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 Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
Speaker 4: We are very excited about the show today because we're.
Speaker 1: Going to have a big old election twenty twenty four panel.
Speaker 1: They're going to tackle who's Animal's back, Who's up, Who's
Speaker 1: down there with some leaked JD vance audio revealing perhaps
Speaker 1: some electoral anxiety on that side. We're also going to
Speaker 1: get into the big Cat Lady debate finally much anticipated.
Speaker 1: We're also going to have them tackle this whole Karen's
Speaker 1: for Kamala and white.
Speaker 4: Dudes for Kamala situation.
Speaker 1: So looking forward to hearing what they have to say
Speaker 1: about that. Also yesterday, Joe Biden announcing a push for
Speaker 1: major Supreme Court reform or Kamala Harris joining that. So
Speaker 1: we'll break that down for you what it means, whether
Speaker 1: or not it is going anywhere.
Speaker 4: War revelations.
Speaker 1: I feel like I say this literally every day about
Speaker 1: secret Service failures on the day of the Trump assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: Now we have the text messages that cops in secret
Speaker 1: Service we're sending to themselves, complete with pictures of the shooter,
Speaker 1: an hour and a half before this all unfolds.
Speaker 4: I mean, really is.
Speaker 1: Wild what we're learning at this point and how this
Speaker 1: twenty year old was able to completely ouncemart and stay
Speaker 1: ahead of all the cops and all the law enforcement
Speaker 1: that was there on the ground. We're also taking a
Speaker 1: look at some wild scenes coming out of Israel. This
Speaker 1: is going to sound like an exaggeration. It literally is
Speaker 1: not a mob stormed multiple Israeli military bases in defense
Speaker 1: of the right of Israeli soldiers to rape Palestinians.
Speaker 4: I'm not kidding you. That's what happened.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like you take Abu Gray prison scandal,
Speaker 1: you take January sixth, you put it all together in
Speaker 1: terms of American political context. So we're actually going to
Speaker 1: talk to an Israeli journalists about his thoughts as he
Speaker 1: was watching all of this unfold, and it's actually really
Speaker 1: shaken some of his own conceptions about his state, which
Speaker 1: is interesting his viewpoint, he is sort of like a
Speaker 1: liberal Zionist, so really looking forward to speaking to him
Speaker 1: about what this means for the state of Israel, and
Speaker 1: of course very consequential in terms of our support of
Speaker 1: that state. And they're continuing atrocities in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't believe it at first, but it's actually
Speaker 2: all true. And the way you know it's true is
Speaker 2: that even like the liberal Israelis, they're like, hey man,
Speaker 2: this is totally out of control.
Speaker 3: So anyway, super interesting.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, as we teased yesterday, we
Speaker 2: do a big announcement. Now let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. We are offering a thirty day free
Speaker 2: trial of our premium subscription. The promo code is BP
Speaker 2: free one, so let me repeat that, BP free one.
Speaker 2: You can sign up for it at Breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: if you're interested. This is just a way of us
Speaker 2: saying thank you to all of our new listeners and
Speaker 2: subscribers on our YouTube channel.
Speaker 3: Hear you, We thank you.
Speaker 2: It has been an extraordinary month over here at Breaking Points,
Speaker 2: and we want to have you along for the ride.
Speaker 2: So BP free one go ahead and take advantage of that.
Speaker 2: You're going to get access to the show early, the locals, AMA,
Speaker 2: and all of the other premium benefits which you'll see
Speaker 2: listed there in our description. So the videos, it's in
Speaker 2: the description, it's in the podcast description.
Speaker 3: That's wherever it is.
Speaker 2: Or if you're just listening and you just heard me
Speaker 2: say it again, BP free one at Breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: and we're going to give you exclusive insights, benefits, et cetera,
Speaker 2: especially as we head into the convention. I'm really exciting, yeah,
Speaker 2: for us all to be on the ground there. We
Speaker 2: have some great stuff planned and they'll be.
Speaker 4: The very interesting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So a lot of you all have joined us just
Speaker 1: in the past month because the politics, news world, everything
Speaker 1: has been so crazy, so we wanted to give people
Speaker 1: an opportunity to try to premium membership see if they
Speaker 1: find add a benefit to it. And also just to mention,
Speaker 1: we have some we have some things coming up that
Speaker 1: I think you're going to find really interesting, including something
Speaker 1: we should be dropping later this week, so stay tuned
Speaker 1: for that. I won't give you all the specifics, but
Speaker 1: we have a lot of exciting things planned for this
Speaker 1: election season, which has suddenly become red hot.
Speaker 4: It's crazy, you know.
Speaker 1: We thought we were going into this election of like,
Speaker 1: no one's really going to care about this matchup between
Speaker 1: these two dudes that they're sick of, and now suddenly,
Speaker 1: I don't know that I've ever seen interest in the
Speaker 1: political horse race as high as it is right now.
Speaker 5: So high.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So thank you to all of you've been tuning
Speaker 1: in and supporting us and liking and sharing, and especially
Speaker 1: thank you to.
Speaker 4: Our premium subscribers. We really appreciate your support.
Speaker 3: That's right, all right, let's get to the panel.
Speaker 1: We are joined by an A plus panel this morning.
Speaker 1: This is sort of like our inaugural twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: political panel, so you guys should both feel extremely honored.
Speaker 1: On the right, we have Ryan ger Dusky, political commentator
Speaker 1: and the author of the National Populist newsletter on Substack,
Speaker 1: which I'm told Sager highly recommends I do. And on
Speaker 1: the left, we have Michael Starr Hopkins, who is a
Speaker 1: fantastic political commentator and host of It Matters.
Speaker 4: Great to see a gentlemen to.
Speaker 6: You guys, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So we got a few different topics we want to
Speaker 1: tackle with you, but I wanted to start by just
Speaker 1: sort of getting your general sense of where.
Speaker 4: The race is today.
Speaker 1: And to kick that off, we just got some leaked
Speaker 1: audio from jd Vance on like a fundraising call where
Speaker 1: he's talking about Kamala Harris being switched in for Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and what he describes as a political sucker punch.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that, all of us.
Speaker 7: We're hitting with a little bit of a political suffer punch.
Speaker 7: The badges is that Kamala Harris does not have the
Speaker 7: same baggage as Joe Biden, because whatever we might say,
Speaker 7: Kala Harris.
Speaker 8: Is a lot younger and Kamala Harris is obviously not
Speaker 8: struggling in the same way as that Joe Biden did.
Speaker 1: So Ryan, let me just start with you react to
Speaker 1: those comments and who do you see as the favorite
Speaker 1: in this race at this point?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean what he said was true because Joe
Speaker 9: Biden was having serious issues, serious cognitive issues, and Democrat
Speaker 9: internal polling showed them in a statistically tied race in
Speaker 9: New Jersey. And when you are behind in New Jersey,
Speaker 9: and you're losing Virginia, and you're losing New Mexico in
Speaker 9: your own internal polling. That's a really bad state for Democrats.
Speaker 9: So Kamala Harris changes the race in the sense that
Speaker 9: New Jersey is no longer a toss up state with
Speaker 9: her as a nominee.
Speaker 10: That being said, Trump still leads in the.
Speaker 9: Head to head national polls by about a point, maybe
Speaker 9: a little over underpending what polls you're looking at.
Speaker 10: Which he's never let before.
Speaker 9: He's still in a better race state than he was
Speaker 9: in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. He still leads an
Speaker 9: all three major russ Belt state's party. Republican voter party
Speaker 9: registration is significantly up in all swing counties. So at
Speaker 9: the end of the day, I mean, Trump probably still
Speaker 9: has about a sixty percent chance of being the president
Speaker 9: in January twenty twenty five.
Speaker 4: Michael, what do you think?
Speaker 5: I mean?
Speaker 6: Look, Donald Trump got shot and then had the Democrat
Speaker 6: or rather the Republican convention and really saw no bump
Speaker 6: coming out of it.
Speaker 8: So if I'm the Trump campaign, I'm worried.
Speaker 6: Yeah, they're in the lead right now, but Kama Harris
Speaker 6: still hasn't had the convention, she hasn't named her VP nominee.
Speaker 6: You're seeing this huge enthusiasm boost among young people, among women,
Speaker 6: among African Americans. I think it's really problematic for the
Speaker 6: Trump campaign because they've been running the same playbook against
Speaker 6: Joe Biden for the last you know, almost six years. Well,
Speaker 6: now they're running a very different race, and the things
Speaker 6: that I think they want to attack her on are
Speaker 6: really going to ignite that base of support among women
Speaker 6: and African Americans.
Speaker 3: All Right, so let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Let's start with what is an A two Please, just
Speaker 2: kind of a general summary from Frank Lunch, and I
Speaker 2: want to get Ryan's reaction here to how some of
Speaker 2: the state of the race has changed. Just as Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris is rebuilding a more traditional Democratic coalition more paths
Speaker 2: to two seventy, Trump is more popular at any time
Speaker 2: than the past four years. As Ryan noted, Biden's retirement
Speaker 2: is wildly popular, and RFK Junior is significantly free falling
Speaker 2: in respect to disaffected Democrats are mostly going to Kama,
Speaker 2: while disaffected Republicans remain with RFK. So far, strategically, what
Speaker 2: do you think that the Trump campaign has to do
Speaker 2: differently now that Kamala is in the race and perhaps
Speaker 2: either adjust messaging, address strategy.
Speaker 3: Where do you see their campaign right now?
Speaker 9: Yeah, well that's the first time I was like, oh, Franklins,
Speaker 9: let's hear all these mistakes.
Speaker 8: Is about to say.
Speaker 4: We take someone you both would dislike.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 9: So, I think what the Trump campaign more or less
Speaker 9: was doing to Joe Biden was running a very scale
Speaker 9: back effort. I mean they were letting Joe Biden hang
Speaker 9: himself in the win, and every time he spoke, it
Speaker 9: was a negative reaction for Joe Biden. When Kamala Harris,
Speaker 9: they have to be a little more aggressive because twenty nineteen,
Speaker 9: when she ran for president, she took wildly in popular
Speaker 9: positions that many people don't remember. So reminding people of
Speaker 9: the positions that she took now that she's running away
Speaker 9: from as fast as she possibly can. You know, every
Speaker 9: position from medicare for all to gun buy backs. I'm
Speaker 9: sure she's going to be against banning all plastic straws
Speaker 9: she said.
Speaker 10: In twenty nineteen.
Speaker 9: I think that I think that that's really where they
Speaker 9: have to sit there and switch. And I think it
Speaker 9: took them a second and the second longer than it
Speaker 9: should have for them to really pivot into a different
Speaker 9: kind of campaign, one much more aggressive than the other.
Speaker 9: But they are outspending comm will pretty significantly in almost
Speaker 9: every Spring state now.
Speaker 1: So Michael, in addition to like they'll get to cat
Speaker 1: Lady and some of that stuff in a minute and
Speaker 1: DEI and all of that. But the core argument that's
Speaker 1: being made by the official campaign apparatus and the Speaker
Speaker 1: Johnson's of the world is the one effectively that Ryan
Speaker 1: is making that you know, Kamala Harris had these quote
Speaker 1: unquote extreme positions in when she was running in the
Speaker 1: Democratic presidential primary. She's already come out and like said,
Speaker 1: I no longer believe any of those things anymore. I'm
Speaker 1: a totally different person to me. That's more of the
Speaker 1: true knock on her is that she doesn't actually have.
Speaker 4: Any ideological grounding.
Speaker 1: She shifts depending on what's convenient for her in that
Speaker 1: particular political moment at that particular time. But if you're
Speaker 1: advising the Democratic Party, you know, how do you defend
Speaker 1: against that attack either that she's a flip flopper or
Speaker 1: that she's too radical extreme liberal coastal, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I mean, look, Kamala Harris has been called a lot
Speaker 6: of things, but at her course, she's been a prosecutor,
Speaker 6: she's been an attorney general.
Speaker 8: So the idea that.
Speaker 6: She's too liberal, I think is probably not something that's
Speaker 6: going to stick.
Speaker 8: And look, when Republicans are running.
Speaker 6: That Democrats are against plastic straws, and Democrats are running
Speaker 6: that Republicans are against abortion, I think that's going to
Speaker 6: be a really problematic message because every hit that Republicans
Speaker 6: are going to try to take on Kamala Harris is
Speaker 6: going to be about liberal, about climate change, about things
Speaker 6: that really aren't driving voters right now. The thing that's
Speaker 6: driving voters right now is fear that Trump's an authoritarian
Speaker 6: and fear about the banning of abortion and the banning
Speaker 6: of autonomy. And so it just feels very out of
Speaker 6: touch what Republicans are talking about right now. And it's
Speaker 6: why I think the label of weird is really working
Speaker 6: for Democrats, because what Republicans are talking about is weird.
Speaker 2: Well, save the weird debate that's coming for the cat
Speaker 2: Lady section. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris's favorability and what it is is that her
Speaker 2: morning consult July twenty second, her approved disapprove was forty
Speaker 2: three fifty one, whereas after she entered the race it
Speaker 2: is now approved disapproved fifty to forty six. Almost all
Speaker 2: of that is Democrats who previously viewed her, you know,
Speaker 2: disfavorably and have basically switched. But it represents something significant Ryan,
Speaker 2: which is a very enthusiastic Democratic base that we haven't
Speaker 2: seen previously. So with Trump, how do we how would
Speaker 2: he adjust in terms of thinking about the race where
Speaker 2: he no longer has this significant enthusiasm advantage that he
Speaker 2: once had, And what does it mean reaching out to
Speaker 2: swing voters? Does it just mean driving up that percentage
Speaker 2: even more? How would you see it?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean Biden, so against Biden, Yeah, he had
Speaker 9: a huge, huge advances. I mean but Biden was asleep.
Speaker 9: I mean that literally he made Ben Carson look energetic.
Speaker 9: So I think that that's really a position that he
Speaker 9: was thriving in. I think that in you know, against
Speaker 9: Kamalaw the difference is as as popular as she is,
Speaker 9: She's still ten points behind non white voters that Joe
Speaker 9: Biden was in twenty twenty. According to the Wall Street
Speaker 9: Journal poll, New York Times poll, she's the worst performing
Speaker 9: Democrat ever with African Americans since the since Richard Nixon,
Speaker 9: and she once again the campaign has really just began.
Speaker 9: She hasn't sat down for a major interview that she
Speaker 9: hasn't asked, Hey, what did you know about Joe Biden's
Speaker 9: cognitive decline. They're going to make her own Joe Biden's
Speaker 9: issues over the economy, over the immigration. Obviously, they've already
Speaker 9: started doing that. And I think for Trump's campaign is,
Speaker 9: you know, run out the margins because she's doing so
Speaker 9: poorly with non white voters. The sun Belt is still
Speaker 9: seems out of reach for her, although obviously Georgia is
Speaker 9: in a little bit of a tighter position, and he
Speaker 9: now still leads in every rustbelt state. Pennsylvania is the
Speaker 9: own rustbel state, by the way, that the poles were
Speaker 9: pretty accurate for in both twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
Speaker 9: and Trump's you know, it's the RCP average, but it's
Speaker 9: three points.
Speaker 10: On other pool polls, it's about two points.
Speaker 9: So in the state with the most accurate polling, Trump's
Speaker 9: lead is pretty substantial.
Speaker 1: So if you look at the I was just going
Speaker 1: to say, if you look at the Fox News battleground polls,
Speaker 1: they're tied up in all those states, with the exception
Speaker 1: of Minnesota, where Kamala Harris is.
Speaker 4: Up by six.
Speaker 1: So I actually agree with you, Ryan, I think it
Speaker 1: probably is sixty forty in favor of Trump at this
Speaker 1: point because if you look historically at the polls, you
Speaker 1: know your right to point out twenty twenty, at this
Speaker 1: time Joe Biden was up like nine points in these
Speaker 1: same poles. However, I don't think it's accurate to say
Speaker 1: that according to the polls, she is significantly down in
Speaker 1: the battleground states, and she's obviously dramatically improved democratic performance
Speaker 1: among young people and among all voters of color, black
Speaker 1: and Latino in particular.
Speaker 5: So not true.
Speaker 8: That's not true.
Speaker 4: That no, one hundred percent true.
Speaker 10: That's absolutely not crystal because as.
Speaker 4: Compared to No, No, no, it's compared to Joe Biden.
Speaker 9: As compared to Joe Biden post debate where he literally
Speaker 9: said he defeated medicaid and you both had aneurysms live
Speaker 9: on air, Yes, she's done better from that point, She's
Speaker 9: about exactly where Joe Biden was in March, though, and
Speaker 9: She is still the worst performing Democrat right now among
Speaker 9: Latinos and blacks in modern history.
Speaker 8: There's a reason for that though.
Speaker 6: So when you talk to African Americans, one of the
Speaker 6: biggest worries about her isn't whether she can win, it's
Speaker 6: whether white people will vote for her. It's very much
Speaker 6: the Obama esque Iowa situation.
Speaker 8: Black support has a tipping point.
Speaker 6: We have to believe that white people will vote for
Speaker 6: her before we're willing to give our support. Now you're
Speaker 6: seeing this huge tipping point, which is why you're seeing
Speaker 6: the influx in voter support, especially.
Speaker 8: Among young people.
Speaker 6: You know, you see the African American women for Kamala,
Speaker 6: the Black men for Kamala.
Speaker 8: Now there's the Latinos for Kama.
Speaker 6: You're going to see a huge inflection point, which there's
Speaker 6: an undercurrent. Trump has that undercurrent in twenty sixteen, and
Speaker 6: we couldn't really pull for it because these were unlikely voters.
Speaker 8: I think you're going to see the same thing in
Speaker 8: this election.
Speaker 6: Among likely voters, Trump is winning, but among unlikely voters,
Speaker 6: new voters, young voters who aren't usually engaged, you're going
Speaker 6: to see I think a two percent maybe three point bump.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: One thing, just really quick quickly, I'd like you to
Speaker 1: weigh in on something I've been thinking about. And I
Speaker 1: wonder if if you think there's anything to this. When
Speaker 1: it was Biden versus Trump, it was very clear who
Speaker 1: was the change candidate.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Biden's the incumbent.
Speaker 1: He is like run everstohar democracy, Right, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: his whole like I want to bring things back to
Speaker 1: a pre Trump era. That's his whole pitch, right, very
Speaker 1: clearly the incumbent status quo candidate, and Trump very clearly
Speaker 1: the change candidate. Kamala Harris, I think scrambles some of
Speaker 1: that calculus and makes it a lot less clear, And
Speaker 1: I think she is trying to play for the lane
Speaker 1: of I'm the change candidate a year where I think
Speaker 1: that's probably pretty compelling. Now that may see counterintuitive given
Speaker 1: that she's the sitting vice president of the country, but
Speaker 1: let's be honest, she was basically sidelined by the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: so she isn't doesn't have that sense of incumbency around her.
Speaker 1: And just by merit of the fact that she is
Speaker 1: a lot younger and she is a biracial woman, she
Speaker 1: feels really fresh and different, which is why you're seeing
Speaker 1: so much like unbelievable off the charts enthusiasm, fundraising, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you see that as a challenge that
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign is going to have to grapple with?
Speaker 1: What do you think are some of the weaknesses of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and mistakes that they're making at this point.
Speaker 9: That's a really good, really good observation. I agree with
Speaker 9: that because on the surface, it does look like the
Speaker 9: change candidate, and then when you look and you boil
Speaker 9: it down to a lot of the positions she is
Speaker 9: the vice president. She depends on how much of Biden's resume,
Speaker 9: Biden's time in office six to Kamala versus being a
Speaker 9: brand new candidate. I mean, the great irony of Kamala
Speaker 9: Harris is three weeks ago she was online anyway, she
Speaker 9: was considered somebody who looked at the show Feep and
Speaker 9: thought it was aspirational, and now she is the great
Speaker 9: savior of the Democratic Party overnight. I think a lot
Speaker 9: of things have to happen in the sense that I
Speaker 9: don't really Kama doesn't really have a campaign theme, and
Speaker 9: it's only been ten days.
Speaker 10: It feels a lot longer. But it's only been a
Speaker 10: few days.
Speaker 9: Over the next five weeks, what you know, she will
Speaker 9: be testing sent she'll have a VP shell the DNC,
Speaker 9: and she'll probably have her first series of really you know,
Speaker 9: major interviews, and then we'll be able to sit there
Speaker 9: and see, Okay, can she hold up to you know,
Speaker 9: the expectations that have been presented by a lot of
Speaker 9: Democratic commentators, because as of right now, she's a fairly
Speaker 9: untested candidate.
Speaker 10: She only reformation wide office ones and it didn't go
Speaker 10: super well.
Speaker 9: So I think in the next five weeks is really
Speaker 9: where it's going to boil down, Michell.
Speaker 1: You think that's fair, Michael, Before we move on to
Speaker 1: cat Ladies, yeah, I do.
Speaker 6: I just output sixty of her donations in the last
Speaker 6: seven days have been from new donors, and I think
Speaker 6: that's the number that should really scare Republicans.
Speaker 2: Okay, Cat Lady people have been asking for it. Let's
Speaker 2: get into it. Let's get We're gonna have multiple days
Speaker 2: here on breaking points of cat Lady conversations, first of
Speaker 2: the male panel, then the female panel. So let's start
Speaker 2: originally with the JD Vans original comments they've been making
Speaker 2: the rounds. Jennifer Andison's very upset. The weird label has
Speaker 2: now been made and it all traces back to this interview.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: Look, what I was basically saying is that we're effectively
Speaker 7: run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs,
Speaker 7: by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable
Speaker 7: at their own lives and the choices that they've made,
Speaker 7: and so they want to make the rest of the
Speaker 7: country miserable too. And it's just a basic fact. You
Speaker 7: look a Kamala Harris, Pete Boodage, aoc. The entire future
Speaker 7: of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And
Speaker 7: how does it make any sense that we've turned our
Speaker 7: country over to people who don't really have a direct
Speaker 7: stake in it?
Speaker 2: Ryan, This clip is basically gone everywhere amongst liberal women.
Speaker 2: It's supposedly very animating. What do you make of this,
Speaker 2: I guess in the context both of the vance pick,
Speaker 2: but more broadly, the pickup of the attack immediately after
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris became the or, I guess, the presumptive nominee
Speaker 2: for the Democrats the circle. Do you think it's gonna
Speaker 2: be a problem broadly for Trump. What's your just reaction?
Speaker 9: I think, I mean, listen, Trump was shot two weeks
Speaker 9: ago and no one talks about it today. I think
Speaker 9: it depends on how long this news cycle lasts. For
Speaker 9: it obviously wasn't a great rollout. That being said, I
Speaker 9: don't think that it was the end all, be all rollout.
Speaker 9: The whole thing about being weird is a different version
Speaker 9: of what Democrats been saying about Trump for years, which
Speaker 9: is that he's not normal. I mean, I've had to
Speaker 9: hear not normal like for a decade at this point,
Speaker 9: over and over and over again. But at the same
Speaker 9: exact time, I don't know how much of a kill
Speaker 9: shot they think this is among the base. At the
Speaker 9: end of the day, if Donald Trump and JD. Vans,
Speaker 9: if their ticket improves among white men by two points
Speaker 9: from where it was or three points from where it
Speaker 9: was in twenty twenty, he is going to an overwhelming landslide.
Speaker 10: It is that much of the margin and of the.
Speaker 9: Women who are you know, women, we have a very
Speaker 9: different split electorate among men and women. I don't know
Speaker 9: how many women they would have one to begin with.
Speaker 9: As terms of women who are so deeply offended by
Speaker 9: this that they won't vote for him. They might be
Speaker 9: deeply offended and they still vote for him, but I
Speaker 9: don't think that they are that deeply defind where they
Speaker 9: won't vote for him.
Speaker 3: Interesting, Yeah, go ahead, Michael.
Speaker 1: Do you think that it's kind of funny because the
Speaker 1: JD Vance pick comes at like the one moment when
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign really is writing highest right, he just
Speaker 1: to survive this assassination attempt. We got the photo with
Speaker 1: the American flag and all this stuff, and right in
Speaker 1: that moment, because of the assassination attempt, all the chatter
Speaker 1: about we got to pull Joe Biden off this ticket
Speaker 1: temporarily quieted so that people myself included, got all right,
Speaker 1: Duncrats are stuck with this dude. That's the context in
Speaker 1: which the JD pick JD Vance pick is made. Do
Speaker 1: you think given this, this comments and others that have
Speaker 1: been made, do you think that they regret that choice already?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Absolutely?
Speaker 6: I mean JD Vance was a self gratification pick. No
Speaker 6: one really likes him but Don Junior and Peter Thiel
Speaker 6: and so, you know, I think, especially after that audio
Speaker 6: came out, I'd be surprised if Donald Trump is even
Speaker 6: talking to jd Vance. It's hard for me to believe
Speaker 6: that he would, you know, drop him from the ticket
Speaker 6: at this point. I don't even know if legally that
Speaker 6: could happen, but if he could, I think there would
Speaker 6: be real conversation about it, because the problem with jd
Speaker 6: Vance is there is no real audience for him. Like,
Speaker 6: people just don't like him. He comes off as that
Speaker 6: guy who hangs around, who thinks he's smarter than everybody,
Speaker 6: who just like hangs out in his basement.
Speaker 8: And you know, as he tries.
Speaker 6: To double down on Trump is a he lacks that
Speaker 6: kind of charisma that Trump had. You know, I don't
Speaker 6: like Trump, but there is a side of him, the
Speaker 6: way he talks, the way he kind of carries himself
Speaker 6: that you know, you kind of laugh at. There's nothing
Speaker 6: to laugh when it comes to Jadie Vance.
Speaker 3: Ryan, we'll get your reaction before we actually play with.
Speaker 3: Trump himself had to.
Speaker 11: Say he's got tremendous support, and he really does among
Speaker 11: a certain group of people, people that like families. I mean,
Speaker 11: you know, he made a statement having to do with families.
Speaker 11: That doesn't mean that people that aren't a member of
Speaker 11: a big and beautiful family with four hundred children around
Speaker 11: and everything else. It doesn't mean that a person doesn't
Speaker 11: have He's not against anything, but he loves family. It's
Speaker 11: very important to him. He grew up in a very
Speaker 11: interesting family situation and he feels family is good. And
Speaker 11: I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that.
Speaker 2: All right, Ryan, give us your reapp both to what
Speaker 2: Michael said and to the Trump clip.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Trump, it's just so funny.
Speaker 9: I'm also mburiously deprived, in semi delirious, so when it
Speaker 9: comes to what Michael said, you know, the election is
Speaker 9: one and lost in the Rost Belt.
Speaker 8: JD.
Speaker 9: Vans is one of only two US Senators that are
Speaker 9: Republicans from the Rustbelt. I guess Indiana too, but of
Speaker 9: major states that are electorially for play one of two
Speaker 9: Republican senators. He is also a dynamo fundraiser who bring
Speaker 9: in tech money for Donald Trump that was previously off
Speaker 9: the ticket. He is also can talk about age dynamic.
Speaker 9: He's our first millennial candidate. You know, that's a different
Speaker 9: kind of thing. His life experiences of what majorly affected
Speaker 9: him in life is the Iraq War, is the Wall
Speaker 9: Street Dot Com well, sorry, the real estate crash. Things
Speaker 9: that affected us, things that affected people like you, people
Speaker 9: like me, And the fastest growing group of people who
Speaker 9: are becoming Republicans are gen xers and older millennials, and
Speaker 9: I think doubling down on that base is kind of
Speaker 9: very important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me just say though, I mean, yes, he's
Speaker 1: a senator in the Ross Belt. He underperformed every other
Speaker 1: Republican who was running as the lowest favorability. I mean,
Speaker 1: what you're talking about is basically like identity politics, right, like, Oh,
Speaker 1: because they're from the same region and they share the
Speaker 1: same identity, they're going to vote for him. And I
Speaker 1: saw an interesting analysis. I'm curious your thoughts on this,
Speaker 1: Ryan that the childless cat lady thing, if it was
Speaker 1: just that, Okay, you're right, the new cycle is going
Speaker 1: to move on. It's going to be a blip that
Speaker 1: we all basically forget about.
Speaker 4: You know, very shortly.
Speaker 1: But it's indicative of a style that he picked.
Speaker 4: Up in order to both try to appeal to.
Speaker 1: A magabase that was skeptical of him because his prior
Speaker 1: comments about Donald Trump. And also I saw someone saying
Speaker 1: this online, which I thought was really interesting. You know,
Speaker 1: he wants to change some of the economic orthodoxy of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. But he doesn't want to sound like
Speaker 1: a Democrat when he's arguing for something like the child
Speaker 1: tax credit. So instead of framing it like the way
Speaker 1: Trump does, like, oh, he just loves families, he's got
Speaker 1: to make it in this sort of like own the
Speaker 1: Libs aggressive of off putting way, where it's not I support families,
Speaker 1: it's I hate people who don't have kids. So to me,
Speaker 1: that's the bigger problem with him is that he's adopted
Speaker 1: this like edgy online persona that is well suited to
Speaker 1: being a right wing online influencer, but is not particularly
Speaker 1: well suited to winning over a general election audience.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 10: As someone who worked in the twenty twenty two JD.
Speaker 9: Mans Ohio Senate campaign, he was the only contender.
Speaker 10: As you said, he underperformed.
Speaker 9: He was the only contender against a serious opponent against
Speaker 9: Congress and Tim Ryan everyone else. I think the governor
Speaker 9: is running against a dog catcher from Columbus. So and
Speaker 9: he was also the only non incumbent, and so that's
Speaker 9: why how you get to a position where you are
Speaker 9: performing a lower federalets are more competitive than state candidates are,
Speaker 9: especially against Thebans the place.
Speaker 1: In the state that he performed the most poorly and
Speaker 1: underperformed the most was actually the Appalachian region, where you
Speaker 1: would think he had the deepest ties.
Speaker 9: Right, But he overperformed in Cincinnati, which is the whole lot.
Speaker 9: Myth that he doesn't appear to appeal to city people
Speaker 9: or suburban people is also not true.
Speaker 10: I think you over performed Trump in Cincinnati.
Speaker 9: But nonetheless and yet still the idea that he's trying
Speaker 9: to make this personality for himself that is not real.
Speaker 9: Remember jd Vance was a literal cele literal celebrity in
Speaker 9: the twenty fifteen If he about moving me after him
Speaker 9: with Oscar nominees and Oscar winners, if he wanted to
Speaker 9: continue that route, it would in a much easier place
Speaker 9: to always be the white Republican who hates white Republicans.
Speaker 10: This is not an act. This is who he is.
Speaker 9: Can he be a little simpler on the campaign trail
Speaker 9: and speak in smaller sentences, Sure, but that's also what
Speaker 9: goes on with high IQ very smart people, as they
Speaker 9: often talk too much.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's the length of the sentences
Speaker 1: that's the problem here, Ryan that I think.
Speaker 9: That, Yeah, No, I think it is. I think that
Speaker 9: it's overly intellectualized ideas. I think he'll get better over time.
Speaker 9: And once again this race is won and lost by
Speaker 9: people who have went through his life experiences. There is
Speaker 9: no other candidate in this race of Marco Rubio did
Speaker 9: not have the life experience of knowing what the federal
Speaker 9: crisis was like, you know, the governor North Dakota de
Speaker 9: burgham I forgot his name, Ry Burton, did not have
Speaker 9: the leg life experiences. Kamwa Harris was living in Canada
Speaker 9: for portions of these things when she was being raised there,
Speaker 9: you know, before she came back to accuse Joe Biden
Speaker 9: of racism. This is different set of things. Jade Evans
Speaker 9: speaks to certain voter's life and they relate to him.
Speaker 9: And as much as everyone's talking about, you know, the
Speaker 9: the cat lady comments and all their stuff, the number
Speaker 9: one download a movie on Netflix all last week was
Speaker 9: Hillbilly Elogy. The number one book in the country was
Speaker 9: Hillbilly Elogy. People are genuinely interested in him. That is
Speaker 9: not being seen on Twitter all the time another audience.
Speaker 4: So it's his lived experience. In other words, Yeah.
Speaker 9: They always say that matters for for well, you know,
Speaker 9: BIPOC women, is their lived experience in matters from millennials too.
Speaker 2: I do want to get a reaction to this, Michael,
Speaker 2: because Ryan is correctly identifying, like if Correk Kamala wants
Speaker 2: to play to win, she's going for two hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy electoral votes, You're not going to go in some
Speaker 2: go big strategy. All the conversation before we get to
Speaker 2: the whole you know, Karen's for Harris, white dudes for Harris,
Speaker 2: and all of that is I think correctly identifying that
Speaker 2: you actually do need to win the white, white men
Speaker 2: and female vote at the same margin as he did
Speaker 2: last time. So then in the VP direction for Kamala,
Speaker 2: which way do you think she's going to go? Is
Speaker 2: it one that you know, as you said, tries to
Speaker 2: excite you know, younger or Latino or black voters, which
Speaker 2: obviously would be nice to have, but you really need
Speaker 2: white male voters in the Rust belt.
Speaker 3: How do you think she's going to think about it
Speaker 3: in this context?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think she's going to try to drive up
Speaker 6: some support among college educated men, but I think she's
Speaker 6: really going to try to drive up support among suburban women,
Speaker 6: among young women, young educated women, you know, and you know,
Speaker 6: anecdotally to the cat lady comment.
Speaker 8: I talk to a lot of friends who have struggle
Speaker 8: to have kids.
Speaker 6: My wife and I, you know, we want to have
Speaker 6: a family one day and we don't yet. And one
Speaker 6: of the things that really hit with that comment was
Speaker 6: just kind of the meanness of it, because really it's
Speaker 6: hard to have kids.
Speaker 8: It's expensive.
Speaker 6: There's you know, if you go through IVF that's thirty
Speaker 6: forty thousand dollars, and so when you talk down to
Speaker 6: a lot of these people and their struggles, I think
Speaker 6: that really could resonate among especially like suburban families, young
Speaker 6: families who are trying to get started, who already are
Speaker 6: having trouble buying new homes and now they're trying to
Speaker 6: start families late in life, and they see people like JD.
Speaker 6: Vance criticize them. It's something that among my wife and
Speaker 6: her friends, it's been a really big inflection point. So
Speaker 6: I think that's something some campaign should really worry about.
Speaker 2: That's possible, But it was not like your wife was
Speaker 2: ever going to vote for Trump anyways. So Ryan, that's
Speaker 2: any final thoughts I think from you, sir, just on
Speaker 2: this general dynamic as it continues, and where you see
Speaker 2: that competition in the rush bell and with Kamala and
Speaker 2: her VP pick that she might go in that direction.
Speaker 9: You know, I've heard all the names of everyone else,
Speaker 9: heard Shapiro, Kelly. I probably would say my guess, and
Speaker 9: I don't have much insight, but I think it's probably
Speaker 9: be Kelly if I had a guess, but Shapiro. You know,
Speaker 9: Shapiro has been making a fight for it. Kelly's been
Speaker 9: spending a lot of money for it. So we'll see,
Speaker 9: and it's going to come down to, you know, those
Speaker 9: major three swing states. I have not seen any evidence
Speaker 9: that the russ Belts and the sun Belts in serious
Speaker 9: play outside of where it's been, and you know, we'll see.
Speaker 9: We'll see a lot of people, a lot of people
Speaker 9: from a political activist wanting to register a new house
Speaker 9: in Pennsylvania over the next couple of months.
Speaker 1: Michael, I want to get your reaction to these affinity
Speaker 1: groups that have sort of gone well. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: political affinity groups. This is like oldest politics, right, But
Speaker 1: so first we had a huge organizing call that was
Speaker 1: like black women for Kamala. Then it was black men
Speaker 1: for Kamala, then we had other minority groups, and then
Speaker 1: we went all in with the affectionately named Karens for
Speaker 1: Kamala and the white Dudes for Kamala.
Speaker 4: Let's take a.
Speaker 1: Look at a little bit of the content that is
Speaker 1: being created out of the Karens for Kamala. Zoom call
Speaker 1: Aeriel Fodar, affectionately known as missus Frazzle to her combined
Speaker 1: audience of over one point five million followers.
Speaker 4: Is here to help gentle parents us through the selection.
Speaker 12: I'm going to share some dos and don't for getting
Speaker 12: involved in politics online and navigating the toxicity that comes
Speaker 12: with it. And spoiler alert, as much as the toxicity
Speaker 12: can come from the outside, it can come from us too.
Speaker 12: So first, don't isolate yourself. We can do our best
Speaker 12: work when we're in community together like we are tonight,
Speaker 12: because the toxic feels smaller when we support each other.
Speaker 12: But don't make it about yourself. As white women, we
Speaker 12: need to use our privilege to make positive changes. If
Speaker 12: you find yourself talking over or speaking for bipop individuals,
Speaker 12: or god forbid, correcting them, just take a beat and
Speaker 12: instead we can put our listening ears on. So do
Speaker 12: learn from and amplify the voices of those who have
Speaker 12: been historically marginalized and use the privilege you have in
Speaker 12: order to push for systemic change. As white people, we
Speaker 12: have a lot to learn and unlearn. So do check
Speaker 12: your blind spots. You are responsible for your algorithm.
Speaker 1: So, Michael, I personally find this woman too, as a
Speaker 1: white woman, as a member of the white woman community,
Speaker 1: I find this wim to be extremely irritating and all footing.
Speaker 1: But more I you know, when you start having white
Speaker 1: identity affinity groups, I get really uncomfortable and I wonder
Speaker 1: what your reaction is, Michael.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean innately, it makes you a little nervous.
Speaker 6: You know, you get a white guy call, you wonder
Speaker 6: whether it's going to end up like Charlottesville.
Speaker 8: But you know, I think this is how, if it's
Speaker 8: going to happen, how you want it to happen.
Speaker 6: I'm not afraid necessarily of you know, the white guy call.
Speaker 1: In the r But but Michael, what if it's the
Speaker 1: white guys for Trump call?
Speaker 4: Then how do you feel about it?
Speaker 6: Yeah, it makes me nervous because of what has happened
Speaker 6: when white men congregate around Trump in and of themselves.
Speaker 6: I'm not worried about a bunch of bunch of white
Speaker 6: guys together.
Speaker 8: That's just called a fraternity.
Speaker 6: But we put it together around Trump, then other things
Speaker 6: start to happen.
Speaker 8: So, you know, I think there's got to be context
Speaker 8: to it.
Speaker 3: Ran.
Speaker 2: I know you're running low on time, so I want
Speaker 2: to get your reaction because I actually saw you not
Speaker 2: defend per se, but you were like, hey, it's actually
Speaker 2: smart to reach out for white people.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of white people in this country.
Speaker 10: You vote so great.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The real question is is should Trump just have white
Speaker 2: guys for Trump, white women for Trump, and all of
Speaker 2: those calls, because clearly.
Speaker 3: You can raise a hell of a lot of money
Speaker 3: whenever you do a phone.
Speaker 8: Call like this.
Speaker 9: I would have given someone everything I bound bank account.
Speaker 9: After she was done talking, they said, man, this is
Speaker 9: a Wendy's I love so in Yeah, I watched white
Speaker 9: Guys for Trump call and the one interesting thing was
Speaker 9: they said, what policies is Biden and Champion that are
Speaker 9: positive for white men. That's actually a really important question,
Speaker 9: one that people.
Speaker 10: Are not allowed to talk about. And I think.
Speaker 9: That the I really think that there is a new
Speaker 9: door that has been opened in politics because of this.
Speaker 9: We're going to talk about what are the interests of
Speaker 9: white people in this country, and white voters in this country,
Speaker 9: by the way, which overlap with many many other people.
Speaker 9: It's a white exclusive policy, but there are a lot
Speaker 9: two hundred million white people in this country and no
Speaker 9: one has ever one asked for their vote and two
Speaker 9: specifically asked for their vote and to talk about policies
Speaker 9: that work in their benefit. We kind of, you know,
Speaker 9: have comments like suburban women, white blue blue collar worker,
Speaker 9: which just means a white person of a certain income level.
Speaker 9: But I think that it is I think that it's
Speaker 9: a really important conversation because there's millions of people. The
Speaker 9: reason Trump became president twenty sixteen was speaking towards people
Speaker 9: who felt marginalized and invisible.
Speaker 10: And maybe this is the very.
Speaker 9: First step, maybe not these calls, but the very first
Speaker 9: up to having a conversation to how to reach out
Speaker 9: to help the lives of people who feel marginalized and invisible.
Speaker 1: I mean, as a class first leftist, I find that
Speaker 1: I don't support that way of looking at things. Michael,
Speaker 1: I wonder if you feel that we need to do
Speaker 1: more to spend more time thinking about what would be good,
Speaker 1: specifically for white Americans.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, look, rising tide lifts all boats. So
Speaker 6: usually what helps white Americans should to some degree help
Speaker 6: other people. But that hasn't been historically true, and so
Speaker 6: I think, yeah, focusing a lot of attention on what's
Speaker 6: going to help white America is that's just the norm.
Speaker 6: So I think allocating our time towards making sure that groups,
Speaker 6: minority groups, subgroups are being lifted up is really the focus.
Speaker 6: But I do think you do have a little bit
Speaker 6: of a point in terms of party. The Democratic Party
Speaker 6: has to be better at talking to white men because
Speaker 6: as much as I talk to Democrats, when I talk
Speaker 6: to kind of independent in right leaning men, they do
Speaker 6: feel like they're being left out of a lot of
Speaker 6: the conversation. And whether that's right or not, it's how
Speaker 6: they feel, and so it's.
Speaker 8: To be addressed.
Speaker 2: That's my last question actually for Ryan, which is there
Speaker 2: has been a long obsession in Republican politics about increasing
Speaker 2: minority vote share. Obviously this would change things in a
Speaker 2: different direction. Do you think then that because of the
Speaker 2: recognition amongst the Trump campaign, are they going to continue
Speaker 2: to try and go down the Blacks for Trump, Latinos
Speaker 2: for Trump lane which very rarely, if ever, actually materializes,
Speaker 2: or is it going to come down to the recognition
Speaker 2: of As you just said, all we have to do
Speaker 2: is take Kamala's white male percentage from seventeen to fifteen,
Speaker 2: and she's going to lose the entire election. How do
Speaker 2: you think they're thinking about it internally?
Speaker 9: You know, from what I've heard is obviously they're looking
Speaker 9: to double down on Hispanic growth that happened in twenty
Speaker 9: twenty and black growth that happened in twenty twenty.
Speaker 10: But that being said, the election is about white voters.
Speaker 9: White voters in the Midwest and the Roust Belt are
Speaker 9: the most important group people selection, and you know as
Speaker 9: the whole you know, rising tie lifts all boat. That's true,
Speaker 9: But there are certain problems that are specific to the
Speaker 9: black community.
Speaker 10: There are certain problems that are specific to the white community.
Speaker 9: We have a suicide epidemic among middle aged white men that.
Speaker 10: Is very specific to their group.
Speaker 9: We have had a feedanol crisis, We've had a de
Speaker 9: industrialization crisis, We've had a rural America a crisis in
Speaker 9: rural America that has certainly affected them differently. We have
Speaker 9: a suicide crisis among white teenagers that is differently than
Speaker 9: among like the homicide crisis among black teenagers.
Speaker 10: These are just different things. It's not wrong to talk
Speaker 10: about them, to them.
Speaker 9: About how to make their lives better, about what's affecting them.
Speaker 9: Talk about reducing crime and proving an economy. Yeah, that
Speaker 9: helps everybody, But speaking specifically to the things that are
Speaker 9: affecting them where they live, that's something that people haven't done.
Speaker 9: That Trump did pretty well in twenty sixteen. That I
Speaker 9: hope jd Vance and Trump do this time around.
Speaker 1: If memory serves correctly, the one demographic group that Democrats
Speaker 1: actually improve their perform ormans on in twenty twenty was
Speaker 1: white men. Sure, so I guess the Democrats are doing
Speaker 1: something right with regards to this group. Gentlemen, great to
Speaker 1: see you both. I really appreciate both your perspectives.
Speaker 3: It was very much both. It really was was fun.
Speaker 8: Thanks Thank you.
Speaker 2: President Biden has decided to give us proof of life
Speaker 2: and that he does in fact exists. He's decided to
Speaker 2: unveil a new Supreme Court proposal. He did it yesterday
Speaker 2: at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas.
Speaker 3: It was replete all not only.
Speaker 2: With the policy proposal, but with several old man moments,
Speaker 2: and so we will give it to you in all
Speaker 2: its glory.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 13: I'm calling for a constant amendment call no one is
Speaker 13: above the law amendment the whole. I mean it sincerely.
Speaker 5: It holds no.
Speaker 13: Immunity for crimes former president committed while in office. The
Speaker 13: second thing I'm asking for. We've got term le of
Speaker 13: us or presidents in the United States fly seventy five,
Speaker 13: five years after the Truman administration, and I believe we
Speaker 13: should have term lefics of Supreme Court justice in the
Speaker 13: United States as well. Supreme Court's current at this code
Speaker 13: is weak and even more frightening voluntary voluntary. Any code
Speaker 13: of Congress must be enforceable. Under reform, I proposed, justice
Speaker 13: would be required to disclose gifts, refrained from public political activity,
Speaker 13: recuse themselves in the case in which they have they
Speaker 13: are the spouse that have a financial or other conflict
Speaker 13: of interest. Most people don't realize that Congress passed the
Speaker 13: law decades ago that says all federal judges, including Supreme
Speaker 13: Court justices, have to recuse themselves in such cases. But
Speaker 13: the current justices insist on unfortunate not requiring themselves without
Speaker 13: any public oversight or composers.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what we can learn not only from the
Speaker 2: speech itself, which by the way, didn't even include some
Speaker 2: of the best tangents in others, it was truly something
Speaker 2: of a performance is obviously Biden is trying to use
Speaker 2: here the mantle of the presidency in his outgoing presidency
Speaker 2: to help elevate some of the best issues for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has been a major flashpoint in the election,
Speaker 2: especially over both Row versus Wade, but also the Trump
Speaker 2: immunity case and several other decisions that have come down
Speaker 2: as of late. Let's put this up there on the screen, Biden, well,
Speaker 2: at least somebody in the White House laid some of
Speaker 2: the details out here in a Washington postop ed. It
Speaker 2: basically comes down to this. First is a constitutional amendment
Speaker 2: called the quote no one is above the Law amendment.
Speaker 2: It would make clear that there is no immunity for
Speaker 2: crimes that a foreign president can be committed while in office.
Speaker 2: Second would be a term limit for presidents for nearly
Speaker 2: seventy five years. We should have the same for Supreme
Speaker 2: Court justices. So I believe he supports an eighteen year
Speaker 2: active service term limit on the Supreme Court. The third
Speaker 2: is quote, a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: The Court's current voluntary ethics code is weak and self enforced.
Speaker 2: Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity,
Speaker 2: recruse themselves from cases in which their spouses is a
Speaker 2: financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge
Speaker 2: is bound by this code of conduct. There's no reason
Speaker 2: for the Supreme Court to be exempt. So obviously, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it could have been you know, very very different. You know,
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of leftists and other people on
Speaker 2: the right who've been very worried or so people on
Speaker 2: the right worried about leftist calls to pack the court
Speaker 2: and restructure the court and all that. I would say
Speaker 2: this is a relatively middle of the road from the
Speaker 2: Democrat you know, in the mindset of the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: and their like approach to the Court. I don't think
Speaker 2: it was any surprise then that Kamala Harris immediately endorsed it.
Speaker 2: But this is an effort to try and get the
Speaker 2: Court on the mind of Americans, especially, you know, in
Speaker 2: the context of Roe versus Way. And I think it
Speaker 2: was interesting too culturally where people were like wishy about
Speaker 2: this Supreme Court, but I don't think people had particularly
Speaker 2: strong feelings. But Roe really significantly elevated the issue, specifically
Speaker 2: for the Democratic base, to a level that has not
Speaker 2: been in quite a long time, on top of a
Speaker 2: lot of the Clarence Thomas you know investigation, plus just
Speaker 2: in general, I think a lot of Democrats are grappling
Speaker 2: with what those lifetime appointments look like in practice. RBG
Speaker 2: Obviously her narcissism literally led to a Republican having the
Speaker 2: ability to appoint her seat. Currently we have the diabetic
Speaker 2: Sonya Soda myowor who's just refusing to step down for
Speaker 2: god knows what reason right, And all of these I
Speaker 2: think are combining of the salience of the court and
Speaker 2: a lack of deference at this point, especially with Biden
Speaker 2: stepping down to the elderly political elite refusing to give
Speaker 2: up power. So all those things coming together, it's a
Speaker 2: relatively strong position for Kamala to be on, and it's
Speaker 2: one of using the Office of the Presidency here to
Speaker 2: try and bolster the Harris campaign.
Speaker 4: Yeah no, that's right.
Speaker 1: I mean it's a win win win from their perspective
Speaker 1: the issues they're talking about here. I haven't seen polling
Speaker 1: specifically on a constitutional amendment, which is obviously like the
Speaker 1: furthest reaching of these, and almost you know, impossible to
Speaker 1: imagine they're ever being a prayer of getting something like
Speaker 1: that since it does have to require a constitutional amendment through.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the polling on termlaments and the
Speaker 1: polling on a code of ethics, we're talking seventy and
Speaker 1: seventy five percent support, like it is as bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: as you can possibly imagine. Because of course, there should
Speaker 1: be a code of ethics for the.
Speaker 4: Freaking Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Most Americans would probably be shocked to learn that there
Speaker 1: isn't one. All other federal judges are subject to some
Speaker 1: sort of ethical code, So you know, these are kind
Speaker 1: of like no brainers in terms of political issues. So
Speaker 1: there's a few goals here. As Hagar rightly points out,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has become deeply salient to the Democratic base,
Speaker 1: in particular in a way that it has always been
Speaker 1: very salient to the Republican conservative base. It's typically been
Speaker 1: Republicans who have been more interested in voting on Supreme
Speaker 1: Court appointments in Supreme Court politics.
Speaker 4: Now you have sort of the.
Speaker 1: Shoe on the other foot, with Democrats being deeply interested
Speaker 1: and deeply invested in the Supreme Court, so it raises
Speaker 1: the saliens of the issue there. It also puts Republicans
Speaker 1: in a tough spot because who wants to be the
Speaker 1: one out there being like, no, I don't believe in
Speaker 1: the code of Ethics that seventy five percent of the
Speaker 1: country is like, of course they should have. So, you know,
Speaker 1: is it a game changer in terms of the political landscape. No,
Speaker 1: but it's part of a series of actions that Democrats
Speaker 1: are taking to try to make it clear that they
Speaker 1: stand on the side of issues that are broadly popular
Speaker 1: and put Republicans on defense having to defend positions that
Speaker 1: are broadly unpopular. Another example of this, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw this, but the Senate is going to
Speaker 1: take up a vote on the child tax Credit, which
Speaker 1: again is an issue. You know, child tax credit has
Speaker 1: seventy percent support according to recent polls, and Democrats are
Speaker 1: almost wholly on the side of it, and Republicans are
Speaker 1: almost with very few exceptions, on the other side. So
Speaker 1: they're trying to push this legislation and put these policy
Speaker 1: proposals out there that they support that we're publicans don't
Speaker 1: support where the numbers are in their favor, and to
Speaker 1: frame the debate that way.
Speaker 2: They're trying their best, and they're basically you know, look,
Speaker 2: I think these are all probably the correct moves if
Speaker 2: I were them.
Speaker 3: That's basically the ground that I would play on too.
Speaker 2: That that interesting nearly enough, actually that one, the child
Speaker 2: tax credit thing that they're talking about is combined with
Speaker 2: a business tax credit of some eighty billion dollars, and
Speaker 2: those two things actually past the House of Representatives with
Speaker 2: decent enough support I'm talking about, you know.
Speaker 3: With Republican support.
Speaker 2: So the fact that it's going to get voted down,
Speaker 2: this is a major issue where you have a lot
Speaker 2: of these guys like John Cornyn and Mike Crapo and
Speaker 2: others have been whipping against the bill. And the truth
Speaker 2: is is that a lot of them, you know, even
Speaker 2: though they do in principle support a lot of these
Speaker 2: business tax credits, they either quote, don't want to give
Speaker 2: Biden the win, or these straight up you know, are
Speaker 2: against the child tax credit. I believe Josh Holly said
Speaker 2: he would vote for it. I'm actually curious if Vance
Speaker 2: will make the vote, and what if he will attend
Speaker 2: the vote and if he will pass it, which would
Speaker 2: compare with some of the discussion that we'll have later today.
Speaker 2: But yeah, this is one where I'm not quite sure
Speaker 2: how much it is all going to work though, And
Speaker 2: this is only because unfortunately the issues have not been
Speaker 2: central so this campaign as so yet. Now it possibly
Speaker 2: could be you know, certainly abortion immigration, the two flashpoints
Speaker 2: that the two want to really focus on. The Supreme
Speaker 2: Court Code of Ethics and all that is a proxy
Speaker 2: fight on abortion wife. I think it's probably going to
Speaker 2: be a little bit more salient. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: you know, whenever we think about how Kamala and how
Speaker 2: the campaign is prosecuting themselves right now from what we've
Speaker 2: seen so far, Kamala's two ads, and I believe there
Speaker 2: was another one this morning that I watch, it's about
Speaker 2: her personal story, it's about you know, the freedom, very
Speaker 2: vague concepts saying two. Whenever I've watched the first two
Speaker 2: Trump ads that have come out now against Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: most of them are just like two liberal and or
Speaker 2: you know, open border, pretty classic attacks, and I expect
Speaker 2: them to stick with that, you know, basically throughout the campaign.
Speaker 2: But nonetheless, this is an effort by both Biden and
Speaker 2: Schumer to do everything that they can to bolster democratic chances.
Speaker 2: I guess we should and we should say this too.
Speaker 2: This is an effort by Schumer because he's not just
Speaker 2: thinking about the Republic the president. He's thinking about his
Speaker 2: own senators who are up in twenty twenty four. So
Speaker 2: he's got Shared Brown defending, people like John Tester defending
Speaker 2: and others in a tight spot, and he's trying to
Speaker 2: tee up votes for them to go home and to campaign.
Speaker 3: On and to say why that they should get elected.
Speaker 2: So, you know, possibly could help somebody like Shared Brown
Speaker 2: is in a tough race in Ohio, help John Tester
Speaker 2: as well as in very very tough race in Montana.
Speaker 3: So those are some of the calculus I think behind
Speaker 3: all this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we may have. Trump did respond to
Speaker 1: some of this in a statement. The Trump campaign accused
Speaker 1: them of wanting to undermine the legitimacy of the court.
Speaker 1: They said it's all part of Kamala's scheme to pack
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court with far left, radical judges who will
Speaker 1: render decisions based on politics, not the law.
Speaker 4: So this is the stance that they're taking.
Speaker 1: But you know the fact that again these reforms are
Speaker 1: like really moderate and really popular, it just puts them
Speaker 1: in a tough bind have to sort of mischaracterize and
Speaker 1: claim that this is an effort to pack the court.
Speaker 1: It's not court packing, it's termolam. It's very very different
Speaker 1: scenario and something that Americans broadly support.
Speaker 4: So it's an effort to put them on the.
Speaker 1: Back foot, to have them have to deal with issues
Speaker 1: that are outside of their comfort zone. You know, obviously,
Speaker 1: Republicans want the election to be primarily about immigration and
Speaker 1: about inflation, so when they're having to defend things like,
Speaker 1: you know, the Supreme Court not having a code of conduct,
Speaker 1: it's less than ideal for them ultimately. But you know,
Speaker 1: do I think most Americans, even given the raised salience
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court for anyone left of center, given
Speaker 1: Roe versus Way, do I think most Americans are going
Speaker 1: into the ballot box thinking about like a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: code of ethics? No, does it help contribute to an
Speaker 1: overall picture of you know, these people are for things
Speaker 1: that you don't support, and they're on the fringe minority
Speaker 1: in terms of their views and the things that they
Speaker 1: support and defend. Yeah, it could help contribute to that picture.
Speaker 1: It'll also be interesting if you, you know, if they
Speaker 1: do come these issues do come up for a vote
Speaker 1: in the Senate, if there are any Republicans who feel
Speaker 1: pressured to vote yes on something like you know, of
Speaker 1: conduct Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices, because that
Speaker 1: just feels like such common sense.
Speaker 3: Believe that's already gone down. I'm trying to remember. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: here it is. So I found Leonard Leo.
Speaker 2: He's the chairman of the Federalist Society, so very influential
Speaker 2: in circle.
Speaker 3: So he put out a statement.
Speaker 2: He said, if President Biden and Democrats were truly serious
Speaker 2: about ethics reform, they would ban all gifts and hospitality
Speaker 2: of any kind to any public official in any branch
Speaker 2: of government, starting with Congress, where the real corruption is.
Speaker 2: They would close all of the loopholes that allow members
Speaker 2: to travel on private jets to fancy hotels and restaurants.
Speaker 2: With respect to judges, they would include the things where
Speaker 2: influence pedaling is most present and dangerous, when liberal justices
Speaker 2: rubbed shoulders with influencers.
Speaker 3: At places at law schools.
Speaker 4: He would know.
Speaker 2: He would know and other Here's the funny thing. I
Speaker 2: totally agree with this. You know, it's no worries. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying I agree with the criticism, but I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I agree, dude, let's do it.
Speaker 3: You know, it's one of those where I actually.
Speaker 1: Want But he's one of the people who's like primarily
Speaker 1: responsible for putting together those influencers of billionaires with conservative justices.
Speaker 1: So again, it's lines of what he speaks.
Speaker 2: It's a Biparsan phenomenon, as Sodoma or Kagan and all
Speaker 2: of those can show you.
Speaker 3: But no, you're not wrong.
Speaker 2: One of the things I would say, one white pill
Speaker 2: I want everybody to take is that it does look
Speaker 2: like some congressional stock trading legislation will be reported favorably
Speaker 2: out of a bipartisan committee in the Senate. And it's
Speaker 2: possible that Schumer could actually tee that up to try
Speaker 2: and give Democrats and or Kamala Harris some talking points
Speaker 2: going into both the Democratic senators trying to defend on
Speaker 2: corruption occasions and there so we could have actually some
Speaker 2: at the very least stock trading you know, legislation go through.
Speaker 2: But you know, one of the things he is empirically
Speaker 2: correct about here, not saying he may even be sincere.
Speaker 2: But is that the amount of loopholes as we all
Speaker 2: find out with the Menendez trial, we have to put
Speaker 2: this man on trial twice and needs to straight up
Speaker 2: take gold bars, you know, from somebody to be convicted
Speaker 2: of bribery. The bars set way too high.
Speaker 4: The gold bars, Yeah, the gold bars.
Speaker 2: Are way too or way too heavy to try and
Speaker 2: convict a lot of these people. It is ridiculous, you know,
Speaker 2: the amount that they are able to get away with.
Speaker 2: We did find that out too with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: And it is the most difficult part, I think is
Speaker 2: that you have the federal judges who already have to
Speaker 2: comply with those ethics codes. And I remember there was
Speaker 2: a story we did many years ago, it might have
Speaker 2: even been on Rising, and it showed about how federal
Speaker 2: judges often even did not comply with that code of ethics.
Speaker 2: But it's only because of the code that we got
Speaker 2: some insight into their personal stock trading portfolios, and there
Speaker 2: were many instances where they actually were ruling in the
Speaker 2: favor of companies that they personally held stock in. Now
Speaker 2: it's only because of the legislation itself that we even
Speaker 2: got insight into that. We don't have the same level
Speaker 2: of insight into the personal finances of the rest of
Speaker 2: these people. And I do think that is bad because
Speaker 2: sometimes we do learn certain things like soda myo or
Speaker 2: getting X amount of money for speaking fees or books
Speaker 2: and all that, and like, I don't think that should
Speaker 2: be allowed period. You and I both know anybody who's prominent,
Speaker 2: you know, speaking fees are bs like is pure influence peddling.
Speaker 2: It's just whitewash, you know, money. It's one of them.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying they're republic I'm sure Alito, you know
Speaker 2: Scolio all these other people took advantage saying even with books,
Speaker 2: the book loophole is one of the tried and true
Speaker 2: ways that these politicians make millions of dollars while they're
Speaker 2: still in office. And all of those are just it's
Speaker 2: just unseemly, you know, the way they use their power
Speaker 2: to amass great fortunes.
Speaker 1: Well, and it was like less of a news story,
Speaker 1: and it became less front and center in the American
Speaker 1: mind when it was just those things would sadly have
Speaker 1: become sort of like accepted forms of corruption, the book parties,
Speaker 1: the speaking fees, all of those sorts of things. It
Speaker 1: really was the pro public of reporting about Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: taking it to another level that made.
Speaker 4: This so salient.
Speaker 1: I mean, just completely sponsored effectively by a billionaire Harlan Grow,
Speaker 1: you know, having.
Speaker 4: His mother's house paid for and.
Speaker 1: Getting a loan that we don't alone that we don't
Speaker 1: know that he ever paid back for extremely expensive RV
Speaker 1: going on these lavish vacations, including private jet travel to
Speaker 1: these exclusive locations repeatedly by the way. That made people
Speaker 1: go like, what the hell is going on here? And
Speaker 1: ask these questions about, Okay, what is the standard? What
Speaker 1: is the code of conduct? And you come to learn
Speaker 1: there isn't one, at least not one that's enforceable in any.
Speaker 4: Sort of way.
Speaker 1: It's just sort of every justice makes up the rules
Speaker 1: for themselves. That made this a relevant issue. But you
Speaker 1: brought up an important point about Bob Menendez and the
Speaker 1: gold bar standard of corruption. It's a Supreme Court that
Speaker 1: has narrowed the definition of what counts as corruption. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's wild conjecture to suggest that
Speaker 1: perhaps the reason that they saw fit to narrow that
Speaker 1: definition of corruption is because they themselves are open to
Speaker 1: potential allegations of corruption given, you know, depending on the
Speaker 1: definition thereof. So it was in their personal interest to
Speaker 1: make it so that corruption basically doesn't exist unless you
Speaker 1: literally are in the position of taking gold bars for
Speaker 1: an immediate exchange of a business deal or.
Speaker 4: Favor or whatever it is. This a lot of this.
Speaker 1: Goes back to the case against Bob McDonald, former governor
Speaker 1: of Virginia, who is taking all kinds of gifts and luxury,
Speaker 1: this luxury that in exchange it appeared for if business
Speaker 1: deals in the state of Virginia during the time that
Speaker 1: he was governor. He was convicted and then is overturned
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court, and that was a significant narrowing
Speaker 1: of the definition of corruption. There was another case recently
Speaker 1: with regard to some Andrew Cuomo aids in New York
Speaker 1: just to show you this is bipartisan exemptions for corruption
Speaker 1: all around, where because they had technically resigned their government
Speaker 1: positions when they delivered on the quid pro quo, they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't count. It's not corruption because you weren't technically
Speaker 1: in that position, even though you went back to the
Speaker 1: position after you engage in the quid pro quo. So
Speaker 1: you know, this is just all to say, it's not
Speaker 1: just about the conduct of these individuals.
Speaker 4: It's also the way that.
Speaker 1: This can have downstream effects on the decisions that they make,
Speaker 1: defining corruption for all branches of government. To go back
Speaker 1: to the Leonard Leo point about how, hey, this isn't
Speaker 1: just about the judiciary. True, true, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that there are real problems with the judiciary to be
Speaker 1: dealt with.
Speaker 4: So that's the deal.
Speaker 1: The last thing I have to say about this is
Speaker 1: just going back to the Biden speech, like how happy
Speaker 1: are Democrats that this guy is not their standard bear?
Speaker 2: Guys don't like the stories he was telling. It was
Speaker 2: an hour and something long speech, and it was that
Speaker 2: part was probably the most COVID that it got.
Speaker 1: And like, how insane is it that there was anyone
Speaker 1: that what two weeks ago was Oh he's Sharpa's attack.
Speaker 1: I don't know, he's got to stay in there. He's amazing,
Speaker 1: he's gonna win my thirteen keys say he's gonna win
Speaker 1: the tres.
Speaker 3: Like watching it, I was so shocked.
Speaker 2: I mean I still and look, it's funny, but it's
Speaker 2: not funny because at the same time we got a
Speaker 2: whole Israel block. You know, we're talking about Israel Hesbola
Speaker 2: that we talked about yesterday. I am terrified of this
Speaker 2: man in White House and the situation we have months
Speaker 2: left to go and in his speed, you know, all
Speaker 2: of his dealings. You really look the memes where everyone's like,
Speaker 2: who's running the White House and all of that, it's
Speaker 2: all true. I mean, seriously, who is even running the
Speaker 2: Israel Palestine policy portfolio? Is it just these random bureaucrats
Speaker 2: who we know Amos hostein now.
Speaker 3: I don't know anything about Amos Hoxney.
Speaker 2: I do this for a living and I've tried my
Speaker 2: best to learn a little bit about him or Jake
Speaker 2: Sullivan failed track record, blink and failed track record, all
Speaker 2: of these other people. It's outrageous, it really is. It's scary,
Speaker 2: you know, watching him up there. So look, I'm glad
Speaker 2: he's going away, but I'm not glass.
Speaker 4: That's not soon enough.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, gave you a little glimpse into why
Speaker 1: literally ninety percent of Americans are like, thank goodness, this
Speaker 1: guy is not running for reelection again. It's very unim
Speaker 1: fine moment for the country, but also should go back
Speaker 1: and look at the people who were doing though. He's
Speaker 1: sharp as attack and all the media is unfairly attacking him,
Speaker 1: and you know, oh, and it'll be illegal to take
Speaker 1: him off the ballot, and there'll be all these legal
Speaker 1: challenges and you literally can't even do it. Never trust
Speaker 1: a word those people tell you again, because the very
Speaker 1: same people the next day were like, Oh, we're so
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's amazing, the fort stepping down, and we love
Speaker 1: Kamala Harrison, We're so happy, without a second of reflection
Speaker 1: on how wrong they were and how much they were
Speaker 1: lying in gaslighting in service of this obviously obvious like
Speaker 1: man who was obviously unfit to serve even right now today,
Speaker 1: let alone four years from now.
Speaker 4: So anyway, yes, all.
Speaker 3: Right, let's get to the next part.
Speaker 2: Some really troubling information now about further holes in the
Speaker 2: secret services narrative of what happened in the attempted assassination
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump. New text messages who've been obtained by
Speaker 2: The New York Times revealed that local pol we're tracking
Speaker 2: the gunman some one point five hours ahead of the
Speaker 2: attempted assassination. Let's put this up there on the screen
Speaker 2: so you can actually see through a variety of these
Speaker 2: text message screenshots say quote you have this one gentleman.
Speaker 2: At four twenty six pm, he says, someone followed our
Speaker 2: lead and snuck in parked by our cars.
Speaker 3: Just so you know.
Speaker 2: I'm letting you know because you see me go out
Speaker 2: with my rifle put it in my car, so he
Speaker 2: knows you guys are up there. He's sitting to the
Speaker 2: direct right on a picnic table about fifty yards from
Speaker 2: the exit roger that two people respond. Then at five
Speaker 2: point thirty eight pm, two photos of the gunmen are
Speaker 2: sent by one of these individuals.
Speaker 3: He continues kid.
Speaker 2: Leaning learning about around building. We are in AGR. I
Speaker 2: believe is I did see him with a rangefinder looking
Speaker 2: towards stage. FYI if you want to notify SS snipers
Speaker 2: to look out, I lost sight of him. Also a
Speaker 2: bike with a backpack sitting next to it in the
Speaker 2: rear of the building that was not seen earlier. All
Speaker 2: into command and have a uniform check it out. So
Speaker 2: they were following this young man for basically the entire time,
Speaker 2: ahead all of his movements. Five ten pm, the young
Speaker 2: man no longer at the pickmic table, he's right below
Speaker 2: the counter snipers. Counter sniper takes photos of him, sends
Speaker 2: it to law enforcement for the app and then according
Speaker 2: to the after action report, they see that all of
Speaker 2: these text messages which are from these local police are
Speaker 2: shared in the group chat amongst the officers they need
Speaker 2: to inform the Secret Service they're giving him a heads up.
Speaker 2: Then by six eleven PM, that's shortly after the shots
Speaker 2: are fired and the gunman is killed by the Secret
Speaker 2: Service counter snipers. But they see how in the hours
Speaker 2: ahead of the assassination that they were identified, that the
Speaker 2: gunman was identified both by the local police, that he was,
Speaker 2: that they not only were tracking, that he had a rangefinder,
Speaker 2: that he knew exactly where the gunman or the counter
Speaker 2: snipers were, that they were sending heads up. And then
Speaker 2: it highlights the communications breakdown that we talked about yesterday,
Speaker 2: a decade long communication failure between local police and Secret
Speaker 2: Service that gets out into the open. What we really
Speaker 2: see here is that the Secret Service attempt to throw
Speaker 2: the local cops under the bus.
Speaker 3: I think is shameful now with the revelation of this.
Speaker 2: They were doing their job, they were tracking this person,
Speaker 2: they were trying to give a heads up to the
Speaker 2: higher command. They clearly were trying to plug the holes
Speaker 2: in the perimeter. They had good situational awareness, and it
Speaker 2: was the communications breakdown, obviously, the failure itself from Secret
Speaker 2: Service that allowed something like this to happen. And clearly,
Speaker 2: I mean, the other problem is too, it's raising a
Speaker 2: lot of conspiracy theories, maybe even legitimate ones who are like, okay, seriously,
Speaker 2: like what's happening here? How is this even allowed to happen?
Speaker 2: It was this an inside job? Like at a certain
Speaker 2: point you have to ask like crazy questions. Where are
Speaker 2: they just obtuse and not learning the information at all?
Speaker 2: Did a radio call never go out? Was there really
Speaker 2: not a single calm check between the local police and others,
Speaker 2: especially if he tells them call it into the higher command.
Speaker 2: They were doing everything that they were supposed to do,
Speaker 2: remaining aware, seeing where people were notifying their higher ups
Speaker 2: and each other. It seems that the counter snipers themselves
Speaker 2: didn't even know about it, and the Secret Service agents
Speaker 2: ultimately allowing Trump to go out on the stage. Remember,
Speaker 2: he's only shot some five minutes after he goes out there,
Speaker 2: so they should never have let him out on the stage.
Speaker 4: In the first no doubt about it, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And I mean part of what is soo revealing here
Speaker 1: is the fact that they had eyes on this guy
Speaker 1: and knew there was a problem an hour and a
Speaker 1: half right before Trump takes the stage, and yet there
Speaker 1: and they know, hey we saw him with the range fighter,
Speaker 1: Hey I lost sight of him. And still nothing is done.
Speaker 1: Still Trump is allowed to take the stage, and his local,
Speaker 1: the Secret Service detail that we're on him, were claiming like,
Speaker 1: we didn't have access to any of those communications, We
Speaker 1: had no idea. So what the hell is going on here?
Speaker 1: And when you read the TikTok of this, it really
Speaker 1: is astonishing because don't forget so apparently crooks went the
Speaker 1: day before to scope out the rally site and is
Speaker 1: able to walk around and take a look around. Then
Speaker 1: he was able to fly his drone over the rally
Speaker 1: side while law enforcement is there setting up and setting
Speaker 1: the perimeter and getting everything ready. How the hell does
Speaker 1: that happen? Then after he flies his drone around, that's
Speaker 1: when he finishes and sits at the picnic table. That's
Speaker 1: when he's spotted by this counter Snipery then walks to
Speaker 1: his car, left the drone inside the car and was
Speaker 1: then just hanging around the warehouse complex. So you this
Speaker 1: guy who flew a drone, who's lurking around with a rangefinder,
Speaker 1: who's identified and photographed. One of those photographs is one
Speaker 1: that circulated immediately afterwards. We had no idea that it
Speaker 1: was actually taken by law enforcement that day prior to
Speaker 1: the shooting, and all of this happens, and you get
Speaker 1: even to the point where he's on the roof, and
Speaker 1: you have local regular citizens yelling at Secret Service, yelling
Speaker 1: at law enforcement. There is a guy on the roof
Speaker 1: with a gun, and this still goes forward. So you know,
Speaker 1: seeing the TikTok of all these text messages and the
Speaker 1: manifest multi layered failure is quite astonishing. Another thing we
Speaker 1: learn we just learned, is that you know, these local
Speaker 1: police departments, they were struggling to fill the request for
Speaker 1: the manpower the Secret Service was asking for. You know,
Speaker 1: people had different obligations. This is not a large urban
Speaker 1: I actually know this part of the country pretty well,
Speaker 1: and this is not a large urban area, so they
Speaker 1: don't have, you know, a massive manpower, a massive police force.
Speaker 1: So if your Secret Service and your local partners are
Speaker 1: not able to fill all the roles, then that's on
Speaker 1: you to make sure that everything is secure, you know,
Speaker 1: and that the manpower needed is provided. So I agree
Speaker 1: with you that, well, there may have also been local
Speaker 1: law enforcement failures. Ultimately the buck stops with the Secret Service, like,
Speaker 1: this is your job, this is your duty, and clearly
Speaker 1: there was a massive failure here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, even more on the TikTok of the day is
Speaker 2: super interesting, Like it seems that the morning of he
Speaker 2: goes to home depot buys a ladder, so he has
Speaker 2: enough situational awareness of the site to know the ladder
Speaker 2: to get up there. Arrives, he apparently stays in his car,
Speaker 2: flies his drone, gets out, begins attracting attention. Now one
Speaker 2: hour before the first photo of him is taken at
Speaker 2: five fourteen pm, so that's exactly an hour before the shooting.
Speaker 2: Now people are like, hey, this guy knows where we are,
Speaker 2: he's acting sketchy, he knows where we're going. Then USTA's like, hey,
Speaker 2: this dude was saw him with a rangefinder. I mean
Speaker 2: basically at every single time, like all the way up
Speaker 2: till five thirty eight, there were probably three or four
Speaker 2: separate opportunities that he could have been stopped, both from
Speaker 2: the drone the day before. You also see that the
Speaker 2: Secret Service itself was aware of some serious issues in staffing.
Speaker 2: That's what you're referencing about how they had difficulty getting
Speaker 2: enough police officers to volunteer to take over the site.
Speaker 2: I mean, the real question, too, is about how some
Speaker 2: of his other past activity was never flagged or by
Speaker 2: law enforcement of any kind. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. What they show here is that the
Speaker 2: Trump shooter began quote buying guns and bomb materials more
Speaker 2: than a year ago. Now, this is part of why
Speaker 2: I get so frustrated whenever they they always talk about
Speaker 2: needing more resources afterwards, Was it not you know what
Speaker 2: some thirty years ago now almost that they blew up
Speaker 2: the Oklahoma City courthouse with fertilizer and lo and behold,
Speaker 2: that's the type of stuff that he's ordering online. Like
Speaker 2: allegedly that was supposed to trip you know, some signs
Speaker 2: and actually get people to come and to visit and
Speaker 2: to pay attention. But he apparently was able to search
Speaker 2: online pretty repeatedly. Listen to this for information about power plans,
Speaker 2: mass shooting events, improvised explosive devices. He then researched that
Speaker 2: may assassination attempt on the Slovakian prime minister and apparently
Speaker 2: had been googling quote major depressive episode. I mean, all
Speaker 2: of these look obvious in retrospect, but the big flag
Speaker 2: to me is the more than a year ago buying
Speaker 2: bomb making materials. Because according to the FBI and others,
Speaker 2: they're supposed to be super adept at you know, piecing
Speaker 2: all of these things together going back some thirty years. Clearly,
Speaker 2: I mean it's a huge fail and its obviously their
Speaker 2: own security dragnet that they purport to be very effective
Speaker 2: in all that they're not even good at policing it.
Speaker 2: So the more that you learn about this entire thing,
Speaker 2: you see all of the things come together. You see
Speaker 2: the text messages reveal the incompetence. But I still think
Speaker 2: that there is significant more questions here about whether the
Speaker 2: Secret Service itself actually knew of the gunman some minutes before,
Speaker 2: and if the call was made by the Trump detail
Speaker 2: to allow him to step onto the stage. Because we
Speaker 2: have a photo of the gunman exactly almost one hour,
Speaker 2: fifty eight minutes or whatever before the shooting. That is
Speaker 2: just a simply unforgivable thing that they allowed him to do.
Speaker 1: To me, almost the crazy thing is the drone. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I would never in a million years think that on
Speaker 1: the day of hours before a rally you could just
Speaker 1: casually fly a drone scoping out the rally site and
Speaker 1: that this would be fine and no one would even notice.
Speaker 4: That's that's crazy to me.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure for anyone else who was out there
Speaker 1: with malicious intent, they are clocking very closely how many
Speaker 1: failures there were. I mean, thank god, this was just
Speaker 1: some you know, twenty year old who was was sort
Speaker 1: of freelancing it. If this was a trained professional, we
Speaker 1: all know what the result would have been, and we
Speaker 1: came within an inch of that result occurring anyway. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting what you say about the online searches, because
Speaker 1: we have given up in this country so much of
Speaker 1: our civil liberties, both to the government and to these
Speaker 1: large tech companies. And it's like, all right, if you're
Speaker 1: going to be spying on our every search, like, can
Speaker 1: you at least do some good with it? Like can
Speaker 1: you at least identify the dude who's buying an AR
Speaker 1: fifteen and stocking up on bolts?
Speaker 4: It was his dad's aar fifteen.
Speaker 3: Let me be fair, well, he did do it from him,
Speaker 3: so you know, oh, did he as a.
Speaker 1: Record of that, stocking up on bullets, stocking up on fertilizer. Now,
Speaker 1: his parents were interviewed and they said that he'd always
Speaker 1: been quote interested in science and experiments. So all this
Speaker 1: like chemicals and gun equipment that he's stopped felling. They
Speaker 1: were like, oh, this is fine. Which are questions there
Speaker 1: as well about what's going exactly is going on, but yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like, okay, well, if we're going to be spied
Speaker 1: on every second of the day, the very least you
Speaker 1: could do is use that information in some sort of
Speaker 1: a useful manner here. But that obviously did not happen,
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't doubt that it's difficult to
Speaker 1: This is a classic lone wolf. As much as far
Speaker 1: as we can tell, there really was no ideological motivation
Speaker 1: outside of just creating mayhem, chaos and horror like that
Speaker 1: seems to have been His whole goal, based on the searches,
Speaker 1: was to find the most high profile person target he
Speaker 1: possibly could, and it just so happened that Trump was
Speaker 1: holding this rally very close to his home, and so
Speaker 1: it was, in a sense, this like crime of opportunity.
Speaker 1: And if you can imagine if it had been Joe
Speaker 1: Biden or another person there, given the searches that he
Speaker 1: was engaged in, it may have been a different political
Speaker 1: figure that he ends up targeting. So I don't doubt
Speaker 1: that it's difficult to track these people in advance. But
Speaker 1: when the dude is there flying a drone on the
Speaker 1: day and then you spot him with a rangefinder, and
Speaker 1: then you spot him behaving suspiciously, and when you try
Speaker 1: to track him down he grabs a backpack and runs
Speaker 1: away from you, that seems, like, you know, a pretty
Speaker 1: significant sign just the slay person, that there's something bad
Speaker 1: that's about.
Speaker 3: To happen here. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: And that's one of those where don't let the whole like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you weren't there, you weren't a professional. It's like, no,
Speaker 2: I think we all know, and at a certain point
Speaker 2: we are the people who pay for all of this.
Speaker 2: Do you have any idea? I mean, the secret Service
Speaker 2: budget and protection. All that is technically secret, but it
Speaker 2: costs probably I would say in the range of a
Speaker 2: couple hundred million a year in terms of securing the president.
Speaker 2: What are we paying for you know, all of this
Speaker 2: nonsense so that they can fly the beast, you know,
Speaker 2: all the way to China twenty four hours before the
Speaker 2: president lands for this big, great, big security perimeter. And
Speaker 2: it's like then the former president, active Republican candidate is
Speaker 2: on the stage and we're not pulling him when we
Speaker 2: know the most glaring and obvious things that happened right
Speaker 2: here in our own country some what couple hundred miles
Speaker 2: away from Washington, DC. The whole thing is just absolute
Speaker 2: nonsense the way that it happens. So still lots of
Speaker 2: questions to be had here, especially from the agent and
Speaker 2: the agent in charge of the detail itself, whether he
Speaker 2: had any for it, if he did, I mean, just imagine.
Speaker 1: To me the most legitimate like quote unquote conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Ryan used this term malicious and competent. Yeah, where it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't an inside job or you know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't a recruited asset. He doesn't seem like a
Speaker 1: porterrially like likely candidate to have been a recruited asset.
Speaker 1: But was there just a sense of like we don't
Speaker 1: really care, we don't really care what happens at this rally.
Speaker 1: We aren't really that interested in protecting this particular individual.
Speaker 1: That I would say is an extremely legitimate and very
Speaker 1: open question at this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well said, all right, let's get to Israel.
Speaker 1: Wild scenes coming out of Israel yesterday when members of
Speaker 1: the Kanesse and government ministers joined a far right armed
Speaker 1: mob to storm multiple Israeli military bases. And so, as
Speaker 1: I said before, you may think this is an exaggeration,
Speaker 1: but it was literally in defense of IDF soldiers who
Speaker 1: gang raped a Palestinian prisoner.
Speaker 4: So let me back up.
Speaker 1: Let me show you some of the images here as
Speaker 1: I speak, this is one of the mobs storming a
Speaker 1: military base that has been turned into a mass prison camp. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a place that has become quite notorious post
Speaker 1: October seventh. There have been multiple news reports and a
Speaker 1: UN investigation that revealed horrifying details of systematic abuse of
Speaker 1: the Palestinians who are being held there, including systematic sexual assaults. Specifically,
Speaker 1: we've got multiple accounts of a hot metal rod being
Speaker 1: shoved in the anus of multiple Palestinian prisoners. We've also
Speaker 1: heard about severe meetings. There have been dozens of Palestinians
Speaker 1: who have died at these facilities. Starvation, I mean, every
Speaker 1: kind of degradation and torture you can imagine has been
Speaker 1: documented by Palestinians, doctors, Israeli doctors, whistleblowers, journalists and the
Speaker 1: like occurring at this location. So the Israeli government has
Speaker 1: been under a lot of pressure from the ICC, the ICJ,
Speaker 1: and also from some different world governments, including the UK,
Speaker 1: to show some sort of willingness to prosecute their own
Speaker 1: people for these crimes. So they decided to go ahead
Speaker 1: with the prosecution of I believe nine IDF reservists who
Speaker 1: they claim they have overwhelming evidence participated in one of
Speaker 1: these sexual assaults of a Palestinian prisoner. So yesterday, when
Speaker 1: the military police go to arrest and detain these IDF soldiers,
Speaker 1: it kicks off this absolute riot, first at the location
Speaker 1: where the abuse occurred, then at the other military base
Speaker 1: where the reservists were brought and detained and held a
Speaker 1: waiting trial. Just absolute insane scenes that are unfolding. So
Speaker 1: in order to understand this a little bit better with
Speaker 1: regards to Israeli domestic political context, we wanted to bring
Speaker 1: in a guest. We've gotten Israeli journalists who set to
Speaker 1: join us.
Speaker 4: So let's get to that.
Speaker 1: Happy to be joined this morning by Shiel ben Efreim.
Speaker 1: He is the host of multiple shows, one on YouTube
Speaker 1: Calle Child ben Fhreim explains Israel and another one called
Speaker 1: the History of the Land of Israel podcast.
Speaker 5: Welcome Chile, Thank you, good to be here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I did my best to set up what
Speaker 1: unfolded in Israel yesterday with this mob storming multiple Israeli
Speaker 1: military bases. Let's actually put F two up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This was I think some of the secondary clashes that
Speaker 1: broke down at the detention center where the Israeli reservists
Speaker 1: who are accused of sexual assault are being held. Could
Speaker 1: you help us just understand here, Shiel, some of the
Speaker 1: context within which these clashes erupted.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 14: I mean, it's very difficult call for Israel watchers to
Speaker 14: fully comprehend what's going on here too, but I'll do
Speaker 14: my best. So the best way to set the stage
Speaker 14: for this is to look at what's going on socially
Speaker 14: in Israel right now. So there's always been a pattern
Speaker 14: where when Israeli soldiers are accused of doing anything to Palestinians,
Speaker 14: a lot of elements in society rally behind them.
Speaker 5: It used to be the extreme right, and now it's spread.
Speaker 14: So there's always been this kind of impulse to defend
Speaker 14: Israeli soldiers. It used to be a minority position, but
Speaker 14: October seventh strengthened that trend a lot. So after October seventh,
Speaker 14: the the Israeli soldiers were seen as heroes to a
Speaker 14: much greater degree than they ever had been before. And
Speaker 14: the events of October seventh made the Hamas members the
Speaker 14: worst enemies of the public in the state of Israel,
Speaker 14: and for many people, that even spread to other Palestinians,
Speaker 14: especially in Gaza, who they saw as supporting the events
Speaker 14: of October seventh. So you really had an increased amount
Speaker 14: of support for the idea of and a increased amount
Speaker 14: of hatred for Palestinians and Hamas in particular. That meant
Speaker 14: that there's a sort of culture of impunity to do
Speaker 14: whatever you want to Hamas because of what they did
Speaker 14: on October seventh strengthens existing trends, but it made them
Speaker 14: a lot stronger, and that's one of the reasons why
Speaker 14: when there have been various crimes committed legend crimes committed
Speaker 14: by IDEA of soldiers in Gaza and also in Israel
Speaker 14: against detainees. The IDEF has not prosecuted them, or has
Speaker 14: very rarely prosecuted them. Now, it's important to note that
Speaker 14: the military brass and the IDEA wants to They want
Speaker 14: to prosecute people who do things like this, not because
Speaker 14: they're bleeding hard liberals or anything, but because the military
Speaker 14: has an impulse to keep discipline, because without discipline it's
Speaker 14: hard for them to function. But they know that if
Speaker 14: they prosecute people, they won't get the backing of the government,
Speaker 14: to put it mildly, and elements in the government will
Speaker 14: come out against them, attack them, try to get them fired.
Speaker 14: Protesters might try to harm their families. So the pressure
Speaker 14: from the extreme right is great. So that's why there
Speaker 14: hasn't been much discipline in the IDEF, because no one
Speaker 14: wants to touch the rank and file soldiers, and of
Speaker 14: course among the rank and file soldiers there's a lot
Speaker 14: of right wing extremists as well, but also to people
Speaker 14: who are very angry at the Palestinians for what happened
Speaker 14: on seven.
Speaker 5: Then also just people who are not good people who
Speaker 5: want to do whatever they can and now they can
Speaker 5: get away with it, right. There hasn't been much disciplined.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 2: So let's put this up there on the screen, just
Speaker 2: to crystal laid out some of the details just one second.
Speaker 3: I want to get your reaction here where.
Speaker 2: They're storming this detention center and these lawmakers, as you're saying,
Speaker 2: are trying to inject chaos into the Israeli army. Can
Speaker 2: you just then outline the exact circumstances of what happened
Speaker 2: here and what it's like to witness it from inside
Speaker 2: of Israel. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So.
Speaker 14: What happened now is because there's been massive pressure from abroad,
Speaker 14: most particularly investigations from the ICC and the ICJ, but
Speaker 14: also a demand from the British government and to a
Speaker 14: lesser extent from the American government to start cracking down
Speaker 14: on what's happening in.
Speaker 5: This facility, in this detaining facility, which is known as
Speaker 5: that they might so.
Speaker 14: In May and in June, expos as came out about
Speaker 14: Datamon on CNN The New York Times, citing serious more crimes,
Speaker 14: torture to the point where some detainees were getting skild
Speaker 14: from beatings that they had others were having limbs amputated
Speaker 14: because they were kept in positions where the blood wasn't circulating,
Speaker 14: and claims of sexual abuse. Israel denied it, but the
Speaker 14: allegations weren't going away because they were true.
Speaker 5: As it turns out they were true.
Speaker 14: So under immense international pressure and when the Bridgers said
Speaker 14: they would stop selling arms to Israel, Israel finally decided
Speaker 14: to prosecute nine soldiers who had been involved in a
Speaker 14: sexual assault on a detainee. This story came to light
Speaker 14: when doctors saw that one of the detainees had their
Speaker 14: anus had been something had been inserted in their aus
Speaker 14: very forcefully, and the injuries were very clearly indicative of
Speaker 14: sexual abuse. Once that news came out that they had
Speaker 14: been arrested, soldiers in their unit posted on social media
Speaker 14: about what was happening and said that this is an outrage,
Speaker 14: and within an hour people showed up on the base, Protesters,
Speaker 14: family members, members of Knesset i AM, the most extreme
Speaker 14: white right wing politicians like Gottlieb from the ly could
Speaker 14: in svisukut In ben Verer's party, and along with masked
Speaker 14: people in uniform heavily armed. Eventually the police managed to
Speaker 14: get them to leave. They convinced them to leave. The police,
Speaker 14: which is under ben Vere, who was the most extreme
Speaker 14: right wing leader in Israel, convinced them to leave. Then
Speaker 14: after that they assaulted the t center where they were
Speaker 14: being held in Betlids and went into the military courts,
Speaker 14: and again the police didn't stop them because the police
Speaker 14: is under the extreme right way. So what we have
Speaker 14: here is the Israeli security apparatus captured or at least
Speaker 14: strongly hindered by the most extreme right wing elements in society.
Speaker 14: It's important to note that that leader ben Vere and
Speaker 14: people like him didn't go to the army.
Speaker 5: They're hated by the security services.
Speaker 14: They're considered terrorists by a lot of people in the
Speaker 14: security services, but the security services are increasingly powerless to
Speaker 14: stop them, and this threatens the ability of Israel to
Speaker 14: operate as a sovereign state, and of course also threatens
Speaker 14: Israel standing in the world and is an absolute nightmare
Speaker 14: for Israel from every perspective.
Speaker 5: And of course it.
Speaker 14: Also shows that these elements in society are one of
Speaker 14: the reasons that this happened, because ben Vere is responsible
Speaker 14: for the person services, so he's also responsible for oversight
Speaker 14: over this prison, and he's made his populistic goal to
Speaker 14: show that under him, terrorists will have the worst possible conditions.
Speaker 5: And I don't know whether he ordered.
Speaker 14: Any of this or not, probably not, but he created
Speaker 14: a created a circumstance where being in humane to detainees
Speaker 14: was expected.
Speaker 5: It was it was, it was a good thing.
Speaker 14: And of course we need to point out that a
Speaker 14: lot of these detainees were not members of Hamas.
Speaker 5: We don't know the exact number.
Speaker 14: It looks like the person who was abused in this
Speaker 14: case was a Hamas terrorist, But a lot of the
Speaker 14: people who experience these things are innocent. So this is
Speaker 14: this is a scandal that that speaks to Israel's human rights,
Speaker 14: It speaks the ability to govern as a sovereign state
Speaker 14: and so on.
Speaker 4: Were any of the violent protesters yesterday.
Speaker 14: Arrested, No, No one was arrested. They were convinced to
Speaker 14: go home. The police will not arrest them unless there's
Speaker 14: a political decision to do so.
Speaker 1: SOCIL, What does what does all of this mean for
Speaker 1: I saw some speculation about, you know that you could
Speaker 1: have an even greater conflagration if there's a withdrawal from
Speaker 1: Gaza without whatever complete victory looks like, which, you know,
Speaker 1: the complete victory that's been laid down of destroying Hamas
Speaker 1: is likely impossible to achieve. What do you expect this
Speaker 1: portends for the future of Israel when the viewpoints that
Speaker 1: are being expressed as you lay out, were once fringed
Speaker 1: and are now completely mainstream to the point of, you know,
Speaker 1: I could show the video, but I'll just paraphrase it.
Speaker 1: You're literally having a debate in the Kanesset about whether
Speaker 1: it is legitimate to quote, insert a stick in a
Speaker 1: person's rectum. And you have a member of the Lukud party,
Speaker 1: a kanescant member, saying yes, if he is a nukba
Speaker 1: a Hamas terris, everything is legitimate to do to him.
Speaker 1: That's how mainstream these views have become. So what does
Speaker 1: this pretend for the future of Israel?
Speaker 5: Well, unfortunately, the trends.
Speaker 14: The trend predates, it predates the war. The war has
Speaker 14: exacerbated it, and it's actually not that different from what
Speaker 14: we see in the United States or what we're seeing
Speaker 14: in other countries where the populist right wing is becoming
Speaker 14: increasingly powerful. They use a lot of the same methods
Speaker 14: that Maca does here, that La Penn does in France,
Speaker 14: but it's tied to a deep Jewish fundamentalist impulse that
Speaker 14: has always been in Israel and is frightening. What does
Speaker 14: it pretend for the future. It's sort of hard to
Speaker 14: have a country that is secular, liberal the way that
Speaker 14: Israel has been with you know, with its with its laws,
Speaker 14: and that has this kind of impulse in its governance.
Speaker 14: The next elections will be a battle for the soul
Speaker 14: of Israel, and as we know from the United States,
Speaker 14: even when the more moderate side wins, the other side
Speaker 14: continues with disinformation and venom and trying to sabotage the
Speaker 14: ability of the government to rule. I think there's going
Speaker 14: to be a lot of people in Israel who, if
Speaker 14: this continues to be the kind of government that they
Speaker 14: have in the long term, will leave. And those will
Speaker 14: be the most productive members of the society. Those will
Speaker 14: be the high tech leaders, those will be the professors,
Speaker 14: those will be the literati, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 14: which is something that I think the extreme right is
Speaker 14: real wants because that will help them.
Speaker 5: Run the country better.
Speaker 14: And there's an attempt to dismantle these rail judicial system
Speaker 14: because that's the one check in balance the Israeli system
Speaker 14: has against this kind of power. So right now, Israel,
Speaker 14: similar to a lot of other countries in the West,
Speaker 14: the United States as an example, is having a battle
Speaker 14: for its soul. And I think if the liberal democratic
Speaker 14: forces in Israel lose, Israel will be lost. It's not
Speaker 14: going to be able to survive. If it doesn't have
Speaker 14: allies in the world, then it's going to be sanctioned
Speaker 14: by everyone, treated like a pariah state. That liberal part
Speaker 14: of the country is what kept Israel's part of the
Speaker 14: international community, and what kept it allied with the United States,
Speaker 14: and what kept it as a big trade partner for
Speaker 14: the EU.
Speaker 5: And if Israel loses that, it's not going to be
Speaker 5: able to survive.
Speaker 14: The extreme right fringe and the fundamentalists aren't going to
Speaker 14: be able to support the Israeli economy, aren't going to
Speaker 14: be able to supports real society, not in the long term.
Speaker 5: Many many don't serve in the army.
Speaker 14: It's a disaster for Israel if these people take over,
Speaker 14: and this is a step towards taking over, like make
Speaker 14: no mistake, hindering the functioning of the state.
Speaker 5: If they completely take over, the state of.
Speaker 14: Israel will not exist in the long term, and I
Speaker 14: don't think I think that's quite a possible outcome, unfortunately,
Speaker 14: But there's a lot of people in Israel who are
Speaker 14: against this, a lot of people, maybe the majority.
Speaker 5: At this point, I have no idea, and hopefully they
Speaker 5: we'll fight back.
Speaker 8: Chiel.
Speaker 4: I think it's fair.
Speaker 1: You can correct me if I'm wrong, But you would
Speaker 1: sort of politically identify as like a liberal Zionist. Is
Speaker 1: that a fair characterization of your views? So there are
Speaker 1: plenty of things that, yeah, that you and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: necessarily see eye to eye on, but I really wanted to.
Speaker 1: I wanted to put up this tweet that you sent
Speaker 1: yesterday and commend you for it, because I think this
Speaker 1: is a very difficult thing to admit when we've gotten
Speaker 1: something wrong, or to acknowledge and identify our own blind spots.
Speaker 1: So if we can put F six up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You said in response to all of these events yesterday,
Speaker 1: I feel stupid in a shade and ashamed. In May
Speaker 1: and Expose came out on CNN detailing the abuses in
Speaker 1: state Tayman. I'm sure I butchered that pronunciation. Apologies. Then
Speaker 1: the NYT released their own article on it. Both were
Speaker 1: backed up by Israeli sources crossed with Palestidian ones. Yet
Speaker 1: you say you dismiss them because your government sources and
Speaker 1: Israeli media denied them. My whole life, I was told
Speaker 1: that the international media was out to get Israel and
Speaker 1: that they were all anti Semites, and so with that
Speaker 1: blind spot, even with the reporting, even you know, you
Speaker 1: had a UN report about this, you had multiple mainstream
Speaker 1: media outlet reports, you dismissed it because of the you know,
Speaker 1: the propaganda ecosystem that you existed in and what your
Speaker 1: own government sources were saying. So I'd love for you
Speaker 1: just to talk a little bit about that and also
Speaker 1: talk about whether this revelation has changed your assessment in
Speaker 1: any other part of you know, Israel's prosecution of the
Speaker 1: war in Gaza or Israel in general.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, that is a difficult question.
Speaker 14: So as far as what was happening with that, they
Speaker 14: mun they knew that what was going on there was
Speaker 14: very bad, and no one was denying that. It's just
Speaker 14: that the the worst abuses were being covered up, the
Speaker 14: ones that like like what we're talking about. And now
Speaker 14: people I've talked to who told me that that these
Speaker 14: things weren't true.
Speaker 5: Are now telling me that they are.
Speaker 14: And that's because the military censorship is no longer on
Speaker 14: some of these cases, and there's going to be other prosecutions.
Speaker 14: So there's been a change of strategy there, and that, Yeah,
Speaker 14: that definitely.
Speaker 5: Undermined a narrative that I had.
Speaker 14: It's it's hard to it's hard to explain to people
Speaker 14: who aren't Israeli.
Speaker 5: What the attitude towards the rest of the world is.
Speaker 14: You know, there's the legacy of the Holocaust, there's a
Speaker 14: legacy of anti Semitism. Israel Is singled out in the
Speaker 14: United Nations more than any other country, and the international media.
Speaker 5: Focuses on Israel more than just about any other country.
Speaker 14: And what Israelis have always felt is that they're singled
Speaker 14: out by the international community and that this has to
Speaker 14: do with the legacy of anti Semitism. And it's not
Speaker 14: that that viewpoint is not completely it doesn't have any
Speaker 14: validity to it.
Speaker 5: It's just that it blinds us to things.
Speaker 14: So, you know, if you say to Israelis all the
Speaker 14: New York Times, that, this and that and that, they'll say, well,
Speaker 14: the New York Times they're out to get us. They're
Speaker 14: anti Semites, and I grew up in that in that
Speaker 14: in that attitude, And now that I've had this verified, I.
Speaker 5: See that the article. I read the article again and I.
Speaker 14: See the article uh May was very well sourced, and
Speaker 14: it shows the kind of blind spot that we had.
Speaker 5: And now I'm going to have to rethink a lot
Speaker 5: of things.
Speaker 14: I think that the war on October seventh was absolutely
Speaker 14: just had to happen, because after after the uh the
Speaker 14: events that occurting Israel, they had to happen. But I've
Speaker 14: always had questions about the way we've conducted this war
Speaker 14: on multiple levels, and now I have I have more questions,
Speaker 14: and now I am more prone to believe reports about
Speaker 14: what Israel is doing to innocent civilians. And again I've
Speaker 14: always believed these reports to some extent, but thought they
Speaker 14: were exaggerated. Now I'm going to be looking a lot
Speaker 14: more objectctively at these numbers, a lot more objectively at
Speaker 14: this information, and I'm going to be a lot more
Speaker 14: concerned about Palestinian civilians who are being killed. I was
Speaker 14: concerned before, but I also was more skeptical about the
Speaker 14: information that I was receiving. None of this stops me
Speaker 14: from thinking that Israelians to fight for its survival. None
Speaker 14: of this makes me stop thinking that Israel is facing
Speaker 14: people who want to destroy it, but it's making me
Speaker 14: a lot more critical of.
Speaker 5: How Israel is doing it.
Speaker 14: There are a lot of people in the Israeli government
Speaker 14: who have bad intentions and have absolutely no morals, and
Speaker 14: there's a lot of people in society who back them,
Speaker 14: and I don't trust them to wage this war morally
Speaker 14: or effectively. And I think that people who support Israel
Speaker 14: need to very carefully hold their feet to the fire
Speaker 14: and criticize violations of human rights and to criticize the
Speaker 14: way that they're running this war, and any Palestinian civilians
Speaker 14: who are needlessly suffering as a result of this war,
Speaker 14: and strive to end the war, get the hostages back,
Speaker 14: start to rebuild, and move towards to a two state solution.
Speaker 14: So I'm still a Zionists, but I want Israel to
Speaker 14: be more moral, and it hasn't been moral.
Speaker 2: We appreciate you joining us, Sirs, unfortunately not at a
Speaker 2: tight timeline, but really enjoy talking to you. Thank you,
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching and appreciate it
Speaker 2: and enjoy counterpoints tomorrow.
Speaker 3: We'll see you all on Thursday.