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean, listen, I don't deny that she you
Speaker 1: know that she played ars. Obviously, if you're going to
Speaker 1: have that standard, have it across the port totally, including
Speaker 1: with neuroosmen.
Speaker 3: There you go, let's leave it.
Speaker 2: Then maybe I'll do a monologue or something about this later.
Speaker 2: I have too much to say.
Speaker 4: All right, what are you looking about? Well today? On
Speaker 4: this one.
Speaker 2: If you want a single example of why America is
Speaker 2: declining the way that it is today and how everything
Speaker 2: went wrong, you would be hard pressed to find a
Speaker 2: better for example than to simply trace the history of
Speaker 2: the Boeing Company, the iconic American aerospace company that pumped
Speaker 2: out nearly one hundred thousand planes for the use in
Speaker 2: Second World War and was a poster child for the might,
Speaker 2: the ingenuity, and the dominance of the United States in
Speaker 2: the post war era.
Speaker 3: Boeing was America.
Speaker 2: It employed tens of thousands of people, provided middle class wages.
Speaker 2: It was a pathway to upward mobility, helped us go
Speaker 2: to the Moon, pioneered stunning new aircraft to propel the
Speaker 2: US military, kept innovating and designing new planes, propelled the
Speaker 2: vast majority of the nearly one hundred million Americans today
Speaker 2: who set foot on a plane at least once a year.
Speaker 2: But underneath the goliath there has been a lot of
Speaker 2: rot and rot now for quite some time. We got
Speaker 2: a reminder of this rot on January fifth, when stunning
Speaker 2: videos began to surface of the middle section of a
Speaker 2: brand new Boeing seven thirty seven Max nine that fell
Speaker 2: off in the middle of a flight that had just
Speaker 2: taken off from Portland, Oregon. Let's watch that if you
Speaker 2: haven't seen it yet. This war we're at the.
Speaker 3: So there was no one's seated there, there.
Speaker 4: Was no one's seated here in the window.
Speaker 2: For those who are just listening, the video shows a
Speaker 2: section of the plane missing mid flight, blew out completely.
Speaker 3: How the hell does this happen?
Speaker 2: Naturally people might think, Oh, it's an old airplane, or
Speaker 2: it's a maintenance issue, but it is stunning to consider
Speaker 2: this aircraft was only delivered to Alaska Airlines on October
Speaker 2: thirty first, twenty twenty three, not even two months into
Speaker 2: its history, and a piece is falling out in the sky.
Speaker 2: The troubling part is that this is the latest brand
Speaker 2: new Boeing aircraft to have a safety issue that is
Speaker 2: endangering passengers in just the last five years. Recall the
Speaker 2: span of just five months in late twenty eighteen and
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen, two brand new Boeing seven thirty seven Max
Speaker 2: eight aircrafts crashed, killing a total of three hundred and
Speaker 2: forty six people and forcing the entire fleet to be grounded,
Speaker 2: launching a massive global investigation. The results of that investigation
Speaker 2: were stunning. They show how we got to this moment.
Speaker 2: Boeing was forced to pay two point five billion dollars
Speaker 2: to the US government to stave off criminal charges against
Speaker 2: the company and its top pilot, who they alleged had
Speaker 2: conspired to hide software updates to its piloting system from
Speaker 2: the FAA and other authorities. That update was later found
Speaker 2: to be culpable for two of the crashes, and the
Speaker 2: secrecy was all part of a major corporate plan to
Speaker 2: rush the product to market to beat out competitors, and
Speaker 2: indicated that the company was hard pressed to deliver big
Speaker 2: profits to a shareholders.
Speaker 3: Shareholder pressure has ruled Boeing now for decades.
Speaker 2: In fact, in the period between twenty fourteen and twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: Boeing bought.
Speaker 3: Back sixty sixty billion.
Speaker 2: Dollars of its own stock, money that could and should
Speaker 2: have been used for research and development and product innovation
Speaker 2: and safety. Even after the crash, Boeing has still pumped
Speaker 2: tens of billions of dollars back into stock buybacks to
Speaker 2: stop the bleeding, and to this day has not fundamentally
Speaker 2: altered their business MOO. In fact, stock buy that buybacks
Speaker 2: themselves were the cause of the company to have very
Speaker 2: little cash on hand when the coronavirus pandemic hit in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, which meant Washington had to bail out Boeing
Speaker 2: to the tune of billions of dollars, So if you
Speaker 2: were tracking so far, it goes like this, the same
Speaker 2: arc for the whole country. Prior to the financialization era
Speaker 2: of the nineteen eighties, Boeing built brand ns aircrafts that
Speaker 2: symbolized the might and progress of America. They traded though
Speaker 2: off the reputation a brand to prop up their share price,
Speaker 2: and it became the only thing that mattered to the executives.
Speaker 2: And when your top job is to pump out airplanes
Speaker 2: as a means of propping up your stock price instead
Speaker 2: of building great airplanes and hoping that the stock price
Speaker 2: follows the seven thirty seven Max eight and nine, is
Speaker 2: what happens. The absolute most insane thing is that they
Speaker 2: were supposed to have their come up and already. If
Speaker 2: you read that twenty twenty one Department of Justice agreement
Speaker 2: with Boeing, it castigates the company for conspiring to hide
Speaker 2: important safety information from US regulators and says practices were
Speaker 2: put into place to ensure that something like this never
Speaker 2: happens again. Two years later, a brand new plane, the
Speaker 2: very latest iteration of that same aircraft, has a piece
Speaker 2: of side that blows off in the middle of the sky.
Speaker 2: A pitily two point five billion dollar fine is not
Speaker 2: going to fix this, nor even is some fake statement
Speaker 2: of contrition or some fake investigation from the government. The
Speaker 2: entire system is responsible for creating this problem over decades,
Speaker 2: and thus the only solution is to burn down the
Speaker 2: system itself.
Speaker 3: I am not naive. I know this is not.
Speaker 2: Going to happen, which is why the future, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: is very grim. People too often have a recency bias
Speaker 2: and they're thinking about America. Yeah, things are bad, but
Speaker 2: if you look at our history, we always come out
Speaker 2: fine in the end. What they don't tell you is
Speaker 2: that in an interim period, millions of people die, billions of
Speaker 2: dollars are lost. The lessons that we eventually learned were
Speaker 2: usually eminently predictable and fixable. In the moment, It was
Speaker 2: greed and corruption that usually stood in the way. The
Speaker 2: likely outcome is this, America is going to find itself.
Speaker 3: In a genuine crisis.
Speaker 2: We will need planes and we will find out we
Speaker 2: barely even know how to build them anymore. We will
Speaker 2: lose either battle lives or war, and people will ask
Speaker 2: how the hell could this happen? And in that moment,
Speaker 2: we're going to rewind the clock and we're going to
Speaker 2: look back at the Boeing company and you're going to
Speaker 2: see how clearly you could predict our future. I told
Speaker 2: you those are not going to matter so much to
Speaker 2: the people who suffer as a result of the folly
Speaker 2: that could be fixed right now.
Speaker 3: So look, Chris, so we don't know yet the cost.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. So, guys,
Speaker 1: earlier we covered some of the political fallout that has
Speaker 1: stemmed in large part from Joe Biden's unconditional support for
Speaker 1: Israel in their assault on Gaza, and that has extended
Speaker 1: even to some major party donors. Put this report up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is from Politico. They say, a
Speaker 1: Biden donor calls it quits. This is with regards to
Speaker 1: Ahmed Khan, and they say, as con views that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration has dropped the ball. It's failed to meaningfully
Speaker 1: push Israel to minimize civilian casualties and has stood behind
Speaker 1: Israeli Primini Benjamin Nyahu even as his government has engaged
Speaker 1: in what Kan describes as ethnic cleansing on the way
Speaker 1: to genocide quote.
Speaker 4: This is bullshit.
Speaker 1: You make moral compromises being involved in politics and ethical shortcuts,
Speaker 1: but this is just a bridge too far. And Ahmed Khan,
Speaker 1: a philanthropist and political activist, joins us. Now, great to
Speaker 1: have you, sir, you're just user.
Speaker 7: Thanks, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, So what brought you to the place
Speaker 1: where you are making this break and pushed you to
Speaker 1: make those comments?
Speaker 7: Well, I mean my background is I deliver humanitarian aid
Speaker 7: in war zones. This is what I do. I've done
Speaker 7: it in just about every war zone of our time.
Speaker 7: I started in my early twenties in Rwanda. I've worked
Speaker 7: in Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, you name it.
Speaker 7: So it's the thing that's most important to me. I
Speaker 7: spent most of the last two years in Ukraine and
Speaker 7: what I've seen in Gaza, in touch with maybe five
Speaker 7: hundred families, maybe more so thousands of people. And I've
Speaker 7: been to the other side of the border, the Rafa border,
Speaker 7: multiple times. I've never seen anything like this. So this
Speaker 7: is the ultimate in human suffering. It just goes There're
Speaker 7: no where is to describe what's happening there.
Speaker 1: What puts it on a scale that's different than you know,
Speaker 1: even what you've seen in places like Rwanda, in places
Speaker 1: like Ukraine and Yemen.
Speaker 7: Well, in all the other places there were safe spaces.
Speaker 7: In Gaza, there is no place that's safe. There is
Speaker 7: no one that's safe. So you were talking about the
Speaker 7: entire population of two point two million people that have
Speaker 7: absolutely no place to go. You can't rent an apartment,
Speaker 7: you can go into any building who's no building is safe.
Speaker 7: When you go to a safe zone that's a camp.
Speaker 7: Let's say you have three hundred dollars and you buy
Speaker 7: a tent, you go to that camp, and that camp
Speaker 7: is bombed. That level of desperation, not knowing if you're
Speaker 7: going to survive through the day, that is something that's
Speaker 7: unprecedented in our times and probably ever. The Israelis control
Speaker 7: all the borders, and I suppose that's because that's the
Speaker 7: way the US administration wants it to be. So in
Speaker 7: other war zones, you can deliver eight now. For example,
Speaker 7: in Ukraine, one of the hospitals said, ourcat machine was
Speaker 7: blown up. We need a new one. I purchased one
Speaker 7: with a friend and we delivered it. That's impossible in
Speaker 7: GOSM and you've seen what's happened to the hospitals, and
Speaker 7: you're probably seeing what's happening today in a Locksha hospital
Speaker 7: in Central.
Speaker 2: So how has the Biden team responded to this or
Speaker 2: have they even have they reached out to you and
Speaker 2: you've spoken you've been involved now in politics for quite
Speaker 2: some time. How many people share your beliefs but are
Speaker 2: not willing to come out as publicly to say that
Speaker 2: this is going to be a political problem for the president.
Speaker 7: Well, I've had some people reach out to me off
Speaker 7: the record and say, you know, I admire what you're doing,
Speaker 7: without going to say that they agree with me. But
Speaker 7: I'm sure parenting you if people agree with me. But
Speaker 7: you know, politics isn't really my thing. I'm involved just
Speaker 7: sort of like as a shared values type thing as
Speaker 7: a citizen, Like everybody should be involved in politics, but
Speaker 7: for me, this the level of humanitarian suffering that they
Speaker 7: are responsible for, you know, it's it's just something that
Speaker 7: is inexplicable.
Speaker 1: What's your response to people who would say, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: what Biden is doing here with his support is horrible,
Speaker 1: it's indefensible, But what you're going to help elect Trump
Speaker 1: is he going to be any better. He also did
Speaker 1: whatever Israel wanted when he was president of the United States.
Speaker 1: So what's your response to that.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm not you know, that's really not my concern.
Speaker 7: My concern are the eleven thousand dead children, probably another
Speaker 7: twenty thousand children who have catastrophic injuries that they'll never
Speaker 7: recover from, lost legs, lost arms, Maybe five hundred thousand
Speaker 7: children who are on the brink, if not on starvation.
Speaker 7: They're getting no food groups. Maybe the children under two
Speaker 7: are maybe getting some bread every day. You know, those
Speaker 7: are my concerns. So as a humanitarian, my greatest concerns
Speaker 7: are these people who have no voice. You know, I
Speaker 7: will leave it to the rest of the three hundred
Speaker 7: and fifty million Americans or how many ever are there
Speaker 7: are a voting age to decide who's the next president.
Speaker 7: But I think I, as a humanitarian, should hold the
Speaker 7: people I've supported responsible. And you know it's my small effort.
Speaker 7: I'm not some gigantic mega don or. I mean what
Speaker 7: most of my philanthropy is doing stuff like this.
Speaker 2: So, im and you've mentioned you've been doing a lot
Speaker 2: of work in Ukraine, obviously, been traveling the world trying
Speaker 2: to as well get aid and you said to deliver it.
Speaker 2: Do you think that this is undermined the US position
Speaker 2: in Ukraine? If you were just recently in Ukraine, how
Speaker 2: do they respond, you know, to what's going on there?
Speaker 2: How do they reconcile some of the ways that we've
Speaker 2: talked about Russian actions on Ukraine with what's going on
Speaker 2: in Israel.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I was in Ukraine two weeks ago. I've been
Speaker 7: there for the majority of the last two years, mostly
Speaker 7: along the front lines, actually delivering aid to frontline villages
Speaker 7: and alongside the Ukrainian army. Well, you know, they what
Speaker 7: can they say, because ultimately the US is their major sponsor,
Speaker 7: but of course they're the deliveries on all accounts with
Speaker 7: regards to civilians and the military have have have, I
Speaker 7: have come down, So of course they're very frustrated, but
Speaker 7: you know, they don't really have the ability to complain
Speaker 7: because who do you complain to?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: What have you made of the comments from US officials
Speaker 1: that have been.
Speaker 4: Unequivocal in support. We occasionally get.
Speaker 1: These little like pearl clutching all they need to reduce
Speaker 1: civilian casualties. But there was a recent response from John Kirby,
Speaker 1: who was asked about South Africa Africa's application to the
Speaker 1: ICJ charging Israel with genocide, and this is how he
Speaker 1: responds to take a listen.
Speaker 2: South Africa's filed this eighty four page lawsuit against Israel
Speaker 2: accusing them of genocide.
Speaker 7: Israel said that this is blood libel.
Speaker 2: Does Washington agree and where does this put Washington in preatory?
Speaker 4: And fine?
Speaker 2: This submission meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in
Speaker 2: fact whatsoever.
Speaker 4: What do you make of responses like that?
Speaker 7: It's nuts. I mean they're sourced right, their footnotes, there
Speaker 7: are sources, there's evidence there and you know time will tell, right,
Speaker 7: and unfortunately, they will be vindicated and everyone that supports
Speaker 7: them will be vindicated in the future, which is always
Speaker 7: the case when a sort of action like this is happening.
Speaker 7: But it's really it really matters what are we doing today.
Speaker 7: I have no doubt that, you know, this will all
Speaker 7: come out, like every single one of these innocent civilians
Speaker 7: that's been murdered for no reason, it will all come
Speaker 7: out and hopefully we will all hold them accountable. But
Speaker 7: that doesn't really help people get through today. In terms
Speaker 7: of the Lift service about minimizing civility and casualties and
Speaker 7: increasing aid. That's just more nonsense. It's complete nonsense. So
Speaker 7: either they I don't even know if they believe what
Speaker 7: they say. They're saying, you know, like it's it's actually
Speaker 7: really crazy. The deliveries of aid is meaningless, the numbers
Speaker 7: are incredibly low, and the civilian casualties have not been reduced.
Speaker 7: So if you're saying you're doing that, then either you're
Speaker 7: failing or you're lying. I don't know which one. It is.
Speaker 1: Part of Israel's defense that they're floating to the ICA
Speaker 1: is that, oh, there have been hundreds of aid trucks
Speaker 1: that have been allowed in. We've been trying to you know,
Speaker 1: enable the provision of additional aid. You know, as someone
Speaker 1: who has been directly involved in these efforts, just give
Speaker 1: us a sense of what has led to this catastrophic
Speaker 1: breakdown and how their words are so disconnected from the
Speaker 1: reality that the people you're speaking to and cads are
Speaker 1: actually facing.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean, there's a series of security checks and
Speaker 7: so when you drive to the Rafa border crossing, you
Speaker 7: will pass hundreds and hundreds of trucks, some of them
Speaker 7: have been there for three weeks, four weeks. Actually, I
Speaker 7: don't even know how the drivers remain like normal, just
Speaker 7: sitting in their trucks, and it's just a matter of
Speaker 7: each truck has to go through number of number of
Speaker 7: security checks and often the goods are rejected. So actually
Speaker 7: the most high value goods that are the most required
Speaker 7: are rejected medical items, stuff for the hospitals. You're not
Speaker 7: allowed to bring in anything with power, even solar, you
Speaker 7: can't bring in even tense. I mean, they're literally warehouses
Speaker 7: full of stuff that's been rejected, and they're just sitting
Speaker 7: there and donated items, you know, and it's just very
Speaker 7: clear that it's you know, I'd love to hear what
Speaker 7: the answer to that is, but you know, as far
Speaker 7: as I can tell from everyone I've spoken to and
Speaker 7: being there, it's the the the level of the security checks.
Speaker 7: And then even inside Gaza, the World Health Organization and
Speaker 7: U and OCHA will try to move stuff from south
Speaker 7: to central Gaza and they'll be rejected. I think there
Speaker 7: were four rejection yesterday alone.
Speaker 3: Wow. Wow.
Speaker 4: Finally, how do you think history will judge this president?
Speaker 7: I just don't know how he disentangles himself from what
Speaker 7: these Raelis are doing. In Gaza. I mean, you know,
Speaker 7: it was very obvious to me on October eighth that
Speaker 7: the plan was to ethnically cleanse Gaza. There's just no
Speaker 7: other way you look at it. I've worked with the
Speaker 7: US Army, I've worked alongside the Ukrainian Army, I've worked
Speaker 7: alongside the Kurdish Pish murder. I've never seen this lack
Speaker 7: of interest in protecting civilians. And you know, there's nobody
Speaker 7: who can tell me what a responsible army is because
Speaker 7: I've literally been with every army on the front line.
Speaker 7: So you know, nobody at their you know, spin class
Speaker 7: at Equinox is going to tell me what a responsible
Speaker 7: army is. And you know, there's no I just don't know.
Speaker 7: It was clear from the beginning, right, it was very
Speaker 7: clear what the purpose was. And they tell us what
Speaker 7: the purpose is. They tell us what they're doing. No
Speaker 7: shortage of Kanescant members, no shortage of members of the
Speaker 7: Prime Minister's Cabinet have said this is what they want
Speaker 7: to do. And so for the US administration to then
Speaker 7: turn around and tell us, so, you know, that's that's irresponsible.
Speaker 7: We wish we didn't talk like that. It's sort of
Speaker 7: like the us is kind of like we don't really
Speaker 7: want them speaking out loud on what they're doing on
Speaker 7: the ground. And that's I mean, I don't even know
Speaker 7: what the word for that is. It's not infuriating in
Speaker 7: some other word, but I don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: AMD, thank you for your time today, and more importantly,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the work that you do.
Speaker 1: I really deeply, deeply admire and respect you for it.
Speaker 4: So thank you, Thanks Amin.
Speaker 7: Thanks to the two of you, I appreciate absolutely.
Speaker 4: It's our pleasure.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's been great to be back, and we will
Speaker 2: see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 5: Beca