Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to Republican Congress and Thomas Massey, who you
Speaker 1: guys probably know him, but just for those of you
Speaker 1: who don't follow these things closely, he's libertarian, and he's
Speaker 1: one of the few in Congress, and especially one of
Speaker 1: the few on the Republican de side who's willing to
Speaker 1: go against the grain. And he has voted against you
Speaker 1: know how, they've been passing all of these Israel resolutions,
Speaker 1: condemning anti Semitism, standing up for this, standing up for that,
Speaker 1: and also obviously tons of money that they just voted
Speaker 1: on to shift Israel as well.
Speaker 4: And he will be frequently one of the.
Speaker 1: Lone voices on the Republican side, one of the loan
Speaker 1: votes against a number of those provisions.
Speaker 4: That has, of course.
Speaker 1: Made him a huge target of a pack well congresson
Speaker 1: Massey was recently on with Tucker Carlson and the subject
Speaker 1: of APAC and how this all works in Congress came up,
Speaker 1: and his comments are very interesting.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 5: Is there any other Republican who has your views on this?
Speaker 6: We Why have Republicans who come to me on the
Speaker 6: floor and say, I wish I could vote with you today.
Speaker 6: Yours is the right vote, but I would just take
Speaker 6: too much flak back home. And I have Republicans who
Speaker 6: come to me and say, that's wrong, what APAC is
Speaker 6: doing to you. Let me talk to my APAC person.
Speaker 6: By the way, everybody but me has an APAC person.
Speaker 5: Does that mean an APEC person.
Speaker 6: It's like your babysitter, your APAC babysitter who is always
Speaker 6: talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in
Speaker 6: your district, but they are firmly embedded in a pack.
Speaker 5: And every member has someone like this.
Speaker 6: I don't know how it works on the Democrat side,
Speaker 6: but that's how it works on the Republican side. And
Speaker 6: when they and when they come to DC, you go
Speaker 6: have lunch with them and they've got your cell number
Speaker 6: and you have conversations with them. So I've had like.
Speaker 5: That's absolutely crazy.
Speaker 6: I've had four members of Congress say I'll talk to
Speaker 6: my APAC person and it's literally what we call them,
Speaker 6: my APAC guy. I'll talk to my APAC guide, see
Speaker 6: if I can get to you know, dial those ads back.
Speaker 5: Why if I never heard this before.
Speaker 6: It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell
Speaker 6: their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with
Speaker 6: somebody who's representing a foreign country. It doesn't benefit the
Speaker 6: congressman for people to know that. So they're not going
Speaker 6: to tell you that.
Speaker 5: It's it's in. Have you seen any other country do
Speaker 5: anything like this, like Russia. Russia obviously determines the outcome
Speaker 5: of our elections. We keep hearing that does anyone have
Speaker 5: a putin guy that they talk to?
Speaker 6: Not only do they not have a putin guy? Look,
Speaker 6: they don't. They don't have a Briton guy. They don't
Speaker 6: have an Australian guy. They you know, they don't have
Speaker 6: a Germany dude. Like, it's the only country that does
Speaker 6: this that has somebody that like uniformly, I guarantee there's
Speaker 6: some spreadsheet at APAC where where you know the APAC
Speaker 6: dude is, who's matched up with the congressman is there?
Speaker 6: And then all the congressman's votes on the issue. Oh,
Speaker 6: has the congressman been to Israel? They pay for trips
Speaker 6: for congressmen and their spouses to.
Speaker 5: Go to Israel.
Speaker 7: I may be.
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not the only Republican who hasn't taken
Speaker 6: the APAC trip to Israel, but I'm probably one of
Speaker 6: a dozen that hasn't taken that trip, and the other
Speaker 6: ones just haven't got around to it.
Speaker 4: The a pack babysitter.
Speaker 1: By the way, that thing about the trips that they
Speaker 1: pay for not just for politicians, It's also for any
Speaker 1: number of prominent people and media figures. In fact, I
Speaker 1: don't know if I talked about this here or somewhere else,
Speaker 1: but when I started MSNBC got an email asked you
Speaker 1: if I wanted to go on the APAC trip to Israel.
Speaker 4: I said no, But you know.
Speaker 1: That's part of what they do, because then they can
Speaker 1: take you to Israel and they can show it to
Speaker 1: you through their lens and have a chance to you know,
Speaker 1: subtly and not so subtly propagandize you and plus just
Speaker 1: create this human sense of like, oh, I owe this
Speaker 1: person something because they took me on this great trip.
Speaker 4: And I had a great time.
Speaker 1: You know, so I like them, they're friends, They're friends
Speaker 1: with me, like I should listen to what they have
Speaker 1: to say. It's very intelligent in terms of influence pedaling.
Speaker 1: But I think, you know a lot of Americans are
Speaker 1: very shocked to learn that this is how this.
Speaker 4: All works soccer.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, it is like as you said, it's
Speaker 2: amost funny because it is common knowledge here. I also
Speaker 2: have been offered many free trips Israel. My only trip Israel,
Speaker 2: by the way, paid on my own dime.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 3: I don't take free trips from anybody. And that's the issue.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Well, you have very clearly here quote bipartisanship or Republican meddling.
Speaker 3: APAK is the biggest source of.
Speaker 2: GOP donations in the Democratic primaries. It says, apaxy's support
Speaker 2: for israelis bipartisan and its donors come from both parties.
Speaker 2: It's practice of sending money from GOP donors into democratic
Speaker 2: racist is quote enraged progresses. But I mean one of
Speaker 2: the flagship cases here, Crystal, I'm sure you've been tracking
Speaker 2: is Man. Dear Jones, who has effectively disavowed all of
Speaker 2: his form progressive positions, has been basically what has he
Speaker 2: been doing. He's been keeping them not only an arms length,
Speaker 2: and he's been a huge beneficiary.
Speaker 1: Well, he endorsed against Jamal Bowman's primary opponent, and Bowman
Speaker 1: is under fire. He's been very courageous on Israel and
Speaker 1: he deserves a lot of credit. And his district has
Speaker 1: a significant Jewish population. Although you know, it doesn't cut
Speaker 1: the way that people necessarily think that it's going to,
Speaker 1: because I'll show you some numbers in just a minute.
Speaker 4: But you know, a pack donor base.
Speaker 1: It's not like your average working class Jewish American or
Speaker 1: even average like Jewish professional American.
Speaker 4: It is the elite.
Speaker 1: It is very very wealthy, predominantly like CEOs and executives
Speaker 1: who cut big checks to a pack. So it's not
Speaker 1: like they're reflective of the Jewish community at large. And
Speaker 1: in fact, there was polling that was done in Jamal
Speaker 1: Bowman's district that found a very significant majority of voters
Speaker 1: in his district, which again has a significant Jewish population,
Speaker 1: said they would be much more likely to support a
Speaker 1: candidate who backs a ceasefire, which Jamal Bowman does. However,
Speaker 1: mandere Jones, who is desperately you know, trying to win
Speaker 1: his congressional seat back, feels that Jamal Bowman's positioning himself
Speaker 1: as an Israel critic has been damaging for him too,
Speaker 1: and he feels afraid that that's going to be a
Speaker 1: problem for him in his congressional race. So he's made
Speaker 1: this very cynical political move to back Jamal Bowman's primary
Speaker 1: opponent and basically disavow progressivism altogether. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: incredibly craven and the A PAC money is.
Speaker 4: A huge, huge part of that.
Speaker 1: I want people to think about this, you know, the
Speaker 1: piece about how a Pack is the source of the
Speaker 1: largest number of Republican donations into democratic primary races.
Speaker 4: Like imagine if it was a.
Speaker 1: George Soros backed organization that was being incredibly significant the
Speaker 1: largest player in Republican primaries. Conservatives would be outraged at that.
Speaker 1: They would think that was completely outrageous. And so progressives
Speaker 1: really feel that way about a Pack, which gets a significant,
Speaker 1: you know, about more than a majority of their money
Speaker 1: from Republican donors. But it's not just that as well.
Speaker 1: Here's a quote from the piece just giving you a
Speaker 1: sense of the scale of their efforts. Here they say
Speaker 1: competitive democratic primaries are the biggest targets for a Pack's
Speaker 1: affiliated super pac, which is called the United Democracy proput
Speaker 1: which has already spent almost twenty million dollars in the
Speaker 1: race this year in democratic primary races this year, including
Speaker 1: almost ten million in that Jamal Bowman George Latimer race.
Speaker 1: That makes it by far the biggest outside group in
Speaker 1: democratic primaries, with more money flowing from that a Pack
Speaker 1: super Pack than the next ten.
Speaker 4: Biggest spenders combined.
Speaker 1: So the biggest player in democratic primaries is a group
Speaker 1: that isn't even about American electoral issues at all.
Speaker 4: It's about the.
Speaker 1: Interests of a foreign government funded by largely a lot
Speaker 1: of Conservatives, playing in democratic primaries. I mean, it really
Speaker 1: is quite quite extraordinary, quite astonishing, and the money has
Speaker 1: a huge impact both in terms of who wins these
Speaker 1: races and also in terms of politicians look at this
Speaker 1: and they're like, I don't want them playing in my race,
Speaker 1: so I'm just going to do whatever they want me
Speaker 1: to do. And that's something that Ryan Grimm has done
Speaker 1: the best reporting on the way that they have served
Speaker 1: as a check on Democratic candidates who might otherwise have
Speaker 1: some level of criticism as of Israel. That is reportedly,
Speaker 1: again according to Ryan, the sort of origin story for
Speaker 1: John Fetterman being the most like embarrassingly pro Israel, like
Speaker 1: Israel no matter what guy who's out there. It wasn't
Speaker 1: that he cared about it that much before, but he
Speaker 1: asked his basically apat guy where he should be to
Speaker 1: keep them out of his Democratic primary race, and he
Speaker 1: just took that and ran with it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're absolutely right, and to your point about how
Speaker 2: American Jews are not the monolith that apparently all of
Speaker 2: media and Congress wants them to be. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen from Michael Tracy, because what
Speaker 2: you see from this survey is that just twenty three
Speaker 2: percent of American Jews plan to vote for Trump, down
Speaker 2: from thirty percent in twenty twenty, despite Trump and a
Speaker 2: lot of Republican donors saying, well, you know.
Speaker 3: Basic, what do they say you're basically if you vote.
Speaker 4: For Biden, basically you're not a Jew.
Speaker 2: As completely astounding you can see here very clearly if
Speaker 2: the presidential election were held today, who would you most
Speaker 2: likely vote for?
Speaker 3: Biden?
Speaker 2: Sixty one percent Trump, twenty three ten percent actually say
Speaker 2: someone else will not vote as six which of the
Speaker 2: two party candidates for president would be better for the
Speaker 2: US Israel relationship. You've got fifty percent there who say
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. So I mean, this is a American Jewish
Speaker 2: Coalition survey, nonpartisan organization. Basically, from what we can see here,
Speaker 2: this is a pretty representative sample of American Jews. It
Speaker 2: turns out that American Jews are just like everybody else.
Speaker 3: They're stratified.
Speaker 2: A lot of them who are wanting to vote for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden are doing so for multifaceted reasons, Israel not
Speaker 2: necessarily being the number one issue. Maybe it's a little
Speaker 2: bit higher than many people who might vote for Biden
Speaker 2: or for Trump, but they're.
Speaker 3: Just like the rest of us.
Speaker 2: And that's been the most annoying and thing about this
Speaker 2: is Jewish students unsafe from protesters who are also sometimes
Speaker 2: Jewish Zionism. You know, if without the thing I think
Speaker 2: the most discussing name that Biden has said throughout this
Speaker 2: entire conflict, just for me is if it weren't for Israel,
Speaker 2: not a Jew in the world would be safe because
Speaker 2: it undermines the theory of America itself. It would be
Speaker 2: like saying, you know, for me, as a person of
Speaker 2: Indian descent, that if it weren't for India's existence, I
Speaker 2: would not be safe in the United States. No, my
Speaker 2: passport says United States of America on it, and there's
Speaker 2: nothing else the passport that I have, unlike many people
Speaker 2: in Israel, by the way, who are a dual citizen.
Speaker 2: So it's just it undermines the theory of the nation
Speaker 2: state for a select group of people, which is antithetical
Speaker 2: to the very idea of what it even means to
Speaker 2: be American. And clearly many and most Jews see it
Speaker 2: that way too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what it's like.
Speaker 2: Who are you, mister Irish Catholic, to be litigating what
Speaker 2: that means for everybody else?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and not to go too deep into the history here,
Speaker 1: it was worth mentioning that, you know, the founding of
Speaker 1: the state of Israel, there's sort of a corrupt bargain
Speaker 1: between Western powers that you know, wanted to basically wanted
Speaker 1: to remain, you know, with their image of like oh,
Speaker 1: we're on the side of the Jews, and we're like,
Speaker 1: you know, interested in protecting them, et cetera. But they
Speaker 1: didn't actually want to like take in Jewish refugees themselves.
Speaker 1: And Zionists who really found it to be a threat.
Speaker 1: The idea that Jews could be integrated into America or
Speaker 1: the UK or France or anywhere else. They saw that
Speaker 1: as a direct threat to their project. You can understand why,
Speaker 1: because if you have a safe Jewish diaspora that's integrated
Speaker 1: into their communities, then there's less of an incentive to
Speaker 1: move to Israel. So there was sort of this corrupt
Speaker 1: bargain at the beginning that has continued to exist, as
Speaker 1: reflected in those comments from Joe Biden. But if we
Speaker 1: could go to B three, our friend Bronco Marttis did
Speaker 1: a very interesting analysis of APAC donors versus donors to
Speaker 1: the squad and he writes here in this tweet where
Speaker 1: he tweeted out his analysis, he says he looked at
Speaker 1: more than five hundred donors to APAX super Pac, which
Speaker 1: is United Democracy Project that's the one we were just
Speaker 1: talking about. It shows nearly sixty percent our top level executives,
Speaker 1: nearly half of whom work in the fire sector, which
Speaker 1: is finance and real estate. The average donation was nearly
Speaker 1: ninety thousand dollars, so not exactly you're like average person
Speaker 1: shelling out ninety k. Put the next one up on
Speaker 1: the screen because he put together some great charts that
Speaker 1: really illustrate the difference here, so you can see on
Speaker 1: the left he says United Democracy Projecting, and that's eight
Speaker 1: pack superPAC Wall Street Base. You can see how many
Speaker 1: of their donors, what percentage come from finance, slash, insurance,
Speaker 1: real estate, are retired, probably from one of those industries
Speaker 1: misscelaneous business, lawyers and lobbyists and everything else is like
Speaker 1: pretty small. And then you look at their donors versus
Speaker 1: donors to the squad who have been the primary targets
Speaker 1: of a pack. You have twenty percent of apack donors
Speaker 1: are CEOs, significant percentage who are owners or founders, another
Speaker 1: thirty nine percent who are top executives. That little yellow
Speaker 1: bar you see there, that's working people. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: the donors to squad members, sixty percent of them are
Speaker 1: working people and basically none of them from CEOs, founders,
Speaker 1: top executives, etc.
Speaker 4: So it just shows you you know.
Speaker 1: Part of why the discourse in the media, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a whole plethora of reasons why, but part of
Speaker 1: why the discourse in the media just assumes that all
Speaker 1: Jewish Americans have the same perspective is because there is
Speaker 1: a class divide, even within the Jewish community about how
Speaker 1: they view these issues and how they prioritize these issues
Speaker 1: as well. So I thought Bronco really got to the
Speaker 1: heart of some of that class divide and why you
Speaker 1: shouldn't assume that the position of a pack is reflective
Speaker 1: of broader Jewish American sentiment, which I think has been
Speaker 1: consistently the.
Speaker 2: Ay, this is the same for all ethnic groups. I
Speaker 2: see the stuff all the time. Yeah, Indian Americans against it,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, hey, shut up, all right, I'll keep
Speaker 2: it kind you know. On this one, I'm like, you
Speaker 2: don't speak for us, You speak for yourselves and your friends.
Speaker 3: And I don't ever presume to.
Speaker 2: Speak a quote unquote on behalf of the community, because
Speaker 2: who's elected me zenative. Somehow though, in this ethnic group
Speaker 2: that's considered not only okay but cannon, and then widely
Speaker 2: accepted by a bunch of evangelical crit and Catholic Christians
Speaker 2: to be canon for what they presume to speak on
Speaker 2: behalf of, so totally ridiculous. It's always a class story
Speaker 2: here in America, which means that really it's about something
Speaker 2: totally different than what is being presented to you.
Speaker 3: Crystal, what do you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: A mainstream outlet has just kicked a hornet's nest, taking
Speaker 1: direct aim at the claims of mass rape by Hamas
Speaker 1: on October seventh, and finding no evidence to back those claims.
Speaker 1: No surprise, a massive backlash has already begun, So let's
Speaker 1: take some time to dig into this one. So, as
Speaker 1: you may know, following October seventh, the Israeli garment pushed
Speaker 1: a series of invented atrocities in order to justify a
Speaker 1: military campaign filled with unjustifiable horse wasn't enough that Hamas
Speaker 1: had wantonly murdered civilians, including young partygoers at a desert ravee.
Speaker 1: The Israeli government and its American accomplices needed more graphic
Speaker 1: visual imagery that could persuade the world that Gaza was
Speaker 1: filled with inhuman monsters who must be wiped off the
Speaker 1: face of the earth. We heard gruesome stories of forty
Speaker 1: beheaded babies in actuality. One baby was horrifically killed on
Speaker 1: October seventh, none were beheaded. Another baby we were told
Speaker 1: was baked in an oven, also completely false. We were
Speaker 1: told a pregnant woman had a fetus cut out of
Speaker 1: her that was also untrue, and that volunteers had seen
Speaker 1: bodies piled up in a pyramid, once again false.
Speaker 4: But nothing has been.
Speaker 1: As persistent or as politically charged as the oft repeated
Speaker 1: allegation that Hamas used rape systematically on October seventh as
Speaker 1: a weapon of war. This allegation has been embraced in
Speaker 1: polite society as an ironclad fact and one which should
Speaker 1: never be questioned. It was a subject of an Israeli
Speaker 1: government social media campaign hashtag Believe Israeli Women, subject of
Speaker 1: a Sheryl Sandberg documentary, a UN report, a now discredited
Speaker 1: but hugely hyped New York Times investigation, and even a
Speaker 1: congressional resolution which claimed Israeli police had evidence of quote
Speaker 1: countless instances of rape, gang rape, sexual mutilation, and other
Speaker 1: forms of sexual violence. Media elit's current political figures, including
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and past political figures like Hillary Clinton all
Speaker 1: repeated the claim that not only did sexual assault occur
Speaker 1: on October seventh, but that it was widespread and directed
Speaker 1: from the top down.
Speaker 7: And let me be clear, hamas usually rape, sexual violence
Speaker 7: and terrorism and torture Asraeli women and girls is appalling
Speaker 7: and unforgivable. And I was there, saw some of the
Speaker 7: photographs and it is beyond it's just beyond comprehension.
Speaker 8: We had two events last week. We had three panels
Speaker 8: about Ukraine and they were superb. They went off without
Speaker 8: a hitch. We learned a lot and were challenged. Two
Speaker 8: days later we had panels on conflict related sexual violence.
Speaker 8: It included Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Israel,
Speaker 8: and it was protested. You just have to ask yourself
Speaker 8: how you could have an event focused on using rape
Speaker 8: as a tactic of war against women and girls, which
Speaker 8: is in conflict across the world, and you include the
Speaker 8: most recent horrendous example out of Israel, and that brings
Speaker 8: out the protesters. So there is an invidious strain of
Speaker 8: anti Semitism that has never gone away. But we had
Speaker 8: hopes it had been certainly submerged. That has been poking
Speaker 8: its head up for quite some time now.
Speaker 7: Fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, three quarters.
Speaker 5: Of whom and are women. And it's horrible. But you
Speaker 5: don't see Israeli soldiers raping well, Dana, I think we're not.
Speaker 1: I could probably do entire monologues about each of those clips,
Speaker 1: but the last one with Dana Bash really gives up
Speaker 1: the game. Sure, Palestinians getting killed, it's terrible, but at
Speaker 1: least they aren't getting raped like Israeli women. She uses
Speaker 1: the mass rape claims to dismiss in real time the
Speaker 1: horrors of Palestinians, which of course is the whole reason
Speaker 1: why these claims were marketed so aggressively by the Israeli.
Speaker 4: Government to begin with.
Speaker 1: But from the beginning there were some brave voices out
Speaker 1: there asking for evidence that just had not yet been produced.
Speaker 1: Electronic Intofada, the Gray Zone, Z Squirreld, Intercept, and many
Speaker 1: more began looking critically at the reports, pointing out where
Speaker 1: narratives collapsed, evidence was lacking, or stories were ever shifting.
Speaker 1: All of these attempts at actual journalism as opposed to
Speaker 1: just writing up whatever government spokesfur us and wants you
Speaker 1: to say. All of these were roundly smeared. The individuals
Speaker 1: involved were personally intact as pro hamas rape apologists. Brianna
Speaker 1: Joy Gray was just fired from the Hill because of
Speaker 1: her willingness to question this narrative. Well, now a mainstream outlet,
Speaker 1: The Times of London, has conducted an investigation into those
Speaker 1: mass rape allegations, an attempt to sort fact from fiction.
Speaker 1: And while listen, there are some parts I could take
Speaker 1: some issue with, I still really highly recommend it. The
Speaker 1: piece is very sympathetic to Israeli perspectives, even to the
Speaker 1: ultra religious Zaka volunteers whose lies formed a core of
Speaker 1: the mass rape evidence, and other atrocity fictions as well.
Speaker 1: But ultimately Times of London concludes the bottom line is this,
Speaker 1: there is no forensic evidence of rape. There is no
Speaker 1: video evidence. Of October seventh, rate the government of Israel
Speaker 1: claimed they had evidence of thousands of sexual assaults. They
Speaker 1: have produced zero evidence to support a single claim. Here
Speaker 1: is the report quote. To this date, police have not
Speaker 1: interviewed a single survivor. On December twenty fourth, the police
Speaker 1: issued a decree to hospitals ordering them to hand over
Speaker 1: accounts of any rape survivor who had sought treatment. On
Speaker 1: January fourth, the police put out a fresh appeal for witnesses,
Speaker 1: saying they had succeeded in interviewing just three and had
Speaker 1: been unable to match their accounts with the bodies collected
Speaker 1: from the massacre site. The Times of London also discusses
Speaker 1: the lack of evidence in the UN report compiled by
Speaker 1: Promila Patten. Quote in all the Hamas video footage Patten's
Speaker 1: team had watched and all the photographs they had seen
Speaker 1: were no depictions of rape. We hired a leading Israeli
Speaker 1: dark web researcher to look for evidence of those images,
Speaker 1: including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
Speaker 1: They also detail how the rape claims were obsessed over
Speaker 1: and politically weaponized in a way that actually was damaging
Speaker 1: to other survivors. After three hundred thousand people marched in
Speaker 1: London to protest the ongoing genocide, and Israeli government spokespersons
Speaker 1: smeared them all as a rape apologist. What's more, the
Speaker 1: quest to prove the mass raped narrative erased the focus
Speaker 1: on other horrific trauma and atrocities that were meted out
Speaker 1: on that day. Doctor Rut Plonsker, a senior psychologist with
Speaker 1: non governmental organization Safehart believes the focus on sexual violence
Speaker 1: has been unhelpful for Nova Festival survivors wrestling with their trauma.
Speaker 1: She said, I don't think there were a lot of
Speaker 1: sexual assaults. There was a lot of murder. That's what
Speaker 1: happened there. People were hiding and watching very horrible things.
Speaker 1: She's skeptical that political leaders have the victim's interest in mind.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: Therapists are interested in the victims and the survivors. I
Speaker 1: think politicians are interested in the image of Israel. The
Speaker 1: head of an Israeli ripe rape crisis center told The
Speaker 1: Times of London she was disgusted by the way the
Speaker 1: rape allegations had been politicized.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 1: On October eleventh, the Foreign Ministry launch a campaign under
Speaker 1: the hashtag believe Israeli Women. I did not think that
Speaker 1: was sensible, she said. They didn't mean believe Israeli women,
Speaker 1: they meant believe Israel Now. The article did not conclude
Speaker 1: that no rape had occurred, and left open the possibility
Speaker 1: that mass systematic rape had indeed been part of the
Speaker 1: mass October seventh attack, but simply pointed out what is
Speaker 1: inescapable at this point. As of now, there is no
Speaker 1: evidence to back those claims. Now, naturally, a backlash has
Speaker 1: been both swift and very revealing. Those three Israeli experts
Speaker 1: that were interviewed for the piece wrote a joint response
Speaker 1: claiming their words had been quote, misrepresented, twisted and cynically exploited.
Speaker 1: One can only imagine what pressure these experts are under
Speaker 1: in Israel itself. Notably, though they don't actually dispute any
Speaker 1: of the facts from the piece, nor do they specify
Speaker 1: these supposed misrepresentations or directly claim that they were actually misquoted.
Speaker 4: It's all left very vague.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, this response has fueled calls for The Times of
Speaker 1: London to apologize or even to retract the report entirely
Speaker 1: needless to say, that would be a strange thing to do,
Speaker 1: given that no error has actually been revealed. Meanwhile, however,
Speaker 1: The New York Times has published an explosive new report
Speaker 1: that does detail sexual assault used as a tool of
Speaker 1: war in a systematic way, with actual evidence to back
Speaker 1: it up. But you probably didn't hear about that report
Speaker 1: because it was about Palestinian prisoners being tortured and sodomized
Speaker 1: by their Israeli captors. In a lengthy investigation into abuse
Speaker 1: of Palestinians at an Israeli military based turned prison. They
Speaker 1: write that Palestinians were subjected to brutal beatings, electric shocks,
Speaker 1: in intentionional degradation, including being forced to wear only diapers,
Speaker 1: and sexual assault. Quote Mister Elham Lowie, the senior nurse,
Speaker 1: said a female officer had ordered two soldiers to lift
Speaker 1: him up and press his rectum against a metal stick
Speaker 1: that was fixed to the ground. He said the stick
Speaker 1: penetrated his rectum for roughly five seconds, causing it to
Speaker 1: bleed and leaving him with unbearable pain. A leaked draft
Speaker 1: of the unreport detailed an interview that gave a similar account.
Speaker 1: It cited a forty one year old detainee who said
Speaker 1: that interrogators quote made me sit on something like a
Speaker 1: hot metal stick and it felt like fire, and also
Speaker 1: said that another detainee died after they put the electric
Speaker 1: stick up his anus. But there will be no congressional
Speaker 1: resolutions about these assaults, No Sheryl Sandberg film, no convenience
Speaker 1: with Hillary Clinton to discuss why we should hashtag believe
Speaker 1: Palestinian men, because BB and Biden they never cared about
Speaker 1: human rights or protection from sexual assault, health they don't
Speaker 1: even actually care about Israeli women, since they're content to
Speaker 1: continue to let hostages languish in Gaza with no ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: They care about cynical emotional manipulation for their own political
Speaker 1: ends and to justify their own atrocities.
Speaker 4: Just a couple of dudes who couldn't.
Speaker 1: Care less about violence against women using fake feminism to
Speaker 1: justify a genocide. At least one outlet is no longer
Speaker 1: falling for the ruse and saga.
Speaker 4: I want we mentioned this and if you.
Speaker 2: Want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
Speaker 2: premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: We are very fortunate to be joined this morning by
Speaker 1: doctor Annelle Sheeline. She is a former State Department official
Speaker 1: who resigned over our government's policy visa of the Israeli
Speaker 1: and especially the Israeli assault on Gaza. Great to have you, doctor,
Speaker 1: you thanks for having me, and I understand now should
Speaker 1: give a shout out to our friends over at Quincy
Speaker 1: Institute that you are a research fellow for the Middle
Speaker 1: East there as well. Just start by introducing yourself a
Speaker 1: little bit to our audience. What your position was at
Speaker 1: the State Department and what led you finally to resign?
Speaker 9: So I was a foreign affairs officer with the Bureau
Speaker 9: of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor's Office of Near Eastern Affairs,
Speaker 9: so drl NEA, the office that works on human rights,
Speaker 9: does the human rights reports.
Speaker 10: And I had only been at the.
Speaker 9: State Department briefly when October seventh Hathbad. I'd only been
Speaker 9: there about six months, and in the end, I served
Speaker 9: for a year, which I had an obligation to the
Speaker 9: government to serve for a year, and I resigned over
Speaker 9: the unconditional support for Gaza, in particular the ways that
Speaker 9: the Biden administration is violating American law. I think that obviously,
Speaker 9: not only is this having a devastating effect for the
Speaker 9: people for Palestinians inside Vezza, but also for America's leadership
Speaker 9: in the world. I think we are doing incredible damage
Speaker 9: to the international order, to international law. And I think
Speaker 9: that this is going to come back to bite us
Speaker 9: because as other countries see that the US behaves in
Speaker 9: a way that the US and Israel have total disregard
Speaker 9: for international law, what is to prevent other countries from
Speaker 9: behaving similarly. Obviously we've saw Russia do that with the
Speaker 9: invasion of Ukraine. But as we enter a world where
Speaker 9: other countries are growing increasingly more powerful, I think the
Speaker 9: US and Israel may come to regret the ways that
Speaker 9: they thought they could just violate international law that there
Speaker 9: would be no consequences.
Speaker 2: Can you talk to us about what it was like
Speaker 2: inside the State Department at that time? And I presume
Speaker 2: that you were trying to voice dissent within the Department.
Speaker 2: What was it like in terms of the incoming from
Speaker 2: other countries and then trying to bubble that up to
Speaker 2: Anthony Blincoln and how receptive was he to the criticism.
Speaker 9: So, yes, exactly, there is the descent channel inside this
Speaker 9: Date Department. So I co authored a dissent cable and
Speaker 9: signed to other cables expressing my opposition and that of
Speaker 9: my colleagues to the unconditional US support for Israel and
Speaker 9: the effect this was having, and participated in open fora
Speaker 9: The State Department was aware of the deep level of
Speaker 9: concern and alarm over what these policies were doing, again
Speaker 9: not only to the people directly affected, but also just
Speaker 9: more broadly so from my office trying to promote human
Speaker 9: rights in the Middle East, which already was not an easy.
Speaker 10: Thing to do. To be clear, I mean, this is
Speaker 10: a deeply autocratic system.
Speaker 9: Many of these are governments where the US is much
Speaker 9: more interested in maintaining the security relationship or you know,
Speaker 9: just the nature of US relationships is not really governed
Speaker 9: by human rights sort of as a rule. But just
Speaker 9: the point was that after October s it just became
Speaker 9: completely impossible to try to advocate for human rights, not
Speaker 9: only because these governments would immediately turn around and say,
Speaker 9: how can you criticize us on human rights given what
Speaker 9: you're doing and supporting, and also that organizations, you know,
Speaker 9: civil society organizations on the ground in these countries, many
Speaker 9: of them were no longer interested in having anything to
Speaker 9: do with the State Department.
Speaker 1: You know, you clearly didn't go in with a pollyann
Speaker 1: of you. You're an experience professional. You wouldn't go in
Speaker 1: thinking like, oh, the US always stands with human rights
Speaker 1: and so that's the utmost priority. And yet still you
Speaker 1: were shocked and horrified enough to you know, to ultimately
Speaker 1: feel like you had to for your own integrity resign.
Speaker 1: Was there a particular breaking point were you truly shocked
Speaker 1: by the you know, the blanket support even for you know,
Speaker 1: things that were just outrageously clearly violations of US law. Either, Like,
Speaker 1: what was it that really surprised you about the response,
Speaker 1: given that you came in sort of clear eyed about
Speaker 1: the pragmatic nature of what you were going to be
Speaker 1: doing at the State Department.
Speaker 9: Well, it's definitely true that I did not come in with,
Speaker 9: you know, under any illusion that human rights were going
Speaker 9: to be the top priority even for the you know,
Speaker 9: for the Human Rights Office. However, you know, for me,
Speaker 9: there was not one particular point. I think it was
Speaker 9: really just the slow accumulation, just realizing day in and
Speaker 9: day out that just kind of, no matter what Israel did,
Speaker 9: the US just continue to provide more and more weapons
Speaker 9: and more and more money, and it just seemed that
Speaker 9: there was really no red line that Israel could cross
Speaker 9: that would suddenly push the Biden administration to finally say,
Speaker 9: all right, that's it, you know, we can no longer
Speaker 9: support this. And you know, so, as I mentioned, I
Speaker 9: was there exactly a year because I owed the government
Speaker 9: a year. I'd had a fellowship that obligated a year's service,
Speaker 9: so I decided that I would fulfill the obligation, and
Speaker 9: then on you know, exactly three hundred and sixty five
Speaker 9: days after I started, was when I handed in my resignation.
Speaker 9: I had not planned to go public initially because I
Speaker 9: was so new there.
Speaker 10: I didn't think I was important enough to go public.
Speaker 10: But it was speaking with.
Speaker 9: Colleagues who said, please reconsider, Please consider going public, because
Speaker 9: you know, these were colleagues who weren't in a position
Speaker 9: to resign, and so they really at that time and
Speaker 9: had only been Josh Paul, who'd resigned very early in
Speaker 9: the war, and then Tara Kabash, who's a political appointee
Speaker 9: from the Department of Education, were the only two public
Speaker 9: resignations at that point, but that after I resigned in
Speaker 9: late March, we've subsequently seen.
Speaker 10: Three or four more public resignations.
Speaker 9: And the hope was that by resigning publicly to build
Speaker 9: this pressure you know that we're seeing from many parts
Speaker 9: of American society, obviously from college campuses, from the Uncommitted
Speaker 9: movement and others really trying to say that the American
Speaker 9: people do not support what the administration is doing.
Speaker 3: Can you tell us about last year? Just referenced a
Speaker 3: lot of.
Speaker 2: Those colleagues who may not be in the same position
Speaker 2: you obviously had, you know, you could make alternative arrangements,
Speaker 2: et cetera. For a lot of the people who are
Speaker 2: lifers and others who are inside of the State Department,
Speaker 2: What would you say the prevailing opinion is.
Speaker 3: Is it the vast majority? Is it? You know, half
Speaker 3: and half are there? You know how representative?
Speaker 2: I guess what do your views be inside of the
Speaker 2: State Department amongst normal career officers?
Speaker 10: It's really hard to say.
Speaker 9: I mean, the State Department is massive, and I don't
Speaker 9: you know, I'm not in touch with you know, the
Speaker 9: thousands of people who work there, of course, right, but
Speaker 9: I can just speak to, you know, those that I
Speaker 9: was in touch with. There's a group called Fedes United
Speaker 9: for Peace, for example, which represents not only people at State,
Speaker 9: but people across the federal government who are are deeply,
Speaker 9: deeply opposed to what's going on. And so they were
Speaker 9: the ones who really supported me as I made the decision.
Speaker 9: Well can contributed to me making the decision to go
Speaker 9: public and then supported me, especially through the bit of
Speaker 9: a just a lot of media attention that followed, which
Speaker 9: I was not expecting.
Speaker 10: Like I said, I didn't think people would care. So
Speaker 10: I mean, it's.
Speaker 9: Really hard to say the level of opposition, but I
Speaker 9: do think in particular from those who know the region
Speaker 9: well and who have worked on this issue, that's often
Speaker 9: where you see some of the deepest levels of opposition.
Speaker 9: You know, these are people like Josh Paul, like Stacy Gilbert,
Speaker 9: who recently resigned from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Speaker 9: Migration because she had been working directly on the NSM
Speaker 9: twenty and that the final report that came out did
Speaker 9: not reflect the work that she and her colleagues had
Speaker 9: done on it, which I just reflects the ways that
Speaker 9: the State Department is ignoring the expertise of these many
Speaker 9: hundreds of individuals who know so much about the region
Speaker 9: and know this incredible damage that these policies are doing
Speaker 9: to us interests. Again, this is not just motivated by
Speaker 9: sort of a bleeding heart concern for Palestinians, although that
Speaker 9: is obviously, you know, part of it for many people,
Speaker 9: but it's also just this is directly harmful to American
Speaker 9: interests and arguably to Israeli interest We saw the myth
Speaker 9: of Israeli security punctured on October seventh. The clearly perpetual
Speaker 9: occupation is not a recipe for Israeli security, and so
Speaker 9: the US would best serve you know, American donors who
Speaker 9: are so concerned about the future of the state of Israel,
Speaker 9: if that's their primary motivation, they should be supporting of
Speaker 9: some kind of stable resolution that allows Palestinians to live
Speaker 9: in a circumstance where they don't they're not motivated to
Speaker 9: react violently, you know, to engage and action like October seventh.
Speaker 9: You know, like the extent to which this is also
Speaker 9: self defeating is It's truly mind boggling because many of
Speaker 9: the people working on this are such experts and know
Speaker 9: so much, and yet we continue to see this same
Speaker 9: futile and failed policy over and over and over again.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's so well said.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get your reaction to the UN Security
Speaker 1: Council resolution that the US just pushed through. We can
Speaker 1: put this first element up on the screen, guys with
Speaker 1: the numbers here. This is from Axius reporter Barack Revied breaking.
Speaker 1: The UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Monday calling
Speaker 1: on Hamas to accept the proposal for a hostage and
Speaker 1: ceasefire deal. Fourteen member states voted yes and Russia abstained.
Speaker 1: This has all been very strange. Why I wanted to
Speaker 1: get your reaction to it. So Biden comes down, he
Speaker 1: gives this big speech. He says, Israel has made this
Speaker 1: very generous proposal for a permanent cease fire. Here's the phases. Now,
Speaker 1: we're calling on Hamas to accept it.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 4: Hamas and in.
Speaker 1: Reaction also to this resolution for the UN Security Council said.
Speaker 4: Okay, we're open to it.
Speaker 1: Let's talk like, yes, if it's going to end the war,
Speaker 1: we are open to that. And in fact, yesterday you know,
Speaker 1: directly indicated that they supported the text of the Security
Speaker 1: Council resolution. Israel, on the other hand, who's ceasefire proposal
Speaker 1: this allegedly was, has been much more reluctant. There's you know,
Speaker 1: was really divided opinion within the war cabinet. You know
Speaker 1: how Benny Gantz out of the war cabinet. Natanyahuo reiterating
Speaker 1: that he will not accept any deal that will end
Speaker 1: the war without completely eliminating Hamas, which we all know
Speaker 1: has always been a preposterous goal. So what do you
Speaker 1: make of this whole situation and what do you make
Speaker 1: specifically of the significance of this ceasefire resolution passing through
Speaker 1: the UNSC.
Speaker 10: I'm it is confusing. I agree.
Speaker 9: I think the reason we're seeing this, at least to
Speaker 9: my interpretation, is that the Biden administration believes that if
Speaker 9: they portray this as sort of Israel's idea and then
Speaker 9: they have to get Hamas to agree, then that I
Speaker 9: guess would allow BB to maintain sort of the argument
Speaker 9: that like, he was the one in charge and he's
Speaker 9: the one you know, Hamas is agreeing to his terms.
Speaker 5: But this just.
Speaker 9: Reflects this ongoing blindness or naivete of the Biden administration
Speaker 9: because Ibinet Nyahu has no interest in ending the violence,
Speaker 9: because if the violence and the war stop, then we're
Speaker 9: going to have elections and he's going to lose the
Speaker 9: Prime ministership and then he's most likely going to go
Speaker 9: to jail so from because of corruption. I mean, he's
Speaker 9: you know, that's that's his future, most likely, and he's
Speaker 9: hoping that as long as he keeps the violence going,
Speaker 9: maybe public opinion would shift to the extent that he
Speaker 9: could continue, you know, maybe he could win the next election,
Speaker 9: or you know, just somehow keep kicking that can down
Speaker 9: the road so he doesn't have to face accountability for
Speaker 9: his crimes and so you know, this, this notion that
Speaker 9: the Biden administration has that if they frame this in
Speaker 9: such a way that it looks as if Israel's the one,
Speaker 9: you know, winning here or setting the terms that then
Speaker 9: they'll agree to it just reflects this same failed approach
Speaker 9: that's been going on this whole time, which is that
Speaker 9: Israel does not want the violence to end. They've said
Speaker 9: that they're not going to accept anything that ends the war,
Speaker 9: which is, as you just pointed out, their military objective
Speaker 9: of completely eliminating UMAs is impossible. And not only would
Speaker 9: it be you know, I mean you've heard horrifying statements
Speaker 9: from whether it's you know, for right members in Israel
Speaker 9: or even in this country just saying to you know,
Speaker 9: nuke the whole place still, I mean survivors and there
Speaker 9: are there's a massive Palestinian diaspora.
Speaker 10: I mean, there will.
Speaker 9: Always be opposition, you know, there will always be those
Speaker 9: trying to seek revenge. The state of Israel will never
Speaker 9: be secure as long as there is not a just stable,
Speaker 9: you know, secure solution for Palestinians. And so even if
Speaker 9: they somehow managed to eliminate Humas, which as you said,
Speaker 9: is like clearly notw happening.
Speaker 10: This is not going to end you know who.
Speaker 9: It may take a little while, but this will continue
Speaker 9: to happen as long as we continue to see Israel occupying.
Speaker 9: So I don't understand, really, why is the Biden administration
Speaker 9: continues to pursue this failed policy, you know. We we've
Speaker 9: also seen a lot of emphasis on the Israeli Saudi
Speaker 9: normalization deal, including the announcement that that Biden wants to
Speaker 9: extend the security to guarantee to the Saudis even if
Speaker 9: there isn't a normalization deal, which is crazy, Like, why
Speaker 9: how is it in US interest to extend this, you know,
Speaker 9: very ironclad security guarantee to the House of Saud when
Speaker 9: they're not even getting you know, the supposed objective was
Speaker 9: kind of Israeli Sadi normalization, let Israel feel more secure.
Speaker 9: I mean, that's been the modus operende all along this
Speaker 9: that if you make help Israel feel secure, then they'll
Speaker 9: be in a position to feel like they can move
Speaker 9: towards peace, which is the opposite of true. Instead, the
Speaker 9: more unconditional support the US gives to Israel, the more
Speaker 9: they have been emboldened to expand the occupation, to annex
Speaker 9: more territory to engage in greater and greater violence against
Speaker 9: Palestinians because they know that there's no red line and
Speaker 9: that the US will continue to provide them support no
Speaker 9: matter what they do.
Speaker 10: So all that to say.
Speaker 2: It just.
Speaker 9: I you know, they're ostensibly they're very smart people inside
Speaker 9: the White House making these decisions, and I really just
Speaker 9: don't get it.
Speaker 1: Can you speak to something that I don't know, I'm
Speaker 1: sort of personally fascinated by, which is you see people
Speaker 1: like Matthew Miller, who you know, State Department spokesperson probably
Speaker 1: would describe himself as having very similar worldview as you do.
Speaker 4: You know, like he's this, I'm.
Speaker 1: Sure he sees himself as like a liberal internetism. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he sees himself as believing in these laws that
Speaker 1: are on the US books that are supposed to prohibit
Speaker 1: transfer of weapons to human rights abusers and to countries
Speaker 1: that are blocking humanitarian aid as Israel clearly is doing.
Speaker 1: And you see them get up there day after day
Speaker 1: and you know, ask us to defy what our own
Speaker 1: eyes and ears are seeing in front of us, Like
Speaker 1: having been inside, what is the like? How do you
Speaker 1: get to that place mentally where you're just willing to
Speaker 1: go out there and say things like, oh, we're waiting
Speaker 1: for HAMASTI accept the deal and Israel's on board. When
Speaker 1: Israel is out here being like, no, we're not on board.
Speaker 1: That allows you to say no, no, I didn't really
Speaker 1: see that report about Israel blocking AID, even though obviously
Speaker 1: you have obviously you know what we're talking about.
Speaker 4: Or to say, oh, we're going to look into.
Speaker 1: That there's going to be an investigation, when you know
Speaker 1: there's never going to be an investigation, certainly not one
Speaker 1: that we ever hear the results of.
Speaker 4: Like how do you how do you end up there?
Speaker 10: That's a good question, you know.
Speaker 9: I thought the point about kind of the difference between
Speaker 9: the position that I was in as someone who came
Speaker 9: in later. You know, I have an academic background. I
Speaker 9: was coming from the think ting sector. Now I'm back
Speaker 9: in the thinking sector. That is very different from someone
Speaker 9: who's spent their whole career inside government.
Speaker 10: This is their entire professional network.
Speaker 9: The prospect of trying to leave, especially to have left
Speaker 9: publicly where you've burned all those bridges and suddenly you're
Speaker 9: seen as a traitor by your colleagues with whom you've
Speaker 9: worked your whole career. You know, I understand why for
Speaker 9: many people it is really challenging to think of resigning,
Speaker 9: and especially to do so publicly when it comes to
Speaker 9: Matt Miller or others who are in this position of
Speaker 9: having to essentially lie. I shouldn't say essentially to lie
Speaker 9: to the two reporters, to the public. We know he's
Speaker 9: lying because of statements from people like Hala Raret, who
Speaker 9: was the Arabic spokesperson who resigned over Uzza.
Speaker 10: A matter of weeks ago.
Speaker 9: She would send these horrifying videos coming out of Gaza
Speaker 9: and send the clear evidence, you know, photos and videos
Speaker 9: and clear statements that Israel is blocking US humanitarian support.
Speaker 9: Therefore they are no longer eligible to receive US security assistants.
Speaker 10: That is the law.
Speaker 9: All of this stuff she and many others are making
Speaker 9: sure is in the inboxes of all of these high
Speaker 9: level officials every day. So you know, for someone in
Speaker 9: that position, it's you know, I mean, it's perhaps gets
Speaker 9: to things like the banality of evil. You know, Hannah
Speaker 9: aren't talked about how it was that the Nazis were
Speaker 9: able to function, that it's people just doing their jobs
Speaker 9: being told. You know, these are your orders, and if
Speaker 9: you don't do them, you know, you're out of a job,
Speaker 9: you lose your income, you lose your status. I mean,
Speaker 9: I think for many people inside State, there is very
Speaker 9: much this sense of status. There is this feeling that
Speaker 9: you are involved in something very important. I've been in
Speaker 9: touch with colleagues who are opposed to what's happening, but
Speaker 9: they believe it's important that they continue to do what
Speaker 9: they're doing. Maybe they're not working on anything related to
Speaker 9: Israel Palestine, but they feel that their own work is important.
Speaker 10: And I don't want to discount that.
Speaker 9: But I do think that everyone, you know, everyone in
Speaker 9: this whole town, you know, Washington is full of people
Speaker 9: who came who do this work because they want to
Speaker 9: make a difference.
Speaker 10: They believe in making a difference.
Speaker 9: And yet I do feel that I hope that everyone
Speaker 9: sometimes takes a step back and really ask themselves, like
Speaker 9: what impact am I having? What is the impact of
Speaker 9: me continuing to go in and do my job every day?
Speaker 9: You know, whether it's something little or something really important,
Speaker 9: are you really changing anything? Because it doesn't seem like
Speaker 9: much is changing. So all of these people who you know,
Speaker 9: got the degrees and put in the legwork and now
Speaker 9: have the position they were hoping for, or they're angling
Speaker 9: for the position they feel like, we'll let them finally
Speaker 9: make a difference. I just would challenge them to look
Speaker 9: in the mirror and question, what impact are you really
Speaker 9: having other than.
Speaker 11: To perpetuate the status quo, to perpetuate this system within which,
Speaker 11: you know, the primary motivation for politicians is, you know,
Speaker 11: the money from big donors, and big donors are actors
Speaker 11: like major you know, defense contractor, you know, the Big
Speaker 11: five defense you know, like the.
Speaker 9: Military industrial complex is such a huge driver of our
Speaker 9: foreign policy and our politics. So yeah, you know, and
Speaker 9: I get it, you know, for kind of the any
Speaker 9: individual person, how are they supposed to like take that down?
Speaker 9: But I do think that if you're in a position
Speaker 9: to come out publicly against what's going on, and especially
Speaker 9: at a moment like this where we do have you know,
Speaker 9: I mean, history will judge those who were in positions
Speaker 9: to have made different choices and yet continue to make
Speaker 9: the same choice. And this is part of why I
Speaker 9: decided to go public, even though I, you know, was
Speaker 9: not anyone in a position of particular power, but I
Speaker 9: did just want to be able to you know, look
Speaker 9: myself in the face. And you know I've spoken about
Speaker 9: this before that I have a young daughter and the
Speaker 9: you know, imagining that she one day will be studying.
Speaker 10: This and we'll ask what we're.
Speaker 9: Doing, like, weren't you in government at this time? And
Speaker 9: if I had said yeah, I mean I was, but
Speaker 9: you know, there's really wasn't much I could do, you know,
Speaker 9: I would be lying. I think, you know, I wanted
Speaker 9: to be able to tell her, you know, I tried.
Speaker 10: I tried to do what I could.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, doctor Sheeline, We're really glad you landed at Quincy.
Speaker 1: We love their work and we're especially grateful to you
Speaker 1: for your courage and also for your time today.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Tell people where they can follow you.
Speaker 9: By the way, I'm on Twitter and Nelle Sheeline and
Speaker 9: you can find my work at the Quincy Institute quincyinst
Speaker 9: dot org and you know we'll be working on these issues,
Speaker 9: you know, look forward. You know, really appreciate all the
Speaker 9: work that you all are doing to draw attention to this,
Speaker 9: because I think the media narrative has been so influential,
Speaker 9: and unfortunately the mainstream media has been so detrimental and
Speaker 9: so I so appreciate those who are bringing uh who
Speaker 9: are really you know, drawing attention to what's actually going on.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you.
Speaker 1: We're very grateful for that and great to have you,
Speaker 1: and we'll hope to talk to you again.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have a great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow.
Speaker 2: We will see you all on Thursday.