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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing
Speaker 2: because Crystal is back.
Speaker 3: It's great to see you. Crystal. What do we have today?
Speaker 4: It is great to be back.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Soccer by the way for covering
Speaker 1: for me and the team, and Ryan and everybody you've
Speaker 1: filled in. We have a lot to get to this morning, though.
Speaker 1: As Soccer covered for you yesterday, three US service members
Speaker 1: are dead after a suicide drone attack in Jordan. What
Speaker 1: are they even doing there? What does that mean for
Speaker 1: broader conflagrations in the Middle East? A lot to talk
Speaker 1: about there. We're also following the US cut funding for
Speaker 1: a critical un AID agency dedicated to Palestinians.
Speaker 4: This of course comes.
Speaker 1: As ICJ ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip. Break that down for you. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: floating a wild new Russia Gate conspiracy. Got to hear
Speaker 1: this one to believe it, truly astonishing. The mayor of Dearborn,
Speaker 1: Michigan is actually going to join us, so he refused
Speaker 1: to meet with Biden campaign officials, this in spite of
Speaker 1: the fact that he is a longtime Democrat, over Biden's
Speaker 1: unconditional support for Israel. So we're going to talk to
Speaker 1: him about that and how he is thinking about the
Speaker 1: general election matchup likely between Biden and Trump. Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: Ai nudes causing a whole frucus all the way up
Speaker 1: to the White House, massive debate about what to do
Speaker 1: about this, if anything should be done about this, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So we'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: And Soccer is looking at the political divide between young
Speaker 1: men and young women, which seems to only be widening.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Before we do get to that, though, we want to
Speaker 2: say thank you also to our premium subscribers helping us
Speaker 2: for gearing up for election season. We've got the discount
Speaker 2: going on right now. We have our RFK Junior focus group,
Speaker 2: which will be coming to everybody next week. We're really
Speaker 2: excited to bring everybody that. Actually, it turns out while
Speaker 2: the delay was not something that we wanted due to
Speaker 2: the snow that you know, there's quite a lot of
Speaker 2: relevance with RFK Junior right now, and we're going to
Speaker 2: have a lot to cover tomorrow as well, lots of
Speaker 2: domestic stories, the border situation, all that we wanted to
Speaker 2: make sure we cover our bases with foreign policy today
Speaker 2: just because of the tragic death of those service members
Speaker 2: and unfortunately Crystal even worse calls for war with Iran
Speaker 2: pervading the bipartisan consensus here in Washington.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: So let's start with that news, which is certainly the
Speaker 1: top story of the day with potentially massive and terrifying implications.
Speaker 1: Was put this up on the screen, as I said,
Speaker 1: three US troops killed an up to thirty four injured
Speaker 1: in Jordan. This due to a so called suicide drone
Speaker 1: strike that the Biden administration is linking to these Iranian
Speaker 1: backed militias. I can read you from a little bit
Speaker 1: this story. Biden's response, he says, have no doubt we
Speaker 1: will hold all those responsible to account at a time
Speaker 1: and in a manner of our choosing. Around's mission to
Speaker 1: the UNS and a statement that Tehran was not involved
Speaker 1: in the attack. Aron had no connection, had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the attack on the US base according to
Speaker 1: that mission. They added, there is a conflict between US
Speaker 1: forces and resistance groups in the region which reciprocate retaliatory attacks.
Speaker 4: We could go ahead and put up on.
Speaker 1: The screen a map so that you get a sense
Speaker 1: of where exactly these attacks were happening. You can see
Speaker 1: they're right on the border here of Jordan and Syria.
Speaker 1: Apparently this facility that was targeted is referred to as
Speaker 1: Tower twenty two, very very close to that Jordan Syria border.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much to say about this. First
Speaker 1: of all, you know, anytime our service members are attacked
Speaker 1: in this region, I'm sure plenty of Americans are going,
Speaker 1: what are they even doing in this region? Like, why
Speaker 1: are they even to be sitting ducks for these types
Speaker 1: of attacks? Number two, Sadly, this was entirely predictable result
Speaker 1: of Biden's policy vis A VI Israel since October seventh,
Speaker 1: And we can put this up on the screen this map.
Speaker 1: You know, you guys haven't heard that much about these
Speaker 1: in the news, even though you should have. There have
Speaker 1: been well over one hundred and fifty of these types
Speaker 1: of attacks, and tragically, it was only a matter of
Speaker 1: time before one of the attacks broke through and claimed
Speaker 1: the lives of US service members. So there is no
Speaker 1: doubt in my mind this is very likely linked directly
Speaker 1: to the Biden administration's policy viz a vi Israel.
Speaker 4: Part of how we know.
Speaker 1: That is because during the time when there was a
Speaker 1: brief cease fire, these attacks completely stopped, and so it
Speaker 1: once again raises the quest uestion of what the hell
Speaker 1: are we doing here? Even if you don't care about
Speaker 1: the moral outrage of what is happening in Gaza, the
Speaker 1: Biden policy has put our service members at risk and
Speaker 1: is directly in contravention of our own national security interests.
Speaker 1: And to me, that's what is really underscored by these
Speaker 1: unbelievably tragic deaths and avoidable deaths.
Speaker 2: In the end, Yeah, I'm really outraged by this because
Speaker 2: it was so predictable. We're sitting here for weeks just
Speaker 2: saying listen, it's on a matter of time.
Speaker 3: It only takes one.
Speaker 2: It only takes this and then we see, you know,
Speaker 2: tit for tat, We go up, we go up, something
Speaker 2: gets fired at a ship and now you know, this
Speaker 2: is a really horrible situation because these guys, by all accounts,
Speaker 2: were literally sleeping, so it was in the middle of
Speaker 2: the night and a suicide drone appears to have attacked
Speaker 2: their barracks. Because we also saw that the number of
Speaker 2: wounded rose significantly from yesterday. It now stands at thirty four,
Speaker 2: but very likely to go even higher. Unfortunately, many of
Speaker 2: the men who were wounded actually remain in critical condition
Speaker 2: and had to be airlifted out of Jordan to a
Speaker 2: nearby hospital. That also reminds us of why are three
Speaker 2: thousand American soldiers or service members in Jordan in the
Speaker 2: first place. The ostensible purpose of this base is part
Speaker 2: of the anti Isis mission.
Speaker 3: I mean, when's the last time that.
Speaker 2: We heard anything about what was going on with US
Speaker 2: operations in Syria and in Isis. Don't forget that belies
Speaker 2: the fact that there are a number of US troops
Speaker 2: in Syria, again with no authorization from Congress, and they
Speaker 2: have been there now for years in near permanent installations.
Speaker 2: There's a bigger defense question Tier two really about the
Speaker 2: use of these suicide drones and US air defense systems.
Speaker 2: There had long been promises and both to the troops
Speaker 2: and others, that we had adequate force protection for our
Speaker 2: service members who are so forward deployed in Syria and elsewhere,
Speaker 2: saying we had all of these advanced air defense systems
Speaker 2: that were in place to make sure that something like
Speaker 2: this would happen. Obviously completely failed in this regard, and
Speaker 2: now three of our service members are dead and more
Speaker 2: than three dozen nearly have been wounded, some critically who
Speaker 2: have been injured, and who knows what the prognosis remains
Speaker 2: for them. It is a bigger, major strategic question about
Speaker 2: what are our service members doing here. Don't forget either, Crystal.
Speaker 2: In the initial statement, President Biden blamed Iranian backed groups
Speaker 2: in Iraq and in Syria, so it raises questions there
Speaker 2: about what exact groups that these.
Speaker 3: Are, whether they're in Iraq. Don't forget this.
Speaker 2: If we're going to respond quote hard and heavy or
Speaker 2: whatever it is that the Lindsey Graham and all those
Speaker 2: want us to do, there is a very dangerous and
Speaker 2: diplomatic talk going on right now.
Speaker 3: With Iraq.
Speaker 2: Many of the Iraqis do not want us to stay
Speaker 2: there that our troops. The Biden administration is fighting to
Speaker 2: make sure that our troops can remain inside of the country.
Speaker 2: Ostensibly for this anti isis mission more likely to do
Speaker 2: with forward posture against Iran. Regardless, this is going to
Speaker 2: affect that if there is some sort of major retaliation
Speaker 2: inside of Iraq, which very likely could invite domestic political
Speaker 2: push on top of who the hell knows what goes
Speaker 2: on in Syria. But what scares me more than anything
Speaker 2: is the total unwillingness to, you know, just throw caution
Speaker 2: to the wind right now amongst the Washington establishment, and
Speaker 2: you see direct calls, bipartisan calls right now to strike
Speaker 2: Iranian territory, not to wipe out or even retaliate against
Speaker 2: these Iraqi and Syrian groups would directly go to the source.
Speaker 2: And that's what we're seeing from all across the Aisle
Speaker 2: immediately in the aftermath of the attack.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we could put some of that up on
Speaker 1: the screen. The Republicans largely jumped in most aggressively. Of course,
Speaker 1: many of these same people use any and every excuse
Speaker 1: to push for war with Iran. You've got Senator John
Speaker 1: Cornyn target Tehran, Lindsey Graham, hit Iran, now hit them hard.
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton my statement following the Iran backed attacks in
Speaker 1: Jordan that killed treas u As service members and injured
Speaker 1: twenty five the TLDR, there is also war with Iran.
Speaker 4: Tim Scott.
Speaker 1: Enough is enough by Aen administration's appeasement of Iran must end.
Speaker 4: Time for clear and decisive action.
Speaker 1: Chuck Grassley will present Biden finally take decisive action against Iran. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, I think it's important to
Speaker 1: say a couple things about this, like, obviously this is psychotic,
Speaker 1: the idea that we should just jump into a full
Speaker 1: scale war with Iran.
Speaker 4: You know, it's not something that the American people want.
Speaker 1: It is a disastrous, absolutely insane idea that goes almost
Speaker 1: without saying. I also think it's worth noting, you know,
Speaker 1: the media always it's almost like a verbal tick. They
Speaker 1: use this phrase like Iran backed militias, and it is true.
Speaker 1: Obviously they're they're linked, they're funded, there's you know, affiliations there,
Speaker 1: but you can get the impression that they're just acting
Speaker 1: one hundred percent as puppets of Iran. And they're just
Speaker 1: doing like whatever their actions are, they're directed, you know,
Speaker 1: directly from Tehran, and that is not the case. You know,
Speaker 1: these groups have their own impetus, they have their own motivations,
Speaker 1: they have their own goals, They're capable of planning their
Speaker 1: own attacks. So when Iran says it wasn't us, maybe
Speaker 1: it was. Maybe it wasn't. But I just want people
Speaker 1: to understand that these groups are not Iran. They are
Speaker 1: linked to Iran, yes, but that doesn't mean that they
Speaker 1: are directly taking their orders from Tehran. The most critical
Speaker 1: piece here, I think, Sager, is you see once again
Speaker 1: the way that the logic of escalation only ever goes
Speaker 1: in one direction. It has never been more clear that
Speaker 1: the reason these attacks are happening is directly because of
Speaker 1: our unconditional support for Israel, because of the fact that
Speaker 1: we have been a primary you know, we've been a
Speaker 1: primary blockade to any sort of ceasefire or longer truce,
Speaker 1: and when there was a brief ceasefire, these attacks stopped.
Speaker 1: So all of this trouble in the Middle East, the
Speaker 1: Red Sea, the Hoofies. You know, we had two Navy
Speaker 1: seals who also are dead because of our actions in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, they didn't come under direct buyer, but
Speaker 1: as a result of our operations in the Red Sea,
Speaker 1: they too are dead. All of this is happening because
Speaker 1: of our policy visa the Israel.
Speaker 4: So instead though, of.
Speaker 1: Reassessing that policy and saying there's a very clear answer
Speaker 1: and solution to all of these problems, which by the way,
Speaker 1: would also be in the best interests of humanity in
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip, instead it's always we have to escalate,
Speaker 1: we have to hit them harder, we have to escalate
Speaker 1: to de escalate, et.
Speaker 4: Cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's what the media pushes, it's what the political class pushes,
Speaker 1: and it always only goes in one direction.
Speaker 3: The logic is also nonsensical.
Speaker 2: I mean, we are currently funding to the tune of
Speaker 2: hundreds of billions of dollars the war in Ukraine, which
Speaker 2: is killed probably between three to three hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand Russian soldiers. So by this logic, let's say that
Speaker 2: Russia where to use this logic, what could they say?
Speaker 2: They're like, well, the US backed, you know, US linked
Speaker 2: Ukrainian government is killing our soldiers with their weapons. Actually,
Speaker 2: the link is probably even more direct because the Pentagon
Speaker 2: quite literally runs the Ukrainian military ops and in a
Speaker 2: similar situation, we can't control everything the Ukrainian military does,
Speaker 2: or maybe we can, but let's say that we can't
Speaker 2: in that at least in that instance. As we have
Speaker 2: seen them conduct attacks deep inside of Russian territory elsewhere,
Speaker 2: terrorist attacks, assassinations inside of Moscow, what does that mean?
Speaker 2: Under that logic, they could bomb us, They could nuke us.
Speaker 2: That's what they're and that's what the most belligerent people
Speaker 2: inside of the Russian government are saying. They're like, how
Speaker 2: can we do this? We're not going after the source.
Speaker 2: Think about the logic of that. That means then that
Speaker 2: we would be liable for every single one of our
Speaker 2: allied governments that we supply with weapons for direct retaliation
Speaker 2: against US. And in fact, that appears to be the
Speaker 2: exact logic that these Iranian backed groups and the who
Speaker 2: THEIS and others have been using to attack the US
Speaker 2: military vis a vis it's a support for Israel. So
Speaker 2: I again would just urge people, and everybody loves to
Speaker 2: talk about Reagan, and let's let's take a step back
Speaker 2: and think about what happened after the Bay Route bombing.
Speaker 2: Against You know, number of our US service members were
Speaker 2: killed there under his administration. You know what he did,
Speaker 2: He pulled out. He said, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: it's not worth it. And there were a lot more
Speaker 2: people who were killed in that attack in the nineteen
Speaker 2: eighties than they were today. People, do you know, forget
Speaker 2: some of the strategic actual fortitude that Reagan occasionally did
Speaker 2: have in his foreign policy because he understood and assessed
Speaker 2: that if I were to get into a deeper conflict here,
Speaker 2: it would not be in our direct interest. We had
Speaker 2: a direct guiding foreign policy at that time, which was
Speaker 2: confrontation with the Soviet Union and with rollback, and he
Speaker 2: determined that this was going to draw away from that goal.
Speaker 2: And he had the fortitude to be able to understand that,
Speaker 2: even in America's height of its military power, that we
Speaker 2: cannot just simply have projection of force everywhere. And we're
Speaker 2: a lot weaker today than they were in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 2: And yet here in Washington, that is an anathema. You know,
Speaker 2: even Reagan's greatest defenders they kind of like like to
Speaker 2: write off what happened in Lebanon. But in this particular case,
Speaker 2: I would say let us call upon the wisdom of
Speaker 2: Reagan understood that just because US service members have been
Speaker 2: killed in this instance, it does not require us to
Speaker 2: put even more in harm's way and to pour even
Speaker 2: more you know, basically chasing throwing bad money after good money.
Speaker 2: You can actually understand the root of the conflict, where
Speaker 2: things are going, and very quickly surmise that what's happening
Speaker 2: in Israel and Gaza is the center of gravity in
Speaker 2: this conflict and now directly has pulled American service members.
Speaker 2: The other thing that we forgot to mention Crystal is
Speaker 2: yet right that the two US Navy Seals were killed.
Speaker 2: But Michael Tracy actually reminded us this morning, don't forget
Speaker 2: five Americans were also killed in a training exercise that
Speaker 2: was directly linked to what was happening. And you know,
Speaker 2: we can't forget their deaths either. They would not have
Speaker 2: been in that area and conducting these kinds of training operations.
Speaker 2: This was one of our most advanced elite area units,
Speaker 2: presumably either training for hostage rescue or for some sort
Speaker 2: of you know, conflict or in the region, and they
Speaker 2: died in a nighttime exercise, right, you know, very very nearby.
Speaker 2: So we have ten now basically who can be ascribed
Speaker 2: to this. We have at least five who have been
Speaker 2: directly killed now in combat, and we cannot forget that
Speaker 2: and just use that as an excuse.
Speaker 3: To ratchet up operations.
Speaker 2: And I just love, you know, these GOP politicians like,
Speaker 2: all right, we struck Tehran. Now, what what you think
Speaker 2: everything's just going to go away? I mean, what's going
Speaker 2: to happen?
Speaker 3: You know? Way more?
Speaker 2: And we just saw our air defense systems just just
Speaker 2: failed in Jordan. Don't forget the Patriots did not shoot
Speaker 2: down all those blistic missiles inside of Iraq. You are
Speaker 2: consigning dozens, perhaps even hundreds more Americans to their death
Speaker 2: in the immediate term as a result of this policy,
Speaker 2: and nobody even talks about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a few other things I want to say
Speaker 1: about this. I mean, first of all, just keep in
Speaker 1: mind that some of these psychos, even immediately after October seventh,
Speaker 1: they were ourd aging for war with Iran and beating
Speaker 1: the war drums. They will use literally any excuse, whether
Speaker 1: it's this or anything else, to call for direct war
Speaker 1: with Iran. Number two, it's also worthy being in mind
Speaker 1: that a broader Middle East conflagration that we are directly
Speaker 1: involved in very much serves the interests of Netanyahu specifically, who,
Speaker 1: as we've discussed at nauseum, is you know, on a
Speaker 1: very shortly politically domestically, he's basically hated almost universally in Israel.
Speaker 1: At this point, the only chance he has of holding
Speaker 1: on to his grip on power is to extend the
Speaker 1: war as long as possible, to expand the war in
Speaker 1: order to try to claim more military victories, since, if
Speaker 1: we're being honest, their war on Hamas has been basically
Speaker 1: a failure. I mean, they haven't gotten the top leadership
Speaker 1: they have. There was a Wall Street Journal report that
Speaker 1: they have something like eighty percent of even the tunnel
Speaker 1: network in the Gaza Strip is still intact. The number
Speaker 1: of fighters that they've been able to take out is
Speaker 1: woefully you know, small compared to the total number of
Speaker 1: Hamas fighters that are there in the Gaza Strip. All
Speaker 1: they've been able to do is effectively, you know, destroy
Speaker 1: civil life and make life a living hell for every
Speaker 1: one of the two point two million human beings who
Speaker 1: live in the Gaza Strip. So he needs military victories.
Speaker 1: That's why they're looking towards Lebanon. That's why they're looking
Speaker 1: towards this broader war because not only his interests, but
Speaker 1: as a fantastic Haretz analysis went through and the interest
Speaker 1: of everyone who was in power on October seventh and
Speaker 1: oversaw these security and intelligence failures that led to this
Speaker 1: you know, horrific attack going forward and the failed response,
Speaker 1: all of their political heads are on the chopping block.
Speaker 1: So every one of them has, even the so called
Speaker 1: moderates that are part of this coalition, have an interest
Speaker 1: in keeping this thing going and expanding it and drawing
Speaker 1: us directly into it. It's always important to keep in
Speaker 1: mind the motivations that these key players have as we
Speaker 1: move forward. And you know, the last thing I'll say
Speaker 1: before we move on to Trump's statement is sadly, just
Speaker 1: as this attack and the deaths of these US service
Speaker 1: members were both predictable and preventable, if we continue in
Speaker 1: this direction, there will be more deaths. I mean the
Speaker 1: number of attacks that have already occurred. There was a
Speaker 1: previous incident, an attack on barracks in Iraq that we
Speaker 1: were incredibly fortunate that basically like the munition didn't explode,
Speaker 1: and so those service members got off with relatively minor injuries, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, the US government has been
Speaker 1: dramatically downplaying, Oh, it's just a little traumatic brain injury,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it, as if that's no big deal.
Speaker 1: But we are incredibly fortunate up to this point that
Speaker 1: there weren't more lives lost of US service members. So sadly,
Speaker 1: there's just no doubt even if we continue in this
Speaker 1: direction of unconditional support for Israel and this little tit
Speaker 1: for tat without going directly at Iran, there will almost
Speaker 1: certainly be more US service members who lose ose their
Speaker 1: lives as a result of Joe Biden not wanting to
Speaker 1: stand up to Israel and fully, fully, unconditionally backing what
Speaker 1: they are doing in the Gaza strip, shipping the bombs,
Speaker 1: expediting the bombs, providing them with diplomatic cover, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Let me go ahead and put up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Trump's reaction, of course, he's jumping on this and taking
Speaker 1: full advantage as he possibly can politically. In a very
Speaker 1: Trumpian statement, this is like it was a three part
Speaker 1: thread on True's social This was the second part, which
Speaker 1: was sort of the most interesting or critical. He says
Speaker 1: three years ago Iran was weak, broke, and totally under control.
Speaker 1: Thanks to my maximum pressure policy. The Iranian regime could
Speaker 1: barely scrape two dollars together to fund their terrorist proxies.
Speaker 1: Then Joe Biden came in and gave around billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: which the regime has used to spread bloodshed and carnage
Speaker 1: around the Middle East. This attack would never have happened
Speaker 1: if I was president, not even a chance. Just like
Speaker 1: the Iranian back to Maas attack on Israel would never
Speaker 1: have happened, The war in Ukraine would never have happened,
Speaker 1: and we would right now have peace throughout the world. Instead,
Speaker 1: we are on the brink of World War three. Talk
Speaker 1: about alternative facts and alternative history. I mean very likely
Speaker 1: Trump's policy versus visa the Israel would be basically identical
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden, perhaps without the moral hand ringing, the
Speaker 1: feckless moral hanging hand ringing that you get occasionally from
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. So the idea that we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: still facing these attacks from various militias in the region,
Speaker 1: I think is pretty fanciable.
Speaker 3: I will at least give Trump this.
Speaker 2: He didn't call for war with Iron, so I'm going
Speaker 2: to call it a net benefit for me, so like,
Speaker 2: at least he hasn't come to that. And I've seen
Speaker 2: Vivik Ramaswami, Tucker Carlson, others issue very forceful criticism of
Speaker 2: some of the people who are calling for it. I
Speaker 2: will say, politically, I've always said this, It is the
Speaker 2: greatest talking point in the world for him to just
Speaker 2: be like, it didn't happen under me, and it's happening
Speaker 2: under Biden. So you can definitely be assured that that
Speaker 2: will be that will be featured in debates, campaign commercials.
Speaker 3: And others for a return to normalcy.
Speaker 2: Even if it may not be true, even if what
Speaker 2: he would have done, you know, if he were in
Speaker 2: the White House or not, but he can have the
Speaker 2: statement of, well, it would never.
Speaker 3: Have happened if I was still the president.
Speaker 2: So anyway, Yeah, I wanted to fly that in particular
Speaker 2: because electorally, let's say that foreign policy does become a
Speaker 2: deciding factor in the election, or instead of foreign policy,
Speaker 2: think of it like the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The withrawal
Speaker 2: from Afghanistan. Nobody really voted on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: Nobody would even particularly say that's the number one reason.
Speaker 2: But there was a feeling of chaos, malaise, and things
Speaker 2: being out of control under Biden that led to the
Speaker 2: initial approval rating that he had over fifty percent dip below.
Speaker 2: So with this, I could see Trump trying to make
Speaker 2: this as part of an overwhelming of an overall case.
Speaker 2: The problem is, of course, if he's like, well, return
Speaker 2: to normal, is that he can't himself be trying to
Speaker 2: instill chaos. But there is you know, it could be
Speaker 2: a potent talking point if Biden finds himself deep.
Speaker 4: Enough listen Biden's support for Israel.
Speaker 1: As we're going to talk to the mayor of Dearborn,
Speaker 1: who's a Democrat who wouldn't even meet with his campaign
Speaker 1: team because he's disgusted over biden support for what he
Speaker 1: describes and what the UN has the ICJ has now
Speaker 1: said is plausibly a genocide that we are very much
Speaker 1: complicit in. So I just saw a poll that came out.
Speaker 1: Biden's approval rating among eighteen to twenty nine year olds
Speaker 1: is twenty seven percent. Twenty seven percent. So already this
Speaker 1: is an electoral disaster. I mean, that's the least of
Speaker 1: our concerns, right now, but it's already an electoral disaster.
Speaker 1: You continue with the escalations, you continue allowing you as
Speaker 1: service members to be killed in their beds in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, in countries that the American people don't even
Speaker 1: know we still have service members in. Yeah, it's absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely a disaster. The last thing before we move
Speaker 1: on to what's going on with UNRWA eight suspension, I
Speaker 1: just want to give people the numbers so you understand
Speaker 1: when I say this is directly linked to the policy
Speaker 1: with Israel. These attacks are directly correlated to it, because
Speaker 1: we can see in the numbers. This was highlighted by
Speaker 1: front of the show doctor Tree de Parsi, who said
Speaker 1: there were about sixty attacks by these type of milicias
Speaker 1: against US troops between January twenty twenty one and March
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. So that's over basically a two year
Speaker 1: period after the Gaza War. Just since October seventh, there
Speaker 1: have been more than one hundred and sixty attacks, except
Speaker 1: during these six days when there was a ceasefire in Gaza,
Speaker 1: then the attacks completely stopped. We know what the answer
Speaker 1: is to bring safety insecurity to our service members in
Speaker 1: the region. Not to mention to you know, to deal
Speaker 1: with the humanity of people in Gaza, by the way,
Speaker 1: also the ultimate long term security of citizens of Israel.
Speaker 1: We know what the answer is, but our insane foreign policy,
Speaker 1: completely unmoored from reality, leads them to take actions that
Speaker 1: they don't even think are going to succeed. You know,
Speaker 1: That's what the other thing I keep thinking about is
Speaker 1: our Like we have them admitting Biden admitting that he
Speaker 1: knew the you know, Red Sea attacks on the Houthi residy,
Speaker 1: you knew they weren't going to work, but they were
Speaker 1: going to continue anyway.
Speaker 4: It's like, then what the hell are we doing?
Speaker 1: We had Tony Blinken admitting there's no military solution to Hamas,
Speaker 1: Then what the hell are we supporting?
Speaker 4: And it's the same thing. It doesn't need a logic.
Speaker 1: They just escalate because they think that's the thing that
Speaker 1: people expect them to do. And we've got psychos like
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham and co. Out there pushing them to go
Speaker 1: to war with Iran. It is an unbelievably dangerous situation,
Speaker 1: absolutely right, All right, let's go ahead and move on
Speaker 1: to another huge story here. So on the very day
Speaker 1: that the ICJ ruled Israel is plausibly committing a genocide
Speaker 1: eating the Gaza strip and you know, compelled them to
Speaker 1: take actions to end those assaults, which are contributing to
Speaker 1: the potential genocide conditions on that very day, and that
Speaker 1: timing is not an accident. Israel released intelligence to the
Speaker 1: US that twelve employees of the UNRWA, that's a UN
Speaker 1: refugee agency that deals with Palestinian aid were involved in
Speaker 1: some way in the October seventh attacks.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This allegation, the details of which have not been released
Speaker 1: to the public, by the way, And you know, maybe
Speaker 1: it's true, maybe it's not, but we certainly know the
Speaker 1: Israeli government has been caught lying many times in the past,
Speaker 1: including in the context.
Speaker 4: Of October seventh.
Speaker 1: Those allegations have led eight countries and the US SO
Speaker 1: nine countries total to stop funding that critical UN AID
Speaker 1: agency in Gaza. The numbers I saw, there's something like
Speaker 1: thirteen thousand UNRWA staffers in Gaza. Twelve of them are
Speaker 1: accused of being somehow involved in October seventh.
Speaker 4: Put this next one up on the screen.
Speaker 5: Action.
Speaker 4: Those who were accused.
Speaker 1: Have actually already been fired by the UNRWA. In addition,
Speaker 1: I think two of the dozen who were accused or
Speaker 1: actually have actually already been killed, but the others have
Speaker 1: been let go. And so at the very moment, Sager,
Speaker 1: when the ICJ is saying, you have to allow in
Speaker 1: more humanitarian aid, Gazans are starving, you have to end
Speaker 1: the conditions that could be contributing to a genocide. On
Speaker 1: that very day, the response from the US is to
Speaker 1: cut the funding to the most essential aid organization in
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip, thereby further denying Palestinian's access to the
Speaker 1: basics of life that they are required, all because of
Speaker 1: the allegations against a tiny, tiny, tiny, minuscule.
Speaker 4: Fraction of the staffers there who are on the ground.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Israel and the UNRWA have always had a let's say,
Speaker 2: a bad relationship, especially most recently between the UN and
Speaker 2: the Human rights organization.
Speaker 3: Their general allegation is about those twelve.
Speaker 2: There was also an interesting new piece It literally just
Speaker 2: broke this morning, so I was just reading it right now,
Speaker 2: Crystal from the Wall Street Journal, where they estimate the
Speaker 2: Israeli shared with the Journal and claim that about ten
Speaker 2: percent of its Gaza staff quote have ties to Islamist
Speaker 2: militant groups. The thing is, though, is that as I
Speaker 2: began reading a much of this came down to like
Speaker 2: guilt by association.
Speaker 3: They shay that.
Speaker 2: Twelve hundred to twelve of the twelve hundred thousand employees
Speaker 2: quote have links, and by links they just say that
Speaker 2: they have close relatives who belong to the militant groups.
Speaker 3: This is part of the problem that I have.
Speaker 2: With a lot of this is that look, look, you
Speaker 2: can if these twelve people were involved in the attack,
Speaker 2: obviously horrible, you should be fired, et cetera. But in general,
Speaker 2: there seems to be like a lack of reality about
Speaker 2: who was governing the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 3: It's obviously Hamas.
Speaker 2: Also, guys, you can't be a member of a rival
Speaker 2: part in the Gaza Strip under the Hamas leadership and
Speaker 2: not be targeted for death. It's kind of the same
Speaker 2: thing that we could have said whenever we invited Iraq
Speaker 2: and we're like, oh, well, they were belonging.
Speaker 3: To the Bath Party.
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, but you had to belong to the
Speaker 2: Bath Party if you wanted to do the most basics
Speaker 2: of civil government. Now know this is again according to
Speaker 2: it is really intelligence estimate and more, I think it's
Speaker 2: probably almost certainly.
Speaker 3: An attempt, you know, to try and to.
Speaker 2: Cut off because the UNRWA has been such a vocal
Speaker 2: and potent critic of Israel, and anytime you can try
Speaker 2: and to diminish the organization, especially in the eyes of
Speaker 2: the West. The bigger problem that I see here is
Speaker 2: that we just seem to be taking the Israeli's word
Speaker 2: for it themselves, because the US and its statement did
Speaker 2: not immediately say whether it had its own intelligence to
Speaker 2: that effect. Furthermore, as I said, with this Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal report, it is relying entirely on Israeli military estimates,
Speaker 2: which certainly could be true, but they need to declassify
Speaker 2: the intelligence share it with the world. I mean, you're
Speaker 2: going to be going after the people who are the
Speaker 2: only ones who are actually delivering humanitarian aid, well, then
Speaker 2: you need to provide some evidence, you know, really to
Speaker 2: that effect. So this is actually a very tried and
Speaker 2: true strategy that we saw during the Iraq War and more,
Speaker 2: and we're seeing the Israelies play it out here again.
Speaker 2: And obviously it's to their domestic political benefit, Like let's
Speaker 2: not forget that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I think there's a few things going on here.
Speaker 1: First of all, there's that high level like philosophical conflict
Speaker 1: between Israel and the un RWA. The full name of
Speaker 1: that agency is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
Speaker 1: for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. And so their
Speaker 1: contention is basically like, by allowing Palestinians who were you know,
Speaker 1: kicked off their land and multi generations of Palestinians to
Speaker 1: continue to see themselves as refugees, it keeps them from
Speaker 1: integrating into the surrounding communities and basically like giving up
Speaker 1: their you know, claim to any sort of a state.
Speaker 1: So that's the especially on the right, the philosophical opposition
Speaker 1: to the UNRWA. That's so they're always looking for a
Speaker 1: way to you know, attack them, undercut them, et cetera.
Speaker 1: There's also the level of again it's not an accident
Speaker 1: that these allegations were put out there and the US
Speaker 1: funding cut on the very day of the ICJ ruling.
Speaker 1: It's a classic distraction tactic as well, and you know,
Speaker 1: the US news media immediately took it up. You know,
Speaker 1: the the ICJ ruling, which is incredibly consequential, you know,
Speaker 1: which basically sided with South Africa on every piece but
Speaker 1: did stop short of calling directly for a ceasefire, although
Speaker 1: it did say, hey, you've got to stop doing the
Speaker 1: things that are creating the conditions that could plausibly be
Speaker 1: a jedocide. That incredibly consequential ruling got buried in the
Speaker 1: Western press by these allegations about the the UNRWA, and
Speaker 1: it also fits, you know, hand and glove with a
Speaker 1: strategy they use. It's a meme at this point of
Speaker 1: like anyone who disagrees with them or that they don't
Speaker 1: like is hamas. You know, the UN is hamas, the
Speaker 1: hospital workers are hamas, the schools are hamas, the premature
Speaker 1: babies that were left to die or apparently hamas. So
Speaker 1: anyone that South Africa was they they at the ICJ
Speaker 1: argue South Africa's basically Hamas are doing Hamas is bidding.
Speaker 1: So that is their you know, their strategy. And listen again,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't put it totally out of the
Speaker 1: question that with a large agency of thirteen thousand people
Speaker 1: that there aren't a few that had some hand in
Speaker 1: October se.
Speaker 4: I don't put that out of the question.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: The answer to that isn't if that is indeed what happened,
Speaker 1: which we should not take these relies at their word
Speaker 1: on anything, but if that is indeed something that happened, okay,
Speaker 1: you fire them, You weed out.
Speaker 4: The bad apples, and you move forward.
Speaker 1: Because the mission of the UNRWA has never been more
Speaker 1: critical than right now, when you have half of all
Speaker 1: people in the Gaza Strip starving, when you have eighty
Speaker 1: percent going regularly with on a single meal a day,
Speaker 1: you have effectively the entire population completely displaced, living in squalor,
Speaker 1: communicable diseases spreading like wildfire, no sanitation, no clean drinking water,
Speaker 1: no basic medical supplies. Okay, their mission has never been
Speaker 1: more critical. And so again to see the response of
Speaker 1: the US on the day when this spicyj says they
Speaker 1: may be committing a genocide and pointing routinely to the
Speaker 1: humanitarian conditions. This is really at the center of that ruling,
Speaker 1: pointing routinely to the humanitarian conditions facing Palestinians in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip, and our response is, let's make those humanitarian
Speaker 1: conditions even worse because of some allegations that the Israelis
Speaker 1: have put in front of us. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's outrageous, it's absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 4: There's no other word for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you flagged one of our producers an interesting
Speaker 2: segment that came from within the Israeli government that kind
Speaker 2: of specifically talks about targeting you in OURDWA.
Speaker 1: Only days ago, so earlier this month, just on January fourth,
Speaker 1: a former Israeli official was basically testifying in front of
Speaker 1: the Panesse and we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: I'll just paraphrase what she's saying here in Hebrew. But
Speaker 1: she directly targets the un RWA and says it will
Speaker 1: be impossible to win the war if the un r
Speaker 1: WA is not destroyed. And her point is basically sort
Speaker 1: of like what I was saying. Oh, well, they they
Speaker 1: create and propagate this idea that leads to the creation
Speaker 1: of more and more terrorists.
Speaker 4: Well, what is that idea?
Speaker 1: The idea is that Palestinians have a legitimate rights and
Speaker 1: legitimate rights to statehood. Whereas you know, people like this
Speaker 1: and many others ideologically believe that even the sort of
Speaker 1: like theoretical concept of the UNRWA leads Palestinians to continue
Speaker 1: to hold out hope that they want to see them lose.
Speaker 1: They want to see them abandon that hope. And so
Speaker 1: it's very noteworthy that you have just earlier this month,
Speaker 1: not very long ago, this official testifying before the parliament,
Speaker 1: before the Israeli Parliament, saying we have to destroy the UNRWA,
Speaker 1: and then lo and behold, they roll out these allegations
Speaker 1: that lead to the US and a bunch of other
Speaker 1: countries cutting the funding and very much threatening the future
Speaker 1: survival of the UNRWA. Again, Saga at a time when
Speaker 1: its mission has never been more vital and never been
Speaker 1: more critical.
Speaker 2: There's also been some major domestic turmoil inside of Israel
Speaker 2: where there's a group of protesters who are actually blocking
Speaker 2: any humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza strip.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from the tides of Israel, they say, for
Speaker 2: a second day in a row, protesters are blocking aid
Speaker 2: reaching Gaza from Israel, including some families of hostages at
Speaker 2: the Karamshalo and border crossing, urging the government to not
Speaker 2: allow any supplies in until captives held by the terrorists
Speaker 2: are freed. So it's interesting to me, Crystal, because there
Speaker 2: are ceasefire protesters in Israel who I've watched get cracked.
Speaker 3: Down upon almost immediately.
Speaker 2: But these protesters who have been blocking eight have been
Speaker 2: very much allowed. And I think it obviously fits with
Speaker 2: the general orientation of the Netanyahu government and of the
Speaker 2: different ways in which they're pulled, where if you're against
Speaker 2: the war, or even really if you're against a war strategy,
Speaker 2: not even against the war itself, then they are very
Speaker 2: willing to crack down, to use the state, to throw
Speaker 2: you in jail and to break it up. But if
Speaker 2: you are I wouldn't even say pro war, but if
Speaker 2: you were like pro the aims of the right wing government,
Speaker 2: which does certainly advance them, then they allow it to happen.
Speaker 2: It's one of the most classic examples of like using
Speaker 2: the laws selectively that we watch happen domestically. And it
Speaker 2: is clear too about which message that they want to
Speaker 2: allow to propagate inside of their media for their domestic populous.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: So some of the family members of hostages were involved
Speaker 1: in these protests to cut off aid. Others, as I
Speaker 1: know you guys covered last week, stormed the knethe and
Speaker 1: are furious because it has become incredibly apparent and undeniable
Speaker 1: that the aims of the war are inconsistent with the
Speaker 1: aims of bringing the hostages home. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: sort of basic logic that if you're bombing the hell
Speaker 1: out of a place, you're putting all the people who
Speaker 1: are there at risk.
Speaker 4: The only time they have.
Speaker 1: Had any success at bringing hostages back was during that
Speaker 1: brief ceasefire, those six days of a brief ceasefire.
Speaker 4: That was the only time.
Speaker 1: And in fact, you know, of course, they murdered some
Speaker 1: of their own hostages because they thought they were Palestinians
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that they were, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to surrender and had their shirts off to show
Speaker 1: they weren't a threat, et cetera, et cetera. So the
Speaker 1: capability of having the intelligence or the ability or the
Speaker 1: wherewithal or whatever to go in and militarily get these
Speaker 1: hostages out, that has not worked whatsoever. So you know,
Speaker 1: that continues to be a pressure point for the net
Speaker 1: Yahoo government. I'm sure you saw Soccar. There's some new
Speaker 1: supposed potential hostage deal and there's a potential two month
Speaker 1: long ceasefire that is being in some stages of negotiation.
Speaker 1: We'll see whether that comes to fruition or not. But
Speaker 1: I think part of the reason why that would even
Speaker 1: be on the table is certainly because of the domestic
Speaker 1: upset within Israel. I also think that the ICJ ruling
Speaker 1: I do think that is putting pressure on the Israeli
Speaker 1: government because they, you know, could become a pariahs state
Speaker 1: the way that South Africa did. This is the first
Speaker 1: time that the word genocide by any sort of international
Speaker 1: body has even been, you know, associated with Israel. What's soever,
Speaker 1: you have seen the way that some of their comments
Speaker 1: have been, at times moderated. We're hearing less, for example,
Speaker 1: about all the ethnic cleansing plans, although we're starting to
Speaker 1: hear more about it as they see that the US
Speaker 1: is going to back them no matter what. But also critically,
Speaker 1: some of the countries that they were reportedly going to,
Speaker 1: like the Congo to say, hey, will you take in
Speaker 1: these Palestine refugees, they're now saying absolutely not, because they
Speaker 1: don't want to aid and abt what has been deemed
Speaker 1: plausibly genocide by an international body. So those are some
Speaker 1: of the pressure points that are leading to maybe some
Speaker 1: sort of renewed deal with regard to the hostages and
Speaker 1: some temporary cessation of their assault on Gaza.
Speaker 4: With regard to the.
Speaker 1: Response from the US to the ICJ's ruling, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just they continue to completely gaslight about what the
Speaker 1: International Court of Justice is even said. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to this is John Kirby, who has you know,
Speaker 1: really won some awards here in terms of his shameless
Speaker 1: level of propaganda getting asked about that ruling and the
Speaker 1: US response.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to some of that.
Speaker 6: Our disagreement over founding claim of the allegation causes any
Speaker 6: permanent damage to the bilateral.
Speaker 7: Relationship with South Africa.
Speaker 6: We just happened to disagree on that point, but we're
Speaker 6: also going to keep working to on that relationship as
Speaker 6: we do many others.
Speaker 7: So you fundamentally believe the US.
Speaker 8: They claim that the US is supporting a genocidal state,
Speaker 8: that is not going to impact.
Speaker 6: Relations I don't believe I heard that from South Africa.
Speaker 6: South Africa filed a case based on allegations that they
Speaker 6: believe genocide was being conducted by Israel in Gaza. I
Speaker 6: don't believe it was directed at US at all. We
Speaker 6: simply have said consistently we find that that that claim
Speaker 6: is unfounded. And you know, the court also did not
Speaker 6: find Israel guilty of GENI side.
Speaker 1: The court did not find Israel guilty of genocide, he
Speaker 1: says there, which is incredible gaslighting because they were not
Speaker 1: ruling on the merits at this point, something he surely
Speaker 1: knows that decision will take years of evaluating the evidence. However,
Speaker 1: in that ruling, which I read every word of, they
Speaker 1: basically cited with South Africa on every critical claim, including
Speaker 1: citing some specific language of pop Israeli officials, including President Hertzog,
Speaker 1: as being potential incitement to genocide. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: even though the US is not directly named in this
Speaker 1: case at the ICJ, it's very clear our direct complicity,
Speaker 1: which creates was just put it mildly some challenges for
Speaker 1: US officials and certainly for you know, propaganda spinmasters like
Speaker 1: John Kirby in terms of how we approach it, because
Speaker 1: this is an administration soccer as you know, that has
Speaker 1: loved to talk.
Speaker 4: A big game about the quote unquote.
Speaker 1: International rules of you know, international rules based order when
Speaker 1: it serves their interests and when it goes against the
Speaker 1: baddy countries like Russia that we don't like. But suddenly
Speaker 1: we see not that this was any surprise, and not
Speaker 1: that we've been consistent in the past, but there is
Speaker 1: a giant Israel shaped exception to any sort of international
Speaker 1: rules based order as backed by the United States of America.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they push it against Putin. They're like, oh,
Speaker 2: we want to make them an international para, and now
Speaker 2: all of that is completely out the window. It is
Speaker 2: embarrassing for them almost certainly. And you're right, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of the way that they parse the language
Speaker 2: they want. They want international institutions to be convenient for
Speaker 2: their foreign policy whenever it aligns, but then disregard it.
Speaker 2: It's like, guys, that's not how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 2: Like you either agree or not, especially in this case
Speaker 2: because the US is party to the ICJ. But yeah,
Speaker 2: Ryan did a great job, by the way of breaking
Speaker 2: it down for everybody with the PARSI, the actual thing.
Speaker 2: I encourage people to go watch that if you're interested
Speaker 2: in the details. Any last thoughts on the ICJ, Crystal
Speaker 2: before we go on to Pelosi.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the last thing I'll say is one, it's interesting
Speaker 1: the way that the US media spun the ICJ ruling,
Speaker 1: because I think you and I both to be curious
Speaker 1: your thoughts as well. When we first we're reading the
Speaker 1: US media reports before we actually could read the text
Speaker 1: of the ruling, I was like, and I tried to,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of like have it both ways. Kind
Speaker 1: of a win for Israel, it's kind of a win
Speaker 1: for South Africa. They're clearly, you know, politically trying to
Speaker 1: maintain their legitimacy. When I actually read through the text,
Speaker 1: of course I wanted to see them go further and
Speaker 1: call for a full and complete cease fire. But it
Speaker 1: was a much more dramatic loss for Israel then I
Speaker 1: would have thought based on the US media reports, because
Speaker 1: as I said, you know, as they go through plane
Speaker 1: by claim from South Africa. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: on all the technical legal matters, do they have standing,
Speaker 1: is there a dispute, etc.
Speaker 4: They agree with.
Speaker 1: South Africa in terms of concern for the humanitarian situation
Speaker 1: and buying Israel's bs about oh, we're shipping in plenty
Speaker 1: of eid, etc.
Speaker 4: They don't buy that.
Speaker 1: And then as I mentioned, you know, they cite specific
Speaker 1: comments from yo of Galot, the Defense minister, the ones
Speaker 1: about you know, it's a siege, we're dealing with human animals,
Speaker 1: will treat them as such those comments from him, they
Speaker 1: cite the words of Israeli President Isaac Hertzog saying there
Speaker 1: are no uninvolved civilians, and they cite another Israeli minister
Speaker 1: in a post that he put on Twitter that hadn't
Speaker 1: even really come to my attention before, but also spoke
Speaker 1: to the sort of complete siege conditions that they were
Speaker 1: subjecting all Palestinians in the Gaza strip too. So as
Speaker 1: you go through, it seems very much that they gave
Speaker 1: a lot more credence to the South African side and
Speaker 1: for them to say, yes, we do believe plausibly that
Speaker 1: these conditions could be contributing to Jenis. I saw one
Speaker 1: analysis that said it would be difficult for them to
Speaker 1: call for a ceasefire because they have no power over
Speaker 1: Hamasmas is a state actor. They're not party to the
Speaker 1: ICJ and the Genocide Convention, so all they can do
Speaker 1: is compel Israeli actions, and they're telling them to stop
Speaker 1: all of the things that are creating these conditions a
Speaker 1: plausible genocide. So it does go a bit further than
Speaker 1: I initially thought based on the media reports.
Speaker 4: And the other thing is Netanyahu is clearly.
Speaker 1: Furious about the ruling and attacked in all the ways
Speaker 1: you would think s anti Semitic, blah blah blah. But
Speaker 1: also you know, as they move forward, if they continue
Speaker 1: to prosecute this war in this fashion, they do find
Speaker 1: themselves at risk of it'll take a while years down
Speaker 1: the road, but actually having been found to be committing genocide.
Speaker 1: The last thing that Saga I found incredibly significant is
Speaker 1: just how nearly unanimous it was. There is no way
Speaker 1: in hell I thought the America and judge was going
Speaker 1: to go along with a ruling like this. No way
Speaker 1: in hell. You even had the Israeli ad hoc judge
Speaker 1: that they chose going along with pieces of this ruling.
Speaker 1: And there was just one judge from your GODA, which
Speaker 1: I don't know what was going on with her, but
Speaker 1: who objected to the whole thing. Everybody else was pretty
Speaker 1: much unanimous. So that's the other reason I thought this
Speaker 1: was actually quite significant, because I figured they just played politics.
Speaker 1: I figured they'd find some technical loophole. Like I said,
Speaker 1: there's no way I thought the American judge would go
Speaker 1: along with the ruling saying yes, they're plausibly committing genocide.
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what we saw, so it actually is
Speaker 1: kind of astonishing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I actually agree with that.
Speaker 2: I actually thought that the ruling was good because what
Speaker 2: the ruling did is it said that war is acceptable.
Speaker 2: We are not going to call on the ability to
Speaker 2: not wage war. What we're saying is that the way
Speaker 2: you are waging war is contravening to the articles that
Speaker 2: we have under the ICJ, and they cite specific instances,
Speaker 2: and they also were like, you can continue to conduct war.
Speaker 2: It falls in line with the general theory of you
Speaker 2: have a right to self defense, you have a right
Speaker 2: to go after people who have attacked you, but that
Speaker 2: there are lines within that the general conduct of nations
Speaker 2: that are party to the ICJ. And then let's even
Speaker 2: take the ICG out of it and just see the
Speaker 2: general Western consensus whenever you have a war, advanced Western
Speaker 2: style military that's going after a paramilitary group, a terrorist organization,
Speaker 2: or insurgent group in the way that you could even
Speaker 2: compare how different Israel's military response has been from the
Speaker 2: way that the United States conductive self during the counterinsurgency
Speaker 2: campaign in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Just the level of care
Speaker 2: for humanitarian for civilians and others. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: say we're perfect, but I think you can compare the
Speaker 2: two and say that they're dramatically different. My point only
Speaker 2: just being there, that what the ICJ ruling said is
Speaker 2: you have a right to conduct war, you have a
Speaker 2: right to defend yourself. The way that you have done this,
Speaker 2: combined with the statements of many of your gubinatorial ministers,
Speaker 2: has been such that it seems you plausibly could be
Speaker 2: committing ethnic cleansing and or genocide. And so if you
Speaker 2: want to avoid such charges, you should change the way
Speaker 2: that you conduct the war. So in that, I again, look,
Speaker 2: I generally believe international law and all that is fake because,
Speaker 2: as you said, how can they enforce it. Also, HAMAS
Speaker 2: is a non governmental organized it's a non state actor.
Speaker 2: It literally is not party to any of this, So
Speaker 2: any of it doesn't matter per se. But if we
Speaker 2: understand it just in the way that Western militaries behave
Speaker 2: and have behaved in the post World War two era
Speaker 2: and such the ICJ Geneva Conventions and all of those
Speaker 2: were agreed upon amongst each other about this is kind
Speaker 2: of the way that we can conduct war. Yes, total
Speaker 2: war is a different story, like we were used to
Speaker 2: be in and if we ever find ourselves in such
Speaker 2: a one such again, then the probably won't be abiding this.
Speaker 2: But within this general framework, this is how we act
Speaker 2: and sow the US you know, held the Russian military,
Speaker 2: for example, to this standard whenever they're conducting war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Then we can see clearly this is outside of that realm.
Speaker 2: So within that I thought it was actually quite a
Speaker 2: good ruling. And I also think to bolster what you said, Crystal,
Speaker 2: is that this is going to dramatically increase pressure for
Speaker 2: that CEASEPOT because in Netanyahu and the rest of the
Speaker 2: Israeli public are not stupid. They are a small country.
Speaker 2: They rely upon the behest of international trade. And if
Speaker 2: you reduce the amount of international trade that you're able
Speaker 2: to conduct, and you know, you've got all these great
Speaker 2: technology companies in Tel Aviv and all that, you've got
Speaker 2: to sell it to somebody, You've got to license it
Speaker 2: to somebody. That's largely the backbone of the entire Israeli economy,
Speaker 2: on top of all of the imports that make Tel
Speaker 2: Aviv and Israel function as a nation state. If you
Speaker 2: reduce that even by fifteen percent, imagine, imagine if the
Speaker 2: US economy contracted by fifteen percent, or our imports went
Speaker 2: down by fIF it'd be a catastrophe for the way
Speaker 2: that we live our overall life. I think it will
Speaker 2: dramatically increase pressure for a two months cease fire. I
Speaker 2: talked about a bit with last time with Ryan two
Speaker 2: and I was like, look, I think you know, at
Speaker 2: this stage in the game, especially given the inability for
Speaker 2: them so far to achieve their military aims and others,
Speaker 2: if the guns stopped firing for two months, it is
Speaker 2: very likely they are not turning on in the same way. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say there will be no military action,
Speaker 2: but the same way that they conduct themselves. Just given
Speaker 2: the amount of international pressure, other this sigh of relief
Speaker 2: from the West and others, and the eventual pressure that
Speaker 2: would build up to that point, it's extraordinarily unlikely that
Speaker 2: they can continue. But maybe that's why they don't want
Speaker 2: to agree. They just want to muscle through and just
Speaker 2: keep going. I'm not sure what they're going to do.
Speaker 1: I don't need I'm not sure either. Just a couple
Speaker 1: more points on that. I thought Ryan made a really
Speaker 1: good point about the no enforcement mechanism piece, which is true,
Speaker 1: which We've said a number of times, which is accurate.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it's the same thing as our Supreme
Speaker 1: Court doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, which is kind of
Speaker 1: a live issue right now with what's.
Speaker 4: Going on at the border.
Speaker 1: But the reason it has power is because people give
Speaker 1: it credence and power. And so that's the whole idea
Speaker 1: of legitimacy of the ICJ and these other international bodies
Speaker 1: is do people pay attention to the rulings, do they
Speaker 1: abide by them, or do they thumb their nose, Because yeah,
Speaker 1: if the whole with the US and our European allies
Speaker 1: and Israel thumbs our nose and says, okay, you think
Speaker 1: that they're plausibly committing genocide and you've compelled them, you know,
Speaker 1: to do all these certain things to prevent those conditions
Speaker 1: and also, by the way, to go after some of
Speaker 1: these ministers who are inciting genocide. If we just say no,
Speaker 1: then yeah, there's no enforcement mechanism, there's no legitimacy. It's
Speaker 1: the exact same thing with our Supreme Court. The thing
Speaker 1: that gives it legitimacy is that we all agree it
Speaker 1: has legitimacy and we pay attention to its rulings, So
Speaker 1: I think it's important to keep that in mind with
Speaker 1: regard to the quote unquote lack of enforcement mechanism. There's
Speaker 1: going to be a UN Security Council likely vote on
Speaker 1: this this week. We'll see what the US does. But
Speaker 1: you know, everybody should be incredibly discouraged by the fact
Speaker 1: that our immediate reaction was to cut the very aid
Speaker 1: that the ICJ says should be increasing. Our response was,
Speaker 1: how about we cut the funding and actually decrease the
Speaker 1: amount of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in this moment of
Speaker 1: apps crisis. And then the last thing that all well,
Speaker 1: two other things. Russia was sort of set up. They
Speaker 1: had sort of planned the contingency plan for if we
Speaker 1: become a pariah state, We'll have our economy and our
Speaker 1: government set up to be able to deal with that,
Speaker 1: and you know, alternative world powers, including you know, a
Speaker 1: close relationship with China, to be able to cope with that.
Speaker 1: And so it hasn't been painless, but they've been able
Speaker 1: to get through it. Israel is not set up like that.
Speaker 1: Israel is incredibly dependent on foreign direct investment, on you know,
Speaker 1: capital flowing into the country. They're very dependent on this
Speaker 1: global tech sector, which is really, you know, both a
Speaker 1: source of like economic prosperity and also incredible national pride.
Speaker 1: So they are not prepared economically to be that Paria state.
Speaker 1: And the last thing I will say on this is,
Speaker 1: you know, the US we pick and choose when we
Speaker 1: feel like listening to international law when we don't. You know,
Speaker 1: we have been complete hit pocrits on this basically since
Speaker 1: the beginning. We just decide when and how we're going
Speaker 1: to pay attention to this. But Europe has approached this
Speaker 1: in a more consistent way, and so it will be
Speaker 1: a much more difficult thing for the EU and the
Speaker 1: constituent European nations to go against what the ICJ is
Speaker 1: saying here and what they continue to say going forward,
Speaker 1: because this isn't over. They will also be assessing whether
Speaker 1: Israel is meeting their obligations that have now been set
Speaker 1: forth by the International Court of Justice. So and the
Speaker 1: e use a huge trading partner for as one of
Speaker 1: their top trading partners for Israel. So the stakes, you know,
Speaker 1: the stakes do exist. It's not nothing. And I think
Speaker 1: you could already see in some Israeli actions the way
Speaker 1: that this has mattered.
Speaker 2: An absolutely stunning moment on CNN when CNN's Dana Bash
Speaker 2: had on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask her
Speaker 2: about cesfire protesters, in which Pelosi intimated that these ceasefire
Speaker 2: protesters are actually doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 5: They're in front of my house all the time, so
Speaker 5: I have a feeling for what feelings they have. But
Speaker 5: we have to think about what we're doing, and what
Speaker 5: we have to do is try to stop the suffering
Speaker 5: and gossip. This is women and children. People don't have
Speaker 5: a place to go, so let's address that. But for
Speaker 5: them to call for a ceasefire is mister Putin's message.
Speaker 5: Mister Putin's message, Make no mistake. This is directly connected
Speaker 5: to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine.
Speaker 5: It's about Putin's message. I think some of these some
Speaker 5: of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some
Speaker 5: I think are connected to Russia. And I say that
Speaker 5: having looked at this for a long time now as you.
Speaker 3: Can you think some of these protests are Russian plants?
Speaker 5: Say they're plants. I think some financing should be investigated,
Speaker 5: and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that.
Speaker 5: But apart from that, let's just say it's all spontaneous
Speaker 5: and sincere. Let's say it's all spontaneous and sincere. Young
Speaker 5: people care about the right to choose. They care about
Speaker 5: LGBTQ issues, they care about preserving the planet, they care
Speaker 5: about gun violence prevention, that's what they tell us. They
Speaker 5: care about our democracy and the freedoms that are contained
Speaker 5: in some of what I said. So they're going to
Speaker 5: have to make a decision.
Speaker 2: Okay, there's a lot to go into there. First of all,
Speaker 2: it's pretty wild to say that they are Russian fact.
Speaker 2: Second though, notice immediately what she calls for, I want
Speaker 2: the FBI to investigate that. So this is like nineteen
Speaker 2: sixties level calls. And what's crazy to me is that
Speaker 2: this is not an immediate national scandal. I'm curious what
Speaker 2: you think, Crystal. I mean, I don't know if a
Speaker 2: brain is so broken that you can always just go
Speaker 2: back to putin. But she does seem to believe this,
Speaker 2: like Russia Gate has so rotted her brain that, you know,
Speaker 2: the Russia example, the Russia is the first thing that
Speaker 2: she can reach for. FBI you know, investigating Americans seems
Speaker 2: to be the second thing that she wants to reach
Speaker 2: for here. But I mean, this is truly stunning. This
Speaker 2: is one of the most powerful Democrats in the entire country.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's certainly old enough to go back to
Speaker 1: those co Intel pro days, so I guess she's just
Speaker 1: reaching back into her history from the old bagatrix. But
Speaker 1: not that that ever really fully stopped. No, it's stunning
Speaker 1: that this woman, who continues to be an incredibly powerful individual,
Speaker 1: one of the most powerful people in the country, would
Speaker 1: call for the FBI to investigate ceasefire protesters, the vast
Speaker 1: majority of whom, by the way, are the Democratic Parties base.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democratic Party base is wildly at odds
Speaker 1: with where Biden and Pelosi are on this issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: among twenty twenty Biden voters, I think we may even
Speaker 1: have this fifty percent actually think that Israel is committing
Speaker 1: a genocide, and another thirty percent aren't too sure. You
Speaker 1: got eighty percent of people who voted for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: who say, you know, either they are committing a genocide
Speaker 1: or they may be committing a genocide against Palestinine civilians
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden obviously has backed them with that one
Speaker 1: hundred and ten percent expediting the weapons shipments. So it
Speaker 1: is very rare to see an issue where the elite
Speaker 1: of the party are so dramatically at odds and directly
Speaker 1: antagonistic with their own voting base of support. So that's
Speaker 1: one thing I would say in terms of where this
Speaker 1: comes from. I mean, I think that these Democrats, that
Speaker 1: the top leadership are so out of touch that they
Speaker 1: just can't fathom that young people actually genuinely, wildly disagree
Speaker 1: with their policy and are intelligent enough to have formulated
Speaker 1: their own opinions outside of the Democratic Party media propaganda machine,
Speaker 1: and they do not agree with what you're doing. And
Speaker 1: it didn't take Vladimir Putin or Russian financing or anything
Speaker 1: else for them to come to this position. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the TikTok algorithms. It's not because they're Russian plants. It's
Speaker 1: because they think you are aiding and embetting a genocide
Speaker 1: and they.
Speaker 4: Got a little bit of a problem with that.
Speaker 1: The other thing that I would say, Socer that I
Speaker 1: found very noteworthy at the beginning of her comments. You
Speaker 1: probably took note of this as well, is that The
Speaker 1: first thing out of her mouth is like, yeah, they're
Speaker 1: outside of my house all the time. And I do
Speaker 1: think that's where some of the like personal animus and
Speaker 1: the rub comes from, because it's again it's at odds
Speaker 1: with her own self conception, and she sees herself as
Speaker 1: this like liberal feminist trail blazer. She thinks that young
Speaker 1: people should be yes queening her, and if they're not,
Speaker 1: it's not because of something she did or something the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party did. It must be some problem with them,
Speaker 1: or it must not be truly reflective of how they
Speaker 1: really feel about her or really feel about these policy issues.
Speaker 4: So what does she go for?
Speaker 1: She goes for, you know, the easiest sugar high the
Speaker 1: biggest source of derangement of the Democratic Party over the
Speaker 1: course of these past eight years or so, the Russiagate conspiracy,
Speaker 1: to try to conceptualize how these young people could possibly
Speaker 1: disagree with her Liberal Queen Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I mean, there's there's just so much egotism
Speaker 2: behind the comments. But it also just reminds me of
Speaker 2: something that really was normalized under the Russigate era, where
Speaker 2: you could just plausibly say that people American citizens are
Speaker 2: committing treason and receive virtually no pushback. Even think about
Speaker 2: Dane to Bash there, she's like, oh, you think that
Speaker 2: they're Russian backed, It's not like, hold on a second,
Speaker 2: what single scrap of evidence do you have to back
Speaker 2: that up? And it goes back to, for example, you know,
Speaker 2: Hillary Clinton accusing Tulsea Gabbert of being a Russian asset
Speaker 2: and all these things. These just became normalized such that
Speaker 2: it's like you were literally saying that people are committing
Speaker 2: treason or they are agents of foreign governments, these are
Speaker 2: prosecutable crimes, and then beyond the rhetoric of that, you're
Speaker 2: actually arguing for the FBI to immediately come in and
Speaker 2: step in to investigate said Americans. Says this has been
Speaker 2: so normalized now from the Russia Gate era and then
Speaker 2: extended during the whole January sixth investigation such that it
Speaker 2: extends to everybody. It's like a blanket security threat really
Speaker 2: from the top, where the former House Speaker, most powerful
Speaker 2: Democrat in the entire country can just go on national
Speaker 2: television and the host just doesn't even seem like she
Speaker 2: needs to follow up beyond just reiterating the claim just
Speaker 2: to make sure that she said it. I was actually
Speaker 2: more stunned by that, even more, not just the comment,
Speaker 2: but by the casualness which was greed by the same
Speaker 2: She should know better to just let that fly.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And to your point about no evidence, you know,
Speaker 1: she loves to do the same. And remember Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: was like the king of doing this during the height
Speaker 1: of the Russia Gate era, where he would intimate that
Speaker 1: he has some special knowledge about what's going on because
Speaker 1: he's been read in by the intel community, or he
Speaker 1: has some secret information that he can just hint at
Speaker 1: but he can't really fully put out to the public.
Speaker 4: And she pulls that same trick here.
Speaker 1: She says like something to the fact that, well, I've
Speaker 1: been looking into this for a long time, and based
Speaker 1: on what I've seen, we need to investigate the financing.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask for the FBI to investigate the financing.
Speaker 1: She offers nothing in the way of evidence or support.
Speaker 1: It's just an appeal to this potential secret knowledge that
Speaker 1: she may have. I guess because the protesters show up
Speaker 1: at her house, Senate irritates her that they disagree with
Speaker 1: her on this policy. The other thing that I just
Speaker 1: have to say is I find it so incredibly patronizing
Speaker 1: and deeply offensive when she says calling for a ceasefire
Speaker 1: is quote mister Putin's message, because again, it takes all
Speaker 1: the agency away from the by the way overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Americans, not just Democrats, but Americans who want a
Speaker 1: ceasefire because in spite of all the media propaganda, they
Speaker 1: still see some of these images of children under the
Speaker 1: rubble and babies dying and getting bombed, and they say,
Speaker 1: this is horrible, and I want it to stop. To
Speaker 1: think that that can only come from some sort of
Speaker 1: nefarious place. I just find it so deeply insulting and
Speaker 1: offensive that you could even formulate those words.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I think you're right.
Speaker 2: That's a perfect transition actually to the dearborn Michigan mayor,
Speaker 2: mister Abdullahamood, who's actually on standby waiting to join us.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 2: Joining us now is the mayor of dearborn Michigan, of
Speaker 2: du Lahamoud, mister Mayor, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: We really appreciate it.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much for having.
Speaker 2: Me absolutely so you came to our attention recently. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen where you have
Speaker 2: canceled with a Biden campaign manager meeting over the unconditional
Speaker 2: support by the President for Israel. Given that you are
Speaker 2: the mayor of one of the most prominent Arab American
Speaker 2: towns you know in the United States with a large population,
Speaker 2: we wanted you to join us and to tell us
Speaker 2: a little bit about your decision not to meet with
Speaker 2: the Biden campaign and some of the electoral politics that
Speaker 2: inform that you know.
Speaker 9: From our perspective, we believe just that that this is
Speaker 9: actually not a moment for electoral politics. If we want
Speaker 9: to talk about Palestinians and what's unfolding in Araza. This
Speaker 9: is not an issue of campaigning and poll numbers. This
Speaker 9: is an issue that is before us through a lens
Speaker 9: of humanity. And so if we want to have a
Speaker 9: conversation about changing course for this White House administration, about
Speaker 9: how they move forward, I don't have that conversation with
Speaker 9: campaign staffers. I have that conversation with policy makers.
Speaker 3: I see.
Speaker 1: So you would be open, for example, to speaking with
Speaker 1: the President or his advisors directly.
Speaker 4: It was more the idea that they would.
Speaker 1: Reach out from a campaign and electoral perspective that you found.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you'd say offensive, how would you
Speaker 1: describe that?
Speaker 9: I mean, this is day one thirteen or one fourteen now,
Speaker 9: and up until this point, there has not been a
Speaker 9: single member of the administration that's made it out to
Speaker 9: the city of Deerborn to have a conversation about what's happening.
Speaker 9: And so for us, it's extremely dehumanizing that the first
Speaker 9: time this actually occurs is when you send out your
Speaker 9: campaign manager. Yes, we would be open to have a
Speaker 9: conversation with any individual that wants to have a constructive
Speaker 9: dialogue about how to move things forward. But if you
Speaker 9: want to have a photo op, if you want to
Speaker 9: say that you listened or spoke to the Air American
Speaker 9: community just to have that talking point, that's not a
Speaker 9: conversation that we're going to give in on or a
Speaker 9: conversation we want to.
Speaker 8: Be a part of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mayor, we've watched with some interest around the dynamics
Speaker 2: within this. As you said, you know you didn't want
Speaker 2: this to be part of electoral politics. Almost certainly why
Speaker 2: that they reached out to you with some previous data,
Speaker 2: for example, we can put up here on the screen
Speaker 2: shows just how critical the Arab American vote was in
Speaker 2: the state of Michigan for twenty twenty. What would you
Speaker 2: say then to President Biden? You know electoral politics can
Speaker 2: be downstream than of policy.
Speaker 3: What would you say if you were.
Speaker 2: To be able to meet with him about the concerns
Speaker 2: that you have in amongst your constituents.
Speaker 9: You know, I think immediately I would say is we
Speaker 9: have set up very low bar as a community. We
Speaker 9: want to backup president that does not support a genocide.
Speaker 9: You want a backup president who believes in a value
Speaker 9: principle that I hope all Americans believe in. There's no
Speaker 9: justification for the killing of any innocent man, woman, or child.
Speaker 7: That is a very simple statement.
Speaker 9: And if you oppose that statement or disagree with that statement,
Speaker 9: we're trying to add an asterisk to that statement or
Speaker 9: a qualifier that says more about your moral compass than
Speaker 9: it says about anything else. And so that that's what
Speaker 9: I would tell the president were you here. We want
Speaker 9: to have meaningful dialogue. We want to immediately demand a
Speaker 9: cease fire to end the onslaught and the killing of
Speaker 9: innocent men, women, and children, But we have to have
Speaker 9: a constructive pathy moving forward. The argument of the lesser
Speaker 9: of two evils, the idea that Trump is will destroy
Speaker 9: American democracy. That is a question that needs to be
Speaker 9: put back into the hands and the lapse of the
Speaker 9: current president. What will you do to avoid the American
Speaker 9: democracy from being threatened by a Trump reelection?
Speaker 1: How are you navigating that question? And what are you
Speaker 1: hearing from your constituents, Because as you know, and you've
Speaker 1: probably been told directly, basically, the Biden camp thinks they'll
Speaker 1: get over it when they think about Trump.
Speaker 4: On the other side, you know, is their other.
Speaker 1: Choice on the ticket, who's called for a Muslim ban
Speaker 1: and would probably also be fully backing the jedocide. They'll
Speaker 1: come to their senses in their view, and they'll vote
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. Once again, what are you hearing from
Speaker 1: your constituents about how they're navigating that question. How are
Speaker 1: you thinking about that question with your own moral compass.
Speaker 9: You know, we have residents who have had loved ones
Speaker 9: buried under the rubble and their residential towers after being
Speaker 9: bombed by Israeli fighter jets. We've had loved ones who
Speaker 9: have lost twelve plus family members. That is not something
Speaker 9: you ever forget about now, and not in a matter
Speaker 9: of a few hundred days before an election season something
Speaker 9: that you just move past. You know, I've run for
Speaker 9: office four times now, previously as Air representative and now
Speaker 9: as mayor, and each time the question falls on the candidate,
Speaker 9: what will they do to earn the vote and the
Speaker 9: trust of the constituency that they're trying to represent. That's
Speaker 9: not a question you put back on the community of
Speaker 9: how dare you potentially allow somebody to threaten our democracy
Speaker 9: back into office, the candidate has to win over the
Speaker 9: residents of the country they're trying to serve, and really
Speaker 9: that that question to be put back to the president.
Speaker 9: You know, people have tried to come to us and
Speaker 9: say this is, you know, strictly an American issue or
Speaker 9: a Muslim American issue, and I also disagree with that notion.
Speaker 9: Over eighty percent of Democrats believe a ceasefire is a
Speaker 9: right pathway forward. Hack the majority of Republicans believe that
Speaker 9: a ceasefire is a right path forward. And so I
Speaker 9: think it's time for the White House and for our
Speaker 9: Congression leaders to hear what Americans are asking for and
Speaker 9: to deliver on the promise of being decent human beings
Speaker 9: and bringing decency back to that White House.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this, mister Mayor.
Speaker 2: The undertone of a lot of what you're saying is
Speaker 2: that some people are not necessarily going to vote for
Speaker 2: Biden just because he tells me to say so. So
Speaker 2: we had an organizer for the Ceasefire of New Hampshire
Speaker 2: here on the show and we asked him explicitly.
Speaker 3: He said, okay, like what is the goal of this.
Speaker 2: Is it just to send a message to President Biden
Speaker 2: or is it actually threatened, you know, his ability to
Speaker 2: potentially get reelected? And he said, solely, it was just
Speaker 2: trying to get a message to President Biden who he
Speaker 2: remains and who he supports. So where do you stand
Speaker 2: kind of in that heuristic of looking at this issue.
Speaker 9: You know, our primary elections are in about, you know,
Speaker 9: less than thirty days, and we are you know, I
Speaker 9: am not at this point committed to voting for Joe Biden.
Speaker 9: I'm not committed to voting for President Joe Biden in November.
Speaker 9: I think what you're going to see is a majority
Speaker 9: of my community, majority of Deerbynites, set this presidential election out.
Speaker 9: And more than just a presidential election, it's also the
Speaker 9: US Senate.
Speaker 7: We don't have a front running candidate who's.
Speaker 9: Also called for a ceasefire, and so I think what
Speaker 9: the Democrat's risk is not only losing the White House
Speaker 9: but also flipping the US Senate back to Republican stronghold.
Speaker 7: And so for us, that's what's that risk.
Speaker 9: And if you believe that being attached to Benjamin Natanya,
Speaker 9: who's right wing government, is worth that sacrifice, then by
Speaker 9: all means, move forward and you'll see the consequences in.
Speaker 1: November mayor what would you need to see from this
Speaker 1: president for him to earn your support?
Speaker 9: You know, it's hard to even come up with the
Speaker 9: list of things of what would it take to earn support.
Speaker 9: I think for me, it's what would it take for
Speaker 9: even for us to begin to have a dialogue along
Speaker 9: that pathway. And the immediate thing again is to call
Speaker 9: for the ceasefire. You know, we can't continually read about
Speaker 9: nearly two hundred people being murdered each and every single
Speaker 9: day that we wake up for dearborn, for us, this
Speaker 9: is very much real. These are our parents' villages that
Speaker 9: are being bombed, our Palish villages that are being ethnically cleansed,
Speaker 9: our family members that are buried under the rebel.
Speaker 7: And So for us, we need decency.
Speaker 9: We need to be dignified and respected for the human
Speaker 9: beings that we are, and not only political calculations that
Speaker 9: are taking into account whenever elections come around.
Speaker 1: Wow, finally, Mayor, we covered a moment ago Nancy Pelosi's
Speaker 1: comments basically saying that the ceasefire protesters are being funded
Speaker 1: by Russia, that this is Vladimir Putin's message. What is
Speaker 1: your response to that.
Speaker 7: The Democratic leadership is in disarray.
Speaker 9: I cannot believe that in a moment in twenty twenty
Speaker 9: four and twenty twenty three, the word ceasefire has become
Speaker 9: the most controversial term, and somehow Vladimir Putin is actually
Speaker 9: the one who wants to lead with diplomatic efforts. That
Speaker 9: the idea that our Pope would renewed calls for a
Speaker 9: ceasefire might potentially be a Russian operative. But I think
Speaker 9: this is an opportunity for us to really have a
Speaker 9: conversation about what's happening with the Democratic Party because we
Speaker 9: have to hold them account.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate you taking the time, sir, and we
Speaker 2: appreciate what you had to say today.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you so much for.
Speaker 2: We had to fit something fun into this show and
Speaker 2: what do we have. We have a story here about
Speaker 2: Taylor Swift. No, this is not going to be about
Speaker 2: the Swifty Super Bowl, although I'm sure that we'll have
Speaker 2: a lot of commentary to save on that front for
Speaker 2: the future. This is about a craze which has swept
Speaker 2: the media, elevated all the way to the White House,
Speaker 2: and is a genuinely divisive issue where I'm not even
Speaker 2: sure where either Chris or I stand.
Speaker 3: So I'm fun it's going to be fun to discuss it.
Speaker 2: There have been AI deep fake nude images of Taylor
Speaker 2: Swift and many other celebrities that have been circulating online.
Speaker 2: Now it's not necessarily something new, it's something that's actually
Speaker 2: existed for a long time, and yet there has somehow
Speaker 2: now been a streisand effect such that some of the
Speaker 2: most senior leaders both in ai and in the nation
Speaker 2: are now being asked about this as if it's some
Speaker 2: sort of national security issue bubbled to the surface whenever
Speaker 2: Lesser holds. NBC News sat down with the Microsoft CEO
Speaker 2: Satya Nadella to ask him specifically what he was going
Speaker 2: to do about this and what guardrails are in place
Speaker 2: for AIU that's such so called deep fake nude images
Speaker 2: and others do not circulate as we get closer to
Speaker 2: some even more advanced AI technology.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 10: The Internet is exploding with fake and I emphasize fake
Speaker 10: sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift. What does that tell
Speaker 10: you about this technology? And whether we could ever get
Speaker 10: the toothpaste back in the tube.
Speaker 7: I'd tak two things.
Speaker 8: One is, again I go back to I think what's
Speaker 8: our responsibility, which is all of the guardrails that we
Speaker 8: need to place around the technology so that there's more
Speaker 8: safe content that's being produced. And there's a lot to
Speaker 8: be done there and a lot being done there, and
Speaker 8: we can do especially when you have law and law
Speaker 8: enforcement and tech platforms that can come together. I think
Speaker 8: we can govern a lot more than we think we
Speaker 8: give ourselves creditable.
Speaker 10: Does it set alarm bell off in terms of what
Speaker 10: can be done? You're Microsoft, You've got a high social
Speaker 10: corporate responsibility. There are other players in this game who
Speaker 10: may not have that same benefit.
Speaker 8: I think, first of all, absolutely, this is alarming and terrible,
Speaker 8: and so therefore yes we have to add.
Speaker 2: So Chris, Okay, I'm curious what you think, because this
Speaker 2: has become now a national issue such that even though
Speaker 2: White House is being asked about this, Okay, let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. They were specifically asked
Speaker 2: they said there as what are you going to do
Speaker 2: about it? Should Congress take legislative action to address fake
Speaker 2: abusive images online? We are alarmed by the circulation of
Speaker 2: the false images, Karige Jean Pierre told reporters, So I
Speaker 2: have to try and separate this where I think. Look,
Speaker 2: I think it's terrible that it happens to anybody, and
Speaker 2: yet for some reason it becomes a national issue legislatively,
Speaker 2: it seems like you should probably be dealt with, like
Speaker 2: with deep fakes. But also there seems to be some
Speaker 2: sort of weird strisand effit going on here where I
Speaker 2: didn't even know that these existed until I start seeing
Speaker 2: the NBC News Lester Whole interview, then the White House
Speaker 2: getting asked about this, now Congress having deliberative action, and
Speaker 2: then we'll get to what Twitter has done in their response.
Speaker 3: But anyway, your reaction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I have to say I feel a little bit complicated
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 4: I guess in terms of Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1: I actually have the least sympathy for her because I
Speaker 1: sort of feel like, you know, not that I think
Speaker 1: this is great. I don't think it's good at all.
Speaker 1: I think it's bad. I think it's invasive. I can
Speaker 1: understand how she feels about it, but I do sort
Speaker 1: of feel like when you're a famous person, you kind
Speaker 1: of expect you're going to get some kind of shit
Speaker 1: like this, and you know, you get all the benefits
Speaker 1: of fame and fortune and you know, the eyeballs on
Speaker 1: you and success and stardom and all that stuff, which
Speaker 1: is really nice in which many people would love to have,
Speaker 1: and it does come with some downsides. And again I'm
Speaker 1: not like normalizing or saying that that's fine, but.
Speaker 4: I feel more I feel more.
Speaker 1: Like she can deal with it when it's Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: and she's got a legal team and they're going to
Speaker 1: go after whoever created this and whatever. The bigger questions
Speaker 1: for me are actually around quote unquote normal people who
Speaker 1: aren't famous, because it's not like the generation of these
Speaker 1: images is going to be solely confined to Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: or other you know, stars and icons.
Speaker 4: You know what if it's an underage.
Speaker 1: Girl that these fake AI nudes are being created up.
Speaker 1: I was a little bit the last week dealing with
Speaker 1: my child's health issue, which by the way, she's doing
Speaker 1: much better, thank you for all the well wishes, so
Speaker 1: I didn't actually look up the photos, but I am
Speaker 1: told they are very clearly fake. But I think that's
Speaker 1: another piece of this is, you know, it seems to me,
Speaker 1: not only with this, but with other deep fakes. It's
Speaker 1: really really important that we have a way of knowing
Speaker 1: what's real and what's not real, both because of these
Speaker 1: instances where there's you know, deep like invasion of privacy
Speaker 1: and sort of intended humiliation, but also issue you know,
Speaker 1: instances where there's an intent to deceive in some sort
Speaker 1: of significant way. You know, it could be with regard
Speaker 1: to news that's occurring or what's going on, etcetera. We've
Speaker 1: seen a bunch of those as well. So I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say that, you know, this is just like all who
Speaker 1: cares is Taylor Swift like wave your hand. I do
Speaker 1: think it raises some real issues that we've already been
Speaker 1: confronting about the AI era and how to regulate that
Speaker 1: and how to deal with that without stifling creativity without
Speaker 1: going down the path of censorship, et cetera, without you know,
Speaker 1: without like shutting down innovation and without shutting down free speech.
Speaker 1: I think it raises and heightens some of those questions.
Speaker 1: But do I particularly see it as like a crisis
Speaker 1: because it happened Taylor Swift.
Speaker 2: No, that's that's That's kind of what I wanted to
Speaker 2: get to because I'm getting really annoyed because everyone's acting
Speaker 2: as if this is the worst you know. By the way,
Speaker 2: I like Taylor Swift. I tried to get tickets to
Speaker 2: the Aras tour, just so everybody knows. I was sitting
Speaker 2: there with the waiting line and all of that. I'm
Speaker 2: a fan, Okay, So like, let's be very clear that
Speaker 2: said I can recognize like a moral panic whenever I
Speaker 2: see one. And given what Twitter did, let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. By the way, thank you Elon for ins
Speaker 2: to do this. Twitter or x blocked Taylor Swift searches
Speaker 2: after those fake AI videos were going viral. They literally
Speaker 2: did not allow you for a period of time to
Speaker 2: search the name Taylor Swift in the search bar so
Speaker 2: you could find this. This is particularly dumb because this
Speaker 2: happened at the exact same time as the Chiefs game yesterday,
Speaker 2: when many people, probably teenage girls, were searching it because
Speaker 2: they wanted to see her kiss Travis Kelcey or to
Speaker 2: hunk what's the lady's name, Mahomes whatever, Okay, Brittany, I
Speaker 2: think that's it, Brittany Mahomes.
Speaker 3: They wanted to see their reaction in the box. Okay.
Speaker 3: So it's like.
Speaker 2: You have now created Now people are gonna be like, hey,
Speaker 2: why can't I searched Taylor swib And now, as you
Speaker 2: said too, the victim here, or potential actual victims that
Speaker 2: we should really be worried about, are teenagers. We've seen
Speaker 2: a rise in teenage boys in particular killing themselves through
Speaker 2: some sort of like ensnarement, entrapment, things where people will
Speaker 2: entice them for new images. We covered it here on
Speaker 2: the show before. We've talked about you teenage girls. Normal women,
Speaker 2: that's actually the real victims. You know, in many cases
Speaker 2: of some of these revenge are normal women, are people
Speaker 2: with jobs and others who are either facing being fired,
Speaker 2: like teachers and others who are facing reputational damage, and
Speaker 2: they don't have the legal team, the police resources, NBC
Speaker 2: News and the CEO of Microsoft on their side.
Speaker 3: Most people just don't care about them at all.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I think that there was a major stris
Speaker 2: and effect going on here, and there is also a
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna say this again as somebody who likes Taylor,
Speaker 2: I am so annoyed by the NFL and even the
Speaker 2: New York Times and others just blatantly putting her name
Speaker 2: in headlines to get engagement.
Speaker 3: So let me give you a perfect example.
Speaker 2: The front page of the New York Times political section
Speaker 2: right now is inside Biden's anti Trump battle plan and
Speaker 2: where Taylor Swift fits in. Come on, I sorry, I
Speaker 2: looked into it. Taylor is in the tenth graph graph
Speaker 2: by the way means paragraph, and reporters speak it. They
Speaker 2: barely have a throwaway mentioned. They're like, yeah, we would
Speaker 2: love to get her endorsement.
Speaker 5: And she's in that.
Speaker 2: It's like stop all right, like everyone is. And but
Speaker 2: there's a whole right wing backlash as well. They're like
Speaker 2: they're trying to turn Tailor into a Biden plant and
Speaker 2: all of this, which may be true now this article
Speaker 2: has now come out. But my point is just like
Speaker 2: they're the amount of engagement farming that's going on off.
Speaker 2: This woman's name is driving me nuts. So it's a
Speaker 2: very long way say I'm rooting for the forty nine ers.
Speaker 2: I'm pro rock perty. I'm sorry that we need a
Speaker 2: total and complete shutdown of this shit for until we
Speaker 2: can figure out.
Speaker 3: What that is going on.
Speaker 1: I haven't dug in enough to really understand why there's
Speaker 1: been so much upset about like Taylor's affiliation with the
Speaker 1: cheese and white people are so like it's it became
Speaker 1: such a thing. I just haven't done enough research. I
Speaker 1: haven't cared enough to even understand what the energy is about.
Speaker 3: I don't watch football, but poor my friends who do.
Speaker 3: Here's what it is. They love the NFL. They love football.
Speaker 2: They're getting very annoyed because basically, whenever there's a Chiefs game,
Speaker 2: every time Travis Kelsey scores a touchdown or does something good,
Speaker 2: they just pan the box to Taylor Swift.
Speaker 3: It's like the Taylor Cam.
Speaker 2: And there has been a massive influx of people who
Speaker 2: are now watching and engaging with the NFL purely for
Speaker 2: Taylor Swift content and or memes. These are people who
Speaker 2: genuinely love the game. They would be watching anyways. I
Speaker 2: understand it to a certain extent that said, if you're
Speaker 2: the NFL, who cares, you know your NFL, you're good
Speaker 2: for them.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, but then there's some there are some allegations. Some
Speaker 2: people are saying that the NFL is actively rooting and
Speaker 2: intervening to try and rig it.
Speaker 3: So that the Chiefs would win the Super Bowl because
Speaker 3: they know.
Speaker 2: There's actually a new study that just came out yesterday
Speaker 2: that Taylor Swift has added three hundred and thirty million
Speaker 2: dollars in brand equity to the NFL and to ratings
Speaker 2: just in the Times since she's began dating Travis Kelsey.
Speaker 3: That's how powerful the brand is.
Speaker 2: Kelsey himself, I believe he's not one of the most
Speaker 2: followed people in the entire NFL on Instagram.
Speaker 3: It's tough too, because you know, most people don't even know.
Speaker 2: Most people don't even know, like he's actually incredibly good
Speaker 2: at his positions, but one of the all time greats.
Speaker 2: Then him and his brother, you know, monetizing this and
Speaker 2: he's appearing in Fiser commercial. So I do get why
Speaker 2: it's annoying if you're in the NFL. I get why
Speaker 2: it is annoying.
Speaker 3: If you love the game and you just love the
Speaker 3: game for its sake.
Speaker 1: See the attention and getting new fans in and whatever.
Speaker 1: To me, and that's only like, Okay, you're expanding the
Speaker 1: love of the sport or whatever when you get into
Speaker 1: I definitely don't put it past them to basically have
Speaker 1: the Reps throwing the games as much as they can
Speaker 1: for the Chiefs to keep the tailor gravy train going.
Speaker 1: That's that's another matter. So I could see that point.
Speaker 1: But I also think, to me, part of this is
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift occupies this strange place in our political landscape
Speaker 1: because for a long time, and she came up, you know,
Speaker 1: she's initially like this country music pop star, and for
Speaker 1: a long time she was completely silent on politics, partly
Speaker 1: because she was extremely young, right, so she's just like
Speaker 1: and in country music especially just like let's just not
Speaker 1: talk about it. And then there was this whole fantasy
Speaker 1: on the right that maybe she was like secretly Republican,
Speaker 1: secretly like really conservative or even old.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Remember when there was some like all right message board
Speaker 1: that thought they named her cat or something.
Speaker 4: Like crazy like that, because because she.
Speaker 1: Has that kind of like you know, trad look, and
Speaker 1: she didn't wear super skimpy clothes, and so there was
Speaker 1: this whole invented fantasy that perhaps secretly she's the conservative.
Speaker 1: And then during one of the elections, she came out
Speaker 1: against one of the senators who was running in Tennessee,
Speaker 1: Marsha Blackburn. She came out for the Democrat, and it
Speaker 1: kind of was like her political coming out as just
Speaker 1: like the most basic resistance liberal that you could possibly imagine.
Speaker 4: And so I think the crushed.
Speaker 1: Hopes that had been placed on Taylor also add to
Speaker 1: the upset of her involvement in, you know, any sort
Speaker 1: of cultural thing that some people on the right may
Speaker 1: be involved with, because it seems like most of the
Speaker 1: anti Taylor energy is coming from the right.
Speaker 2: If I'm not mistaken, it is now because she did
Speaker 2: endorse Biden and there's some photo of her holding like
Speaker 2: Biden cookies. I will say, if she does endorse Biden
Speaker 2: and she appears with them, she's going to fulfill these
Speaker 2: people's wildest dreams, because a lot of them have been
Speaker 2: saying they're like, she's a Biden plant, and all I think,
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: That's not a secret, Like she is just a basic Democrat,
Speaker 1: a basic since liberal democrat.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's a surprise anyone.
Speaker 3: Absolutely right.
Speaker 2: In fact, I think her genuine appeal is that she's
Speaker 2: like as normal as it gets. And I don't mean
Speaker 2: in terms of like fame or whatever. I mean in
Speaker 2: terms of her like tastes others. She's one of the
Speaker 2: most classic millennials. She still uses Gandalf references just to
Speaker 2: everyone be as clear a more a recent interview that
Speaker 2: she did with Time magazine. So anyway, we've given you
Speaker 2: as much Taylor news as we said, as you know,
Speaker 2: much the chagrin of our crew, one of whom is
Speaker 2: a diehard Chiefs fan. I'm going for the forty nine
Speaker 2: ers now. I can't handle the tailor. I can't handle
Speaker 2: a tailor media cycle from the Super Bowl. I just can't.
Speaker 1: And you won't be able to shake it off. I
Speaker 1: will got to be some trouble for.
Speaker 4: You, Soccer.
Speaker 3: It'll be some of my wildest dreams.
Speaker 4: There you go, all right, Tcager, what do you look
Speaker 4: at at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Several years ago, I was having dinner with some of
Speaker 2: my friends almost immediately after Trump was elected in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: Washington was still in haze and people couldn't quite believe
Speaker 2: what had happened. We did, however, have enough data to
Speaker 2: see some pretty profound shifts in the American electorate, and
Speaker 2: someone asked the table what strategy that they would pursue
Speaker 2: to make sure the GOP won every election going forward.
Speaker 2: Because I had just looked at the gender voting numbers
Speaker 2: for Trump, noting especially his increase slight at that time
Speaker 2: strength amongst black and Hispanic men, I just joked the
Speaker 2: GOP should just become a party of non college educated men.
Speaker 3: Over the years, I'm reminded more and more of that.
Speaker 2: Comment, because so much data is now showing that genuine
Speaker 2: might be the best long term strategy they have, not
Speaker 2: just for the GOP, but really for right wing movements
Speaker 2: across the world. I couldn't even get this data out
Speaker 2: of my head when pursuing some new ones compiled by
Speaker 2: the Financial Times. It shows a global realignment of young
Speaker 2: men across the world far more conservative than their female
Speaker 2: peers and becoming so. Consider that in the US, in
Speaker 2: the UK, and Germany there is now a nearly twenty
Speaker 2: percent spread between gen Z men and women in conservative
Speaker 2: versus liberal identification. In other developed countries like South Korea,
Speaker 2: for reference, the split is even more pronounced as those
Speaker 2: of You can see. Data not included in the chart, though,
Speaker 2: shows that the same holds true in places like Poland, Tunisia,
Speaker 2: and China. So, in other words, it's a global trend,
Speaker 2: encompassing the West and the east. All of this makes
Speaker 2: sense in the flat and cultural environment that we live
Speaker 2: in today. Trump was not just America's president. He was
Speaker 2: a global figure on which politics and culture bifurcated. The
Speaker 2: key catalyst identified by the Financial Times is the twenty
Speaker 2: seventeen Me Too movement for global politics. It's worth actually
Speaker 2: ta that out and considering the major effect that male
Speaker 2: realignment is having on politics in the US. In the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election, for example, Trump increased his vote share
Speaker 2: of every single demographic group in the country except with
Speaker 2: one college educated white men. He won much larger percentages
Speaker 2: of votes with Latino men and black men, so much
Speaker 2: so he's actually able to switch large swats of counties
Speaker 2: in South Texas and of course turn the tide in Florida. Now,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong, he still lost a majority of
Speaker 2: Latino male vote and the black mail vote, but as
Speaker 2: Democratic strategists will admit, privately winning the black vote by
Speaker 2: seventy five points as opposed to ninety points is actually
Speaker 2: a make or break in the entire electoral college. Now,
Speaker 2: let's actually start to look to the future. Combine gen
Speaker 2: Z data from the Financial Times with some important social trends,
Speaker 2: that we see a picture of some actually bad politics ahead.
Speaker 2: I've said at nauseum the single best predictor of how
Speaker 2: you voted in twenty twenty is whether you have a
Speaker 2: four year college degree or not. In the past, college
Speaker 2: degrees were equally ish split amongst genders, but the future
Speaker 2: data tells us that is not the case. Over the
Speaker 2: last five years, female enrollment in college has either spiked
Speaker 2: or stayed the same, while male college enrollment has plummeted.
Speaker 2: There are a variety of factors behind why. Perhaps the
Speaker 2: main one is that men just feel increasingly unwelcome in
Speaker 2: college educated, politically correct environments. The problem for our future
Speaker 2: politics is that the four year college degree is not
Speaker 2: just an education, It is mostly a cultural finishing school.
Speaker 2: People who go to college have vastly different priorities and
Speaker 2: interest in those who do not.
Speaker 3: Neither is better, it's just different.
Speaker 2: As female college entrollment is now trending in the direction
Speaker 2: of a two to one ratio. You can see how
Speaker 2: this is going to split electorally. On the other side
Speaker 2: of the spectrum, you have many men who are eschewing
Speaker 2: college and who are pursuing a very different tract economically.
Speaker 2: This is where policy fights and others could manifest themselves
Speaker 2: in the future. For example, already today women outnumber men
Speaker 2: amongst a college educated workforce. This is predominantly white collar,
Speaker 2: meaning their concerns over worker protection rights and general conception
Speaker 2: of economic life is going to be vastly different than
Speaker 2: those who are in the trades, in the service industry
Speaker 2: or those who run a small business. Perhaps even more importantly,
Speaker 2: I really fear for our culture demographic trends. Already today,
Speaker 2: the vast majority of young men are single, with younger
Speaker 2: women who are deciding to simply date men who are
Speaker 2: older than them for a variety of reasons, most likely
Speaker 2: economic ones. The more our economy, culture, and politics are
Speaker 2: splitting amongst gender lines, the more we drive each other
Speaker 2: apart at a most human of levels. Couple that actually
Speaker 2: with a loneliness crisis amongst men, and I'm foreseeing a
Speaker 2: future of single angry men who are driving one party
Speaker 2: and single angry women in another that's not not really
Speaker 2: a future that I want to live in more and
Speaker 2: more though it seems to be very likely.
Speaker 3: I'm curious what you think, christ.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: Okay, we really enjoyed the show today, Christal.
Speaker 2: I believe you're going to be remote tomorrow as well
Speaker 2: as your kids continue to recuperate, but they are doing
Speaker 2: the men and we've gotten a lot of well wishes
Speaker 2: for you, so we want to.
Speaker 3: Thank everybody for that.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I really appreciate did those well wishes. As you said, Soccer,
Speaker 1: we are on the end. Everybody's going to be good,
Speaker 1: so that's the most important thing. And I will be
Speaker 1: remote tomorrow, but we will have a regular show and
Speaker 1: we will see you the guys then all right, we'll
Speaker 1: see you later.