Speaker 1: Hey guys, got some breaking news for you. So the
Speaker 1: Special Council who was investigating Joe Biden over his handling
Speaker 1: or mishandling of classified documents has returned his report. And
Speaker 1: there's a piece of this that is not shocking. They
Speaker 1: are filing no charges, but there is another piece of
Speaker 1: this which is really wild, which the reason, part of
Speaker 1: the reason he gives for not charging Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: effectively that he says he is too feeble minded for
Speaker 1: a jury to find him guilty at this point. Let
Speaker 1: me just break this down for you everything we know
Speaker 1: at this point, because it really is a very wild development.
Speaker 1: So this is from the Washington Post headline, special Council
Speaker 1: no charges for Biden and classified documents probe evidence of
Speaker 1: wilful mishandling of classified papers, but not enough to win
Speaker 1: a conviction. According to the Special Council, or read to
Speaker 1: you from the Washington Post. They so Joe Biden carelessly
Speaker 1: handled classified materials found at his home and former office
Speaker 1: after his vice presidency and shared government secrets with his ghostwriter,
Speaker 1: but that evidence was not strong enough to justify charging
Speaker 1: him with crimes. According to a long awaited Special Council
Speaker 1: report released Thursday. The three hundred and forty five page
Speaker 1: Justice Department finding ends an investigation that has hung over
Speaker 1: the president's head for more than a year. The report
Speaker 1: could prove to be a political liability, however, because it
Speaker 1: describes President Biden eighty one as a forgetful old man
Speaker 1: who kept notebooks and documents with classified information at home,
Speaker 1: a stinging characterization that will likely be used against him
Speaker 1: by Republicans. I think anyone who has seen him recently
Speaker 1: might think twice about their desire to have him in
Speaker 1: the White House again, based not only on that but
Speaker 1: on his recent actions. Biden, in a written statement, defended
Speaker 1: himself as someone who has always taken seriously the protection
Speaker 1: of national security secrets. I cooperated completely throughout no roadblocks
Speaker 1: and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined
Speaker 1: to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I
Speaker 1: went forward with five hours of in person interviews over
Speaker 1: two days. Amid the US government response to an international crisis,
Speaker 1: Biden said, referring to the hamas October seventh attack on
Speaker 1: is I just believe that's what I owed the American
Speaker 1: people so they could know no charges would be brought
Speaker 1: and the matter closed. Special Counsel Robert Hurr, who interviewed
Speaker 1: the President the White House himself, found evidence that Biden
Speaker 1: wilfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency
Speaker 1: when he was a private citizen, but concluded that evidence
Speaker 1: does not establish mister Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Also,
Speaker 1: hers team said prosecuting Biden would be quote unwarranted based
Speaker 1: on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors laid
Speaker 1: out in Justice Department prosecution policies. To secure a conviction,
Speaker 1: officials would need to prove to a jury that Biden
Speaker 1: retained the information wilfully. They go on to say that
Speaker 1: would be an obstacle because the jury would likely find
Speaker 1: Biden to be a sympathetic figure and a quote well
Speaker 1: meaning elderly man with a poor memory. The president of
Speaker 1: the United States, That's who we're talking about here. Prosecutors
Speaker 1: also suggested might not have struck Biden as noteworthy that
Speaker 1: he was in possession of classified documents so soon after
Speaker 1: his time as vice president had ended. As if that
Speaker 1: is not bad enough, let me go ahead and pull
Speaker 1: up for you some of the specific parts of this
Speaker 1: report that mention the memory lapses that Biden apparently suffered
Speaker 1: from during this interview. This is from Bronco Marcicic, who
Speaker 1: read through the report and pulled out some of the
Speaker 1: critical pieces that showed Biden's quote diminished faculties and faulty memory,
Speaker 1: according to the report, in both interview recordings with his
Speaker 1: ghostwriter and when they interviewed him, during which the report says,
Speaker 1: he had gotten worse. He could not remember when he
Speaker 1: was vice president, and he couldn't remember within several years
Speaker 1: of when his son had died. You read you these
Speaker 1: sections from the report. Here's one piece he says. In addition,
Speaker 1: mister Biden's memory was significantly limited during both his recorded
Speaker 1: interviews with the ghostwriter in twenty seventeen and in his
Speaker 1: interview with our office in twenty twenty three, and his
Speaker 1: cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government
Speaker 1: that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will
Speaker 1: likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake
Speaker 1: rather than acting wilfully, that is, with intent to break
Speaker 1: the law, as a statute requires. Here's another piece. Mister
Speaker 1: Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations both at
Speaker 1: the time he spoke to Zwanitzer in twenty seventeen, as
Speaker 1: evidence by their recorded conversations, and today as evidence by
Speaker 1: his recorded interview with our Office, mister Biden's recorded conversations
Speaker 1: was Wantitzer from twenty seventeen are often painfully slow, with
Speaker 1: mister Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times
Speaker 1: to read and relay his own notebook entries. That's from
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. That was some years ago, and they said
Speaker 1: that his memory had gotten worse. In his interview with
Speaker 1: our office, mister Maiden's memory was worse. He did not
Speaker 1: remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first
Speaker 1: day of the interview when his term ended, quote if
Speaker 1: it was twenty thirteen, when did I stop being vice president?
Speaker 1: And forgetting on the second day of the interview when
Speaker 1: his term began in two thousand and nine, am I
Speaker 1: still vice president? He did not remember even but within
Speaker 1: several years when his son Bo died, and his memory
Speaker 1: appeared hazy. When describing the Afghanistan debate that was once
Speaker 1: so important to him, among other things, he mistakenly said
Speaker 1: he had a real difference of opinion with General Carl
Speaker 1: Eichenberry went in fact, Iickenberry was an ally whom mister
Speaker 1: Biden sidon approvingly in his thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
Speaker 1: Last piece here they say, given the intelligence and military
Speaker 1: officials President the tapists discussed, mister Biden should realize the
Speaker 1: notes did or likely to contain classified information, but take
Speaker 1: as in a hole. The evidence will likely leave jurors
Speaker 1: with reasonable doubts about whether mister Biden knew he was
Speaker 1: sharing classified information with Swannitzer, that's his ghostwriter, and intended
Speaker 1: to do so. For these jurors, mister Biden's apparent lapses
Speaker 1: and failures in February and April will likely appear consistent
Speaker 1: with the diminished faculties and faulty memory he showed in
Speaker 1: Swantzer's interview recordings and in our interview of him. Therefore,
Speaker 1: we conclude that the evidence does not establish that mister
Speaker 1: Biden will flay disclosed national defense information to Swantzer. So
Speaker 1: absolutely stunning that in this report special counsel from within
Speaker 1: Biden's own DOJ they are saying they did not charge
Speaker 1: him in part because he was too old and feeble
Speaker 1: minded to really know what he was doing. Was unable
Speaker 1: to cite even with several years when his own son
Speaker 1: Bo died. Biden team out blasting the report, saying, we're
Speaker 1: glad you didn't charge us, but this was inappropriate. They
Speaker 1: don't say what was inappropriate, but we can all guess
Speaker 1: what part they object to here. Biden legal team blast
Speaker 1: special counsel's inappropriate report, saying that they were trashing the president.
Speaker 1: President Biden's legal team on Thursday blasted parts of a
Speaker 1: report by Special Counsel Robert Her accusing him of investigative
Speaker 1: excess that resulted in trashing the subject of an investigation.
Speaker 1: Bob Bauer, Biden's personal counsel, said in a statement shortly
Speaker 1: after the report's release, that the public's findings violate well
Speaker 1: established Apartment norms, that it was essentially trashing the subject.
Speaker 1: Quote the Department of Justice Inspector General observed only a
Speaker 1: few years ago that high profile investigations such as those
Speaker 1: of a president may be subject to scrutiny not typical
Speaker 1: of the average criminal case, but that does not provide
Speaker 1: a basis for violating well established department norms and essentially
Speaker 1: trashing the subject of an investigation with extraneous, unfounded, and
Speaker 1: irrelevant critical commentary. The Special Council could not refrain from
Speaker 1: investigative excess, perhaps unsurprised in giving the intense pressures of
Speaker 1: the current political environment. Whatever the impact of those pressures
Speaker 1: on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms.
Speaker 1: White House also pushed back, calling parts of the report
Speaker 1: inappropriate and inaccurate. We disagree with the number of inaccurate
Speaker 1: inappropriate comments in the report. Nonetheless, the most important decision
Speaker 1: that no charges are warranted is firmly based on the
Speaker 1: facts and evidence. Again, they did not mention which part
Speaker 1: was inappropriate, but we are presuming it's the part describing
Speaker 1: Biden as a quote sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with
Speaker 1: a poor memory and conveying that Biden's memory had significant limitations.
Speaker 1: Guesses that that is the part of the report they
Speaker 1: find to be inappropriate and are objecting to. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to tell you, guys. It is absolutely wild
Speaker 1: that this is where we're at, that these are the
Speaker 1: two candidates that we're faced with, that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: shut down any and all possibility of having a democratic
Speaker 1: choice in the primary. You know, they claim to believe
Speaker 1: this election to be existential. They claim to believe democracy
Speaker 1: is on the line, and yet here we are with
Speaker 1: a man who, by his own Justice departments accounting, is
Speaker 1: too feeble minded to even remember the basics of when
Speaker 1: he was vice president and when his own son died,
Speaker 1: or the basic contours of debates. Of course, this comes
Speaker 1: amid a rash of reports about and not just reports
Speaker 1: but video that we can all watch, of how much
Speaker 1: he is struggling on a daily basis to recount basic facts, stories, figures,
Speaker 1: faces from his life. We now have two incidents within
Speaker 1: a week's time of him telling a story about some
Speaker 1: world leader and him naming two different world leaders who
Speaker 1: have been dead for years. We had another incident where
Speaker 1: he was attempting to update us on a hamas response
Speaker 1: to a ceasefire proposal, where he painfully struggled to recall
Speaker 1: the word hamas had to be sort of prompted by
Speaker 1: someone who was nearby. These lapses are common, but they're
Speaker 1: becoming more and more and more regular. His team also
Speaker 1: and he also recently deciding not to do a Super
Speaker 1: Bowl interview sit down. This is the second year that
Speaker 1: they've decided to do that, but this year it would
Speaker 1: have been with a relatively friendly news outlet, And of
Speaker 1: course passing up on the chance to get himself in
Speaker 1: front of millions and millions of voters at a time
Speaker 1: when he trails often in the polls to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So voters say overwhelmingly his age and ability is a top,
Speaker 1: top concern for them, and needless to say, this report
Speaker 1: will do absolutely nothing to alleviate their concerns.
Speaker 2: All right, Welcome to a special issue of breaking points.
Speaker 2: Pakistani voters went to the polls across the country today
Speaker 2: and I am kind of new to handling the different
Speaker 2: devices on this riverside live thing. So what am we
Speaker 2: gonna do. I'm gonna turn it over to you Murtaza Hussein,
Speaker 2: my colleague over at the Intercept, first to give us
Speaker 2: a little bit of background. We're also going to be
Speaker 2: joined by w Coast akhmatters of Pakistani journalists to talk
Speaker 2: about the absolutely shocking election results so far. And then
Speaker 2: and then I'm going to play a little bit of
Speaker 2: videos that we've picked up from social media and also
Speaker 2: from my questioning of the State Department earlier today. So
Speaker 2: Maz kind of catch us up what's going on so far.
Speaker 3: So for the past couple of months, the Pakistani military,
Speaker 3: beyond that, even the Pakistani military has been working to
Speaker 3: effectively rig.
Speaker 4: The Pakistani elections.
Speaker 3: Of course, the INTERSEP we've done some reporting showing how
Speaker 3: the US was involved in deposing Imran Khan. By polls
Speaker 3: show the most popular prime minister in pax On, the
Speaker 3: most popular politician pox On, the former prime minister, and mister.
Speaker 4: Khan, you know, has been banned from the elections.
Speaker 3: His party has been more or less dismantled or mid
Speaker 3: efforts they dismantled them by the military. And yet it
Speaker 3: seems that despite all these massive roadblocks and impediments put
Speaker 3: in their way, the Pakistani Tarikians Office is called, looks
Speaker 3: set to win the elections, according to early polling results,
Speaker 3: and not just win the elections, but decisively win the elections.
Speaker 3: So I think it's quite a resounding sort of message
Speaker 3: to the military that despite their attempts to suppress mister
Speaker 3: Khan's party, suppressed him personally, he's currently in jail, the
Speaker 3: people of Pakistan clearly have evident strong favorability towards him
Speaker 3: and his party, and whatever efforts they've undertaken to block
Speaker 3: his electoral chances or even Impune's credibility and reputation, they
Speaker 3: have not seemed to resonate with the people of Pakistan
Speaker 3: as we're seeing tonight with these results.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the most blatant thing they've done, I guess
Speaker 2: has been you know, abduct abducting candidates to prevent them
Speaker 2: from even running and then also knocking down mobile service
Speaker 2: in the and in the Internet leading up to the election.
Speaker 2: But they also not only jailed the leading candidate, I
Speaker 2: Ron Khan, but effectively, like you said, dismantled his party.
Speaker 2: And so as we talk about these results, we're going
Speaker 2: to be talking about independents who are backed by the
Speaker 2: PTI rather than PTI candidates will costs. Why why is that?
Speaker 5: Well, uh PTI has been actually banned from running as
Speaker 5: a party, so this PTI candidates cannot run as members
Speaker 5: of PTI and they're supposed to run as independents. So
Speaker 5: what we're now seeing, like results are we're saying seeing
Speaker 5: the effects of that. What was intended initially. They wanted
Speaker 5: PTI to be off the ballot so that when results
Speaker 5: start coming in we do not see PTI victory decisively,
Speaker 5: we stay confused about which candidates are actually winning because
Speaker 5: because now they have independent in front of their name
Speaker 5: instead of PTI. So I'm looking at results like, out
Speaker 5: of four hundred eighty three that have currently come in,
Speaker 5: two hundred and eighty three are independents.
Speaker 6: We don't know if they're PTA, they're most likely PTSD.
Speaker 5: So overwhelmingly these independent candidates are winning. But one way
Speaker 5: to look at it is by giving votes to these
Speaker 5: independent candidates overwhelmingly against all other parties that were favored
Speaker 5: by the military. People have actually rejected those parties and
Speaker 5: actually favored independence, which are basically members of PTI.
Speaker 2: All right, that's that's important context for the question that
Speaker 2: I had at the State Apartment today for v Dant Patel.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna I'm going to pull this up and
Speaker 2: then we can talk about what his answer, what does
Speaker 2: answer means? So here here this goes.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, good question. The plimary results have iron cons party,
Speaker 7: I think at this point, with leading in one hundred
Speaker 7: and thirty six districts three times the next closest one.
Speaker 7: We're now seeing reports in Pakistana. There's separate things. One
Speaker 7: the army is in the streets, the police are in
Speaker 7: the streets, are surrounding polling stations, and you're seeing a
Speaker 7: lot of reports and videos effort to change the election
Speaker 7: officials out a lot of concern that at number one
Speaker 7: hundred and thirty six by tomorrow morning in Pakistan be
Speaker 7: pushed down lower. Separately, you're seeing also the surface in
Speaker 7: Pakistan attempt to kind of military connective officials to take
Speaker 7: the independence you are associated with PTI and treasure them
Speaker 7: to join other parties. So even though in one content
Speaker 7: party might win a majority after torture and Briberry, you
Speaker 7: could have a different government take powers when the putting
Speaker 7: stood up for free and fair elections, but pree entire
Speaker 7: electing the one thing. But if you culture way to
Speaker 7: the majority after that, that doesn't that doesn't quite live
Speaker 7: up to kind of the values that were This seems
Speaker 7: like a pretty simbable moment in America. And the.
Speaker 8: Thing about preliminary results that they are preliminary, and I
Speaker 8: am not going to get ahead of any visual results.
Speaker 8: We're not going to comment or speculate further on what
Speaker 8: government like makeup could be or anything like that you
Speaker 8: would be. What I will just reiterate again is that
Speaker 8: we condemn all instances of election related violence, some of
Speaker 8: the kinds that you were describing that took place in
Speaker 8: the weeks preceding the election, as well as on election day.
Speaker 4: We also believe that these.
Speaker 8: Kinds of actions have affected a number of political parties
Speaker 8: across Pakistan. And we're also concerned about the steps that
Speaker 8: we're taking to restrict freedom of expression, specifically around internet
Speaker 8: and cell phone use. But again, I'm just not gonna
Speaker 8: it's real quick speculate on results or government maker lets.
Speaker 7: But let's say the pact, many people do elect a
Speaker 7: majority of independence associated with the PTI, But then after
Speaker 7: a bunch of back room negotiations which are accompanied by
Speaker 7: reports of torture, all of a sudden, there's another candidate
Speaker 7: that has a majority.
Speaker 4: Would that be okay with the.
Speaker 8: I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna hypothesize
Speaker 8: on a made up situation that you're just describing right now.
Speaker 8: We will at some point, I have no doubt that
Speaker 8: the United States of America will comment on the election
Speaker 8: official election results when they happen. But till then, we
Speaker 8: will defer to the electoral process we believe we take
Speaker 8: very seriously.
Speaker 2: All Right, we'll coss. What what was your reaction to
Speaker 2: to that answer?
Speaker 5: Uh, this is honestly disgusting At this point, because what
Speaker 5: we have to take intoto account what has happened on
Speaker 5: the Groundian podcast on they have died the legs and
Speaker 5: arms of one polt ticular party. And he just said
Speaker 5: that it has happened to a number of political parties,
Speaker 5: name too, that there's no other party that this has
Speaker 5: happened to them. It has only happened to one political party.
Speaker 5: And they have tied their arms and legs of this
Speaker 5: political party. They have put people in jail, thousands of people,
Speaker 5: including the leaders.
Speaker 6: They have banned this party.
Speaker 5: Yet today we see this party winning in absolute like
Speaker 5: crazy numbers.
Speaker 6: And this is something inspirational.
Speaker 5: It is like it is about the indefeatableness of the
Speaker 5: human spirit. It's something like that. It's something epic that
Speaker 5: has happened to Pakistan. And then to steal this from
Speaker 5: Pakistani people who have resisted the military huntaw for so long,
Speaker 5: and who have fought so bravely and so amazingly using
Speaker 5: democracy and no violance, nothing at all, and now they
Speaker 5: have voted the people that they have chosen and this
Speaker 5: mandate is about to be stolen from them. And all
Speaker 5: of these people who have stayed quite for two years
Speaker 5: and who have condoned this avoidance that has happened, and
Speaker 5: good pibout Christy. They will continue to do so. It
Speaker 5: will honestly be so disgusting to watch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mars, what was your reaction when you saw the
Speaker 2: same What do you think what should we draw from that?
Speaker 3: Well, he's clearly not very happy with your consistent questioning
Speaker 3: of him at these at these uh at these conferences.
Speaker 3: But I think it's interesting to draw a jextaposition between
Speaker 3: his response and the way they responding countries where they're
Speaker 3: similar or even less egregious or you know, vote brigging.
Speaker 3: It takes place beforehand, and the US Department, in the State
Speaker 3: Department is quite vocal about it. They're quite you know,
Speaker 3: enthusiastic and condemning those cases. He's so you know, cautious
Speaker 3: in this case about saying that at the end. If
Speaker 3: you notice, he'sn'tven say that we take the results there
Speaker 3: the election process is legitimately since we take it seriously,
Speaker 3: it's impossible to.
Speaker 4: Say anything otherwise at this point.
Speaker 3: So I think, you know, unfortunately a lot of people
Speaker 3: in talkistan this what class was saying, you know, they
Speaker 3: do very strongly believe in the Marxis but all these
Speaker 3: roadblocks putting their way, and they're counting on because of
Speaker 3: the role that the US plays in Pakistan, is the
Speaker 3: facto part of the ruling compact in some way, the
Speaker 3: influence it has, and given the US's vocal support of
Speaker 3: the oxy vocally, they expect some sort of consistency and
Speaker 3: some sort of reliability from the US government. Fortunately expect
Speaker 3: that it doesn't see be forthcoming. So I think that
Speaker 3: if it were to come to pass, that even after
Speaker 3: is very significant and I think shocking in many ways
Speaker 3: election result to come out this way despite all these roadblocks.
Speaker 3: If the US government sits quietly or even endorses an
Speaker 3: outcome which is clearly unfair and clearly unjust for the
Speaker 3: perspective of Circon supporters, I think you'll see a great dissolution.
Speaker 3: You see that the US ability to speak the other
Speaker 3: contexts as well.
Speaker 2: And related to the State Department. I wanted to quickly
Speaker 2: share this New York Times article that was updated just
Speaker 2: maybe ten twenty minutes ago. It says here as a result,
Speaker 2: This is from the New York Times. The coverage of
Speaker 2: the elections. The results began to trickle in Thursday evening.
Speaker 2: The Party of former Prime Minister Nahuaz Sharif, the military's
Speaker 2: preferred party of the moment, was still expected to win,
Speaker 2: but it not looked but it did not look like
Speaker 2: it would pull off the easy victory that was widely predicted.
Speaker 2: So to describe this earlier, I think it described them
Speaker 2: as neck and neck. But this it's been updated even
Speaker 2: since then, So they took out the kind of neck
Speaker 2: and neck verbiage, but they left in was still expected
Speaker 2: to win, which to me is such a striking phrase
Speaker 2: because they might actually be correct, Like from the perspective
Speaker 2: of the State Department in the New York Times, regardless
Speaker 2: of the fact that the that the votes and we
Speaker 2: can put the the votes are so heavily in favor
Speaker 2: of the PTI at this point, the New York Times
Speaker 2: and the State Department may still expect Nahuas Sharif to win.
Speaker 2: So cost setting aside who got more votes, what would
Speaker 2: you say about who's expected to win at this point?
Speaker 6: Well, Independent is not a party.
Speaker 5: If Independent was a party in Pakistan, it would be
Speaker 5: the biggest party in Pakistan's history right now the way
Speaker 5: independents have won so technically and all of the things
Speaker 5: that State Department says, and like the Pakistani government says,
Speaker 5: is technically true. Technically pml EN might be the biggest party,
Speaker 5: but Independence will they still have more independence than them,
Speaker 5: So they'll have to get all these independence on board,
Speaker 5: and that will usually happen with militaries.
Speaker 6: Coachion, thefts, bribery and all of that.
Speaker 5: So State Department will be able to continue will they
Speaker 5: will be continued to be able to say that technically
Speaker 5: pml and emerged as the biggest party. New York Times
Speaker 5: would like truthfully say that pml N is the largest party.
Speaker 5: But the context of that is that PTI has been banned,
Speaker 5: all of the PTI members are independents, and Independence has won.
Speaker 2: So how would they How would Independence actually go about
Speaker 2: forming a party? I assume they'd have to find a
Speaker 2: kind of rump faction of a party that they could
Speaker 2: then all join with. What is the PTI strategy? Assuming
Speaker 2: let's pretend that they can get through the the overnight
Speaker 2: sin anagins and the torture and everything that we're going
Speaker 2: to see over the over the coming days, and they
Speaker 2: do emerge with a certified majority, Like, how do they
Speaker 2: enact that majority in the parliament without having a party
Speaker 2: like what who do they align.
Speaker 5: With when they can form their own party, or they
Speaker 5: can they can basically form a forward block within the
Speaker 5: PTA or this decision, the core decision that actually banned
Speaker 5: PTA is is in the process of being appealed. And
Speaker 5: if in appeal it goes and then PTI gets its symbol,
Speaker 5: BAG gets its party back, then bt might be able
Speaker 5: to form a party in the parliament if nobody is
Speaker 5: able to get to them. That means that they might
Speaker 5: be able to vote for their own prime minister, and
Speaker 5: they might be able to vote for their own cabinet.
Speaker 5: And if that happens, BTF would it's really possible that
Speaker 5: they can have a party. So they're still in the
Speaker 5: game despite everything that has happened. And the major upset
Speaker 5: in this today's election was that PMLN did not win
Speaker 5: a clear majority and they would not be able to
Speaker 5: form a government. And now Pakistani Parliament is in any case,
Speaker 5: no matter what.
Speaker 6: Happens, it will be harmed.
Speaker 2: When I'm playing here with this footage of police officials
Speaker 2: who are kind of surrounding a following location, you're seeing
Speaker 2: tons of this from everywhere around the country. I can
Speaker 2: try to share a little bit more more of it. Oh,
Speaker 2: there we go. Say, I told you I'm not very
Speaker 2: good at doing this. Let me try again. Let me
Speaker 2: pull up a different one. Here's so, if you go
Speaker 2: to my Twitter feed, you go to uh, if you
Speaker 2: go to what Causes or Fred's w O r k s,
Speaker 2: you'll find you'll find these videos everywhere. But it looks
Speaker 2: like it looks to be one of the most attempts
Speaker 2: to steal an election, you know, documented on social media.
Speaker 2: Here's here's somebody who's just been who's kind.
Speaker 4: Of been captured.
Speaker 2: Videos of ballot boxes getting stuffed. You have, you have
Speaker 2: ballots on fire, you have military figures throwing boxes into
Speaker 2: jeeps and right you know, riding off of them. Uh maz.
Speaker 4: Do you think that.
Speaker 2: It's Do you think the hill is too steep for
Speaker 2: the military to climb here to flip this election or
Speaker 2: do you think that nothing is kind of out of
Speaker 2: reach here?
Speaker 3: Well, the thing is they went to such extraordinary steps
Speaker 3: before the election to rig it with the internet shutdowns.
Speaker 4: You're a great article on the Intercept about it.
Speaker 3: Actually, all the ways that they've gone above and beyond
Speaker 3: to try to fix this election beforehand, not least what
Speaker 3: they did with in ron Khan yourself as well too,
Speaker 3: So you know, after the vote, now having that having
Speaker 3: strategy having failed so visibly, so hugely in no way,
Speaker 3: now there's almost these very comically extreme, the most ceiling
Speaker 3: votes stopping balls, much of it capturing video. I think
Speaker 3: that the subtext of all this is that Cox and
Speaker 3: military has been cut flat footed by the way that
Speaker 3: ordinary people have been empowered by social mediament sense because
Speaker 3: obviously PTI US social media very extensively in ron Khan
Speaker 3: used extensively, and now you know, they have these sort
Speaker 3: of very unsubtle forms of manipulation of ballots, but people
Speaker 3: can record them and share them. So when everyone's seeing
Speaker 3: what's happening, it's all documented. It's not very effective anymore
Speaker 3: kind of you know, implies more or shows more what's
Speaker 3: going on. So I think what may happen is that,
Speaker 3: you know, they still have all the guns in Pakistan,
Speaker 3: you still have all the institutional power. They may still
Speaker 3: be able to rig the vote in some other way
Speaker 3: by forcing you know, people to change parties, you know,
Speaker 3: various different ways of applying coersion to do that. But
Speaker 3: I think what's going to happen that is if they're
Speaker 3: still you know, engineer and results at the game what
Speaker 3: they like. They're going to have such a crisis of
Speaker 3: credibility and lack of public consent because of all Pakistan's
Speaker 3: to compare democratic shortcomings, you need some critical mass of
Speaker 3: people who at least buy that this is a legitimate government.
Speaker 3: And if you don't have that, in the military's case,
Speaker 3: it would be very difficult to govern over a long time.
Speaker 3: So I think what could happen in the long terms.
Speaker 3: You could see a return to the military rule in Pakistan,
Speaker 3: which just happened many times in the past. There could
Speaker 3: be consequences potentially in terms of sanctions from the US
Speaker 3: and the international bodies. But you know, if the Pakistani
Speaker 3: military sees it between a choice of losing power entirely
Speaker 3: or becoming a prior and ruling directly, may choose a.
Speaker 2: Lot and will cause. I have to agree with you
Speaker 2: that watching people turn out in such force in the
Speaker 2: face of such repression was nothing short of inspiring. It
Speaker 2: It became totally clear that the Pakistani people had immensely
Speaker 2: more faith in democracy, uh than for instance, the State Department.
Speaker 2: You know, the the United States has been practicing democracy
Speaker 2: for more than two hundred years and what was kind
Speaker 2: of shown I think by the Pakistani people what democracy
Speaker 2: actually means. And they went out knowing that there would
Speaker 2: be all of these you know, different elements of repression.
Speaker 2: Uh too too numerous and too absurd to even to
Speaker 2: even get into. So as as you are, as you're
Speaker 2: watching these results come in, where where would you suggest
Speaker 2: that people go to be able to follow this because
Speaker 2: I know that people are getting really interested in this,
Speaker 2: in this incredible story of of resilience by the Pakistani people,
Speaker 2: But it's very defined anywhere where you can actually kind
Speaker 2: of follow it in a reliable way, So like where
Speaker 2: do you go for your news? And where should English
Speaker 2: English speaking and reading audiences go where they can where
Speaker 2: they can follow it.
Speaker 5: Well, it's mostly on x dot com, Twitter, everything is there.
Speaker 5: Pakistani media isn't that reliable, but there are some websites
Speaker 5: that are collecting data. So the data that has come
Speaker 5: in so far has been somewhat reliable because they're coming
Speaker 5: directly though that data is coming directly from polling station.
Speaker 6: So if you go to Twitter, then there are some well.
Speaker 5: PTI account itself is a very good resource to follow
Speaker 5: about all the videos that are coming in because they
Speaker 5: have a huge network, so if you follow PTA official,
Speaker 5: you'll see all the videos that they have been collecting
Speaker 5: about rigging attempts and successful rigging attempts. You'd get to
Speaker 5: see those. And then there's a journalist, i Ran Yashan.
Speaker 5: I've recently heard he was kidnapped for five six months.
Speaker 5: I think by the military. He was kept there. But
Speaker 5: if you searched Imran yas Hahn's name again, you'll see
Speaker 5: that he's still he's active again and I've heard that
Speaker 5: they probably might attempt to kidnap him again.
Speaker 2: So like journalists, courage fans who yeah he went through,
Speaker 2: Yeah he was.
Speaker 5: He was in custody for eight months. Yeah he was tortured.
Speaker 5: He was alone, there was he wasn't in police custody.
Speaker 5: Nobody knew where he was. So when he came out,
Speaker 5: he was quiet. He couldn't even speak properly. He was
Speaker 5: touttering for a month. And now he's able to write
Speaker 5: about things. So he's saying things again and he might
Speaker 5: be picked up. But this is the problem with following
Speaker 5: credible like famous people in Pakistan because they get picked up.
Speaker 5: So you have to rely on anonymous accounts and you
Speaker 5: basically have to do your own fact checking. You have
Speaker 5: to collate your own data and see if it's correct
Speaker 5: or not. It's like very few resources available in bis not.
Speaker 5: But if you go to Twitter, you get you get
Speaker 5: some idea of what's happening.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I guess last point I don't want to
Speaker 2: make uh is you know, thank everyone the editors, uh,
Speaker 2: fact checkers, producers over at the Intercept that helped us
Speaker 2: do the reporting on on the on the cable that
Speaker 2: you were talking about earlier Wi Coast. And there's no
Speaker 2: guarantee that this is that this is going going to
Speaker 2: hold but at some point I don't I don't think
Speaker 2: that the generals are going to be able to hold
Speaker 2: back this tide. But this would be you know, the
Speaker 2: second kind of reverse regime change operations, so to speak,
Speaker 2: that the Intercept would have been involved in recent years.
Speaker 2: And you know, our colleagues down at the Intercept Brazil
Speaker 2: exposed corruption that had led to the jailing of Lula
Speaker 2: de Silva down in Brazil. He was freed from office
Speaker 2: and the Brazilian people restored him to the presidency. You know,
Speaker 2: we're in the middle of an epic moment here, but
Speaker 2: we don't know where it ends. But it's certainly something
Speaker 2: that I think the Pakistani people should be should be
Speaker 2: proud of. Any any last words from from either of
Speaker 2: you that you wanted to you want to add.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I can add something America and American government says
Speaker 5: it values democracy and it backs democracy all over the world.
Speaker 5: We have clearly seen what Pakistani people want, what the
Speaker 5: democratic aspirations of Pakistani people are. To continue to deny
Speaker 5: them is the United States and Biden administration would be
Speaker 5: thinking in a very short term to do that, because
Speaker 5: if they continue to deny these people their democratic aspiration,
Speaker 5: you're turning a whole generations of Pakistanis into anti American people,
Speaker 5: and that is not really that doesn't really work for
Speaker 5: the American government. Pakistan is a big, major country, and eventually,
Speaker 5: if you can deny them, they're right for now, for
Speaker 5: one month, for one year, for five years, but eventually
Speaker 5: people will get what they're aspiring for. And when they
Speaker 5: do that, you don't want Pakistan to be like a
Speaker 5: second Iran where the revolution brings in a government that
Speaker 5: is completely anti American. So it is so important to
Speaker 5: engage with these people. Their aspiration is not invalid, and
Speaker 5: it's so important to that United States government understands this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very well said. That was what I was trying
Speaker 2: to get at my question with Vitant that this is
Speaker 2: a moment where, despite everything that the US has done,
Speaker 2: this is a moment where if they did recognize the
Speaker 2: democratic results from this election, I think that would go
Speaker 2: a long way to mending some of the defenses that
Speaker 2: they broke over the last over the last few years.
Speaker 2: But we'll see. We're going to continue to follow it.
Speaker 2: Mas Wikas, thank you both for joining me.
Speaker 4: I really appreciate it.