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 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have Crystal, Indeed, we do lots of
Speaker 1: breaking news to cover This morning. South Africa presented their
Speaker 1: case at the ICJ at the Hegue, so we break
Speaker 1: that down for you. This comes as the hoofies have
Speaker 1: stepped up their attacks, leading to a very dangerous situation
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. We had a debate last night
Speaker 1: between Rond de Santis and Nikki Haley.
Speaker 4: We also had a Trump town hall. We have all
Speaker 4: of the.
Speaker 1: Highlight, oh highlight light out of those interactions.
Speaker 4: What is it mean?
Speaker 1: And of course Saga covered this yesterday. Chris Christy has
Speaker 1: now dropped out of the race that could actually have
Speaker 1: some significant impacts in New Hampshire, so we'll talk about
Speaker 1: that as well. There are some significant developments in numerous
Speaker 1: Trump legal cases, some cutting in his direction, some cutting
Speaker 1: against him. We will break those down for you. Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden made a big surprise visit to Capitol Hill and
Speaker 1: it led to some very interesting fireworks. We'll tell you
Speaker 1: about that. Sager is taking a look at how Ron
Speaker 1: DeSantis invented affirmative action for Jewish people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh wow. Interesting.
Speaker 4: A lot to us there.
Speaker 1: And I'm taking a look at some new reports revealing
Speaker 1: just stunning bias in media coverage of Israel and Palestine.
Speaker 4: So a lot to get to you this morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really excited for all of that, especially at
Speaker 2: two monologues back in the show.
Speaker 3: So that's very fun.
Speaker 2: That's a reminder, by the way, a while you can
Speaker 2: sign up Breakingpoints dot com to become a premium member.
Speaker 2: We're currently soliciting premium member questions for our RFAJU and
Speaker 2: your focus group. It will be taking place tomorrow on
Speaker 2: the ground in Detroit. Our entire team will be there,
Speaker 2: so we've got a great number of people that we'll
Speaker 2: be voting for RFK Junior. We want to hear from
Speaker 2: them what do you guys want, like, what are you
Speaker 2: looking for? Why do you support RFK? How strong is
Speaker 2: your support? To our knowledge, the first focus group really
Speaker 2: of its kind by a media organization, to be fair.
Speaker 2: So if you can help us out support work like
Speaker 2: that and a lot of other big plans we have
Speaker 2: for the election season, you can sign up right now
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: So, whether you know it or not, CNN hosted a
Speaker 1: debate last night between Republican presidential contenders Nicki Haley and
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis. Came right after Chris Christy had actually dropped
Speaker 1: out of the race, which is very interesting. He didn't
Speaker 1: make the debate stage anyway, so it's not like he
Speaker 1: would have been there, but has obviously changed the dynamics
Speaker 1: of the race. I took a look at some of
Speaker 1: the quote unquote highlights from the night. You know, the
Speaker 1: big story here is, of course Trump is not on
Speaker 1: the stage. He is overwhelmingly leading the Republican presidential nomination contest,
Speaker 1: and so at the beginning of the debate, both Ron
Speaker 1: and Nicki made some nod towards the fact that Trump
Speaker 1: was not there and attempted to attack him, but most
Speaker 1: of the time they just spent going after each other
Speaker 1: in an aggressive manner. So let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: a little bit of their attacks on Trump and then
Speaker 1: how they were going at one another.
Speaker 5: I wish Donald Trump was up here on this stage.
Speaker 5: He's the one that I'm running against. He's the one
Speaker 5: that I wish would be here. He needs to be
Speaker 5: defending his record right now. He's not defending the fact
Speaker 5: that he allowed us to have eight trillion dollars in
Speaker 5: debt over four years, that our kids are never going
Speaker 5: to forgive us. For the fact that he didn't deal
Speaker 5: with China when it came to stealing intellectual property, the
Speaker 5: fact that they gave us COVID, the fact that they've
Speaker 5: gone and continue to put up Chinese police stations and
Speaker 5: continue to threaten our military. He didn't do enough to
Speaker 5: make sure that we were really standing with our.
Speaker 4: Friends and doing that.
Speaker 6: He said he was going to build a wall and
Speaker 6: have Mexico pay for it. He did not deliver that.
Speaker 6: He said he was going to drain the swamp. He
Speaker 6: did not deliver that. He said he was going to
Speaker 6: hold Hillary accountable, and he let her off the hook.
Speaker 6: He said he was going to eliminate the debt, and
Speaker 6: he added seven point eight trillion dollars to the debt.
Speaker 6: So we need to deliver and get this stuff done.
Speaker 6: And I think the difference and we need to go.
Speaker 5: Back to the basics and education, so we get back problem.
Speaker 6: Though that word salad is the problem. She's always supported
Speaker 6: school choice and she failed to deliver. She blames other people.
Speaker 6: Leadership is about getting things done, stop making it.
Speaker 5: If leadership is about getting things done, how did you
Speaker 5: blow through one hundred and fifty million dollars in your
Speaker 5: campaign and you were down in the polls.
Speaker 3: So here here's.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 6: I'm going to say, it's very instructive about what.
Speaker 3: I think I have the political.
Speaker 6: That's important.
Speaker 3: Education what is more important? Here she's saying something go
Speaker 3: it's Governor Hale, is time go ahead.
Speaker 4: I think I hit a nerve. So I mean that
Speaker 4: was basically the dynamic all night.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of like they get into it
Speaker 1: with each other on these little like parts of their
Speaker 1: record that people aren't even particularly familiar with, and you're
Speaker 1: just asking yourself the whole time, like what are we have.
Speaker 4: Him doing here?
Speaker 1: You're going mercilessly at each other for the honor of
Speaker 1: being in second place, Like what is going on and
Speaker 1: will I mean, I will say, in terms of the
Speaker 1: blows that were landed, I think Nicky's attack on Ron
Speaker 1: of basically like you're a loser. You spent one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million dollars and you've done nothing but tank
Speaker 1: in the polls is probably the most effective attack at
Speaker 1: this point.
Speaker 3: And the only reason is because it's not about you.
Speaker 2: When twenty ten spent twelve dollars at a Chinese restaurant,
Speaker 2: it's like, it's there was.
Speaker 1: A lengthy discussion of a like two thousand and nine
Speaker 1: bathroom bill.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I'll stop.
Speaker 8: Yeah, all right.
Speaker 2: So what this is about is he's tainted and he
Speaker 2: seems like a loser. People don't want to be part
Speaker 2: of a losing campaign. That's it, period. A lot of
Speaker 2: this is about vibes. The problem, though, is that at
Speaker 2: the very same time Crystal that the debate was happening,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was on Fox News giving The Trump Show,
Speaker 2: and guess what, sorry to say it, The Trump Show
Speaker 2: is way more compelling, it's more fun to watch because
Speaker 2: he understands that at a very base level. And so
Speaker 2: we have some of the highlights there from Trump's town
Speaker 2: hall and frankly, just given his political position, these are
Speaker 2: going to matter way more in the actual eventual general election.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 9: Can you say tonight that political violence is never acceptable? Well,
Speaker 9: of course that's right, and of course I'm the one
Speaker 9: that had very little of it. Take a look at
Speaker 9: Wars again, I didn't start. I wasn't involved in Wars.
Speaker 9: We beat the hell out of Isis. We won one
Speaker 9: hundred percent. We brought our troops back home. Look at
Speaker 9: the violence that we've had, look at the violence we
Speaker 9: have recently. But when you say bedlam, what do you
Speaker 9: mean I think said bedlam? I think you look at
Speaker 9: Joe Biden's bedlam. You have a man who can't lead.
Speaker 9: You have a man who can't find his way off
Speaker 9: a stage after he makes a speech that lasts for
Speaker 9: about two minutes. Now, I think Bedlam is Joe Biden.
Speaker 9: I think that he's using this. This is just a
Speaker 9: political ploy. Trump is a dictator. He wants to be
Speaker 9: a dictator. You know, it's interesting. I did a show
Speaker 9: Sean Hannah. Did you ever hear of him? He's a
Speaker 9: very nice man, and he said, essentially, you're not going
Speaker 9: to be a dictator.
Speaker 3: Are you tell me.
Speaker 9: I think he was trying to give me a nicer
Speaker 9: question that maybe you guys, but he meant it very well.
Speaker 9: I said, I'm going to be a dictator for one day.
Speaker 9: We're going to do two things. The border, we're going
Speaker 9: to make it so tight you can't get in unless
Speaker 9: you come in legally. And the other is energy. We're
Speaker 9: going to drill, baby, drill.
Speaker 10: Some of my friends that supported you in twenty twenty
Speaker 10: are not this time because they believe a Trump presidency
Speaker 10: will bring four years of chaos due to your haters.
Speaker 10: What is your response to them?
Speaker 9: Well, I think, first of all, I'm glad you're asking
Speaker 9: the question, and I'm very glad that you started off
Speaker 9: by saying you're with me, because I want you on
Speaker 9: my side. I figured maybe Fox would have written that
Speaker 9: question if it was just the second part of the question.
Speaker 9: But just so you understand, we don't write any of
Speaker 9: the questions.
Speaker 4: You all wrote the questions, just Claire.
Speaker 9: We'll figure that one pretty soon.
Speaker 1: Oh javit, Fox is there suggesting that they scripted the.
Speaker 3: Come on, he asked it in the nicest way possible
Speaker 3: and say like, I'm with you. Yeah, He's like, look, sir,
Speaker 3: I'm with you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he is so thin skinned. He is unbelievable.
Speaker 3: But listening, you have to give it to him. He's trying.
Speaker 3: It's funny any what he does.
Speaker 1: Listen the content aside, because honestly, I think his content
Speaker 1: and Ron and Nicky's content to be horrifying, but we'll
Speaker 1: put that aside of him. I mean, he's an another
Speaker 1: league in terms of the showmanship. Absolutely in terms of
Speaker 1: the charism, it's just not even comparable. On the dictator question,
Speaker 1: it's interesting that he brought that up on his own.
Speaker 3: I think he thinks it's very amusing.
Speaker 1: I think he thinks it's amusing, and I think he's
Speaker 1: right that there's an appetite in the Republican base of like,
Speaker 1: screw the roles and we want the strong man who's
Speaker 1: just going to do what we want him to do,
Speaker 1: who's going to be that bulwark against the Libs who
Speaker 1: we see is this like existential threat and pulling bears
Speaker 1: that out that there are these you know, tendencies throughout
Speaker 1: the American public, but disproport on the Republican side that's like,
Speaker 1: you know, actually, we're willing to bend the rules of
Speaker 1: democracy to have that strong man leader, do what we
Speaker 1: want him to do. I think Trump intuit's that and
Speaker 1: so far from it being this like negative, at least
Speaker 1: in terms of a Republican primary contest. Maybe it's different
Speaker 1: in a general election. I'm not really sure, but he
Speaker 1: intuits that. No, actually people want to hear that I'm going.
Speaker 4: To be that guy.
Speaker 3: I think he both. There's two things.
Speaker 2: So A there definitely is a desire, but be what
Speaker 2: I as far as I understand, what he knows is
Speaker 2: how to drive the media crazy.
Speaker 3: He knows how to get the.
Speaker 2: Headlines that he wants that both work to his political
Speaker 2: benefit and absolutely drive insane Washington Post columnists.
Speaker 3: This is the perfect, you know, way to do it.
Speaker 2: And so bringing that up the problem and you know,
Speaker 2: this is what really gets to it is that Trump
Speaker 2: also does not seem to yet have a sense that
Speaker 2: stopped the steal was a massive problem for him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he did not intuit.
Speaker 2: In that chaos question that while it is not true
Speaker 2: in a Republican primary, it is absolutely true for the
Speaker 2: overall general electorate. And this is not I have to
Speaker 2: be I totally underestimated this in twenty twenty two. I
Speaker 2: didn't think people would care. I was like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a long time ago, we're talking about a new election. No,
Speaker 2: it's a huge problem for a lot of normal voters.
Speaker 2: And I think now that I've just come to understand it,
Speaker 2: it's just like people felt like, you know, tight in
Speaker 2: the chest at the idea of political problems. They also
Speaker 2: don't they really hate Joe Biden, but a lot of
Speaker 2: people are willing to do lesser of two evils. I
Speaker 2: think he needs a lot better answer actually on that
Speaker 2: second question than he did. I don't think the dictator
Speaker 2: the thing is a problem. I think it really is.
Speaker 3: It gets down to just give us some calm, and
Speaker 3: that's just not what he's calibrated to do.
Speaker 2: So that was his big problem, on top of rovers
Speaker 2: his weight, which are about to get Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Trump is a master like creating suspending reality and.
Speaker 4: Creating his own reality totally.
Speaker 1: You know, this is something that he has excelled at
Speaker 1: is a politician. He excelled at as a businessman as well.
Speaker 1: But I think to deny that there was political violence
Speaker 1: during the Trump term, that's a difficult one for people
Speaker 1: to swallow because obviously they.
Speaker 4: Think immediately of January six, But.
Speaker 1: Also I mean the violence associated with the Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter movement.
Speaker 4: Wow, that happened under his term as well.
Speaker 3: I would go all the way back.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember what twenty seventeen, that was a
Speaker 2: whole Antifa thing, and then there was Proud.
Speaker 4: Charlottesville also happened.
Speaker 3: That was all one year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was, if anything, I remember, more political violence
Speaker 2: really than modern memory. I wouldn't even necessarily say it's
Speaker 2: like his fault, but it did exist, right, And that's
Speaker 2: something you've got to you know, you have to acknowledge that, right.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of it is his fault, just
Speaker 1: because of the incredibly polarizing force that he is. But
Speaker 1: even if you don't think that, like to just deny
Speaker 1: the reality of what we all experience for those four
Speaker 1: years is a lot.
Speaker 4: It's a lot to swell.
Speaker 1: And like I said, of course, instantly what people think
Speaker 1: about is like what about January six?
Speaker 4: Dude?
Speaker 1: So, as you mentioned, Sager, he got asked about Roe
Speaker 1: versus Wade. He had had to try to tow an
Speaker 1: interesting line on this because he knows that the abortion
Speaker 1: politics for Republicans at this point are a disaster. Like
Speaker 1: he knew that immediately when the Supreme court decision came down.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it continues to be very animating
Speaker 1: issue for the base. So let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: part of how he responded to a question about abortion rights.
Speaker 9: For fifty four years, they were trying to get Roe v.
Speaker 9: Wade terminated, and I did it, and I'm proud to
Speaker 9: have done it. They wanted to get it back right,
Speaker 9: You wouldn't be have that. There would be no question
Speaker 9: nobody else was going to get that done with me,
Speaker 9: and we did it.
Speaker 3: And that was immediately meet it out by the Biden.
Speaker 4: That is a Biden campaign ad. Just right there.
Speaker 1: You will, I guarantee you will hear those words again
Speaker 1: packaged into a campaign ad.
Speaker 2: This is the difficulty of this race is that Biden
Speaker 2: is tremendously unpopular and he's so old. I genuinely don't
Speaker 2: think he should not be qualified to run for president.
Speaker 2: And I still think that he's got a decent chance
Speaker 2: of winning. Now I don't think he has like a
Speaker 2: great chance of winning, but he's got The fact that
Speaker 2: they has a chance in the first place, to me
Speaker 2: is nuts. And the problem with that is abortion politics.
Speaker 2: We saw over and over and over again that there
Speaker 2: is an entire animated new political base that is willing
Speaker 2: to come out and willing to vote on this. It's
Speaker 2: deeply personal, and it's one that is willing to override
Speaker 2: the rarest of things. To me, Crystal is a social
Speaker 2: issue which can a one hundred percent override economic issue.
Speaker 2: It's almost never happened in modern American history except for
Speaker 2: this time in twenty and twenty two. Now, there are
Speaker 2: a couple of reasons to be optimistic on the Trump side.
Speaker 2: The economic situation continues to fester, The global position is bad.
Speaker 2: The Israel position for Joe Biden within the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: is a problem. We're getting farther and farther away to
Speaker 2: a post row Ish consensus. You know, the states that
Speaker 2: don't want it have generally carved out or done different things.
Speaker 2: So there's reason to believe also that you have these
Speaker 2: non frequent voters that don't aren't as animated by Roe,
Speaker 2: that would come out and would vote for him.
Speaker 3: So I'm not coming him out. I genuinely think it's
Speaker 3: fifty to fifty right now, yeah, point, but I think
Speaker 3: it should be seventy five.
Speaker 2: To twenty five. I don't even think it should be
Speaker 2: a concern. That's a problem.
Speaker 8: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're both like, both Biden and Trump are
Speaker 1: so disliked by the American public, so many people just
Speaker 1: want to move on from both of these dudes that
Speaker 1: to say, like who should be winning in this Senate,
Speaker 1: I don't know. They both are so extraordinarily weak that
Speaker 1: it is pretty pathetic, you know, I want to make
Speaker 1: the case. So going back to the Republican primary, there
Speaker 1: has been some you know, there have been some interesting developments.
Speaker 1: We covered Nikki Haley surging in the polls in New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: like genuinely multiple polls have her now within single digits
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump in New Hampshire, which I'm really surprised by.
Speaker 1: We also have her now in the Real Clear Politics average,
Speaker 1: in the national average, and in Iowa she has overtaken
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis in the second place position, so she has
Speaker 1: really claimed that second place Trump alternative spot. At the
Speaker 1: same point, you have to assume that even though Chris
Speaker 1: didn't endorse her and also got caught on a hot
Speaker 1: mic completely trashing her hilarious, that his exit from the
Speaker 1: race is going to benefit Nikki Haley in particular in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire. And I think it's very likely that many,
Speaker 1: if not most, of his voters go to her campaign,
Speaker 1: and since she was already only facing a single dig
Speaker 1: at least according the polls, single digit deficit wit Trump,
Speaker 1: is it possible she wins New Hampshire? Then, you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen primaries in the past where somebody gets a
Speaker 1: surprise win and it completely flips the polls and shifts
Speaker 1: the dynamics overnight.
Speaker 4: Do I think that's likely?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 4: Is it possible? It's possible.
Speaker 1: There's a theoretic, theoretical case out there. So on the
Speaker 1: one hand, let me give the anti Nikki case. And
Speaker 1: this was laid out pretty compellingly in Politico magazine by
Speaker 1: Jonathan Allen. Let's put this up on the screen and
Speaker 1: basically what he argues here, he says why Haley won't
Speaker 1: break through. The today's up has split along class lines
Speaker 1: in her college educated support are not the majority. He
Speaker 1: just argues, like the wine track beer track case. Yep,
Speaker 1: the beer track folks who make a majority at this
Speaker 1: point of the Republican base are with Trump. The wine
Speaker 1: track folks are increasingly with Niki. But even if they
Speaker 1: all consolidate and behind Nikki, it's still not enough. And
Speaker 1: that that's sort of like the fundamental issue that she's
Speaker 1: facing in this campaign is she is yet to demonstrate
Speaker 1: any ability to reach into Trump's working class base.
Speaker 2: It just remains so patently obvious to me. I even
Speaker 2: in a one to one race. So Trump's internals, he
Speaker 2: released them yesterday. They weren't great for Trump, but it
Speaker 2: did show him beating one on one NICKI Haley. I
Speaker 2: think it was like fifty eight to four, or it
Speaker 2: was like fifty two to forty.
Speaker 3: Something like that.
Speaker 4: I have those, I'll show those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the point being that there was an internal Trump
Speaker 2: pull that show him still beating her. And the reason
Speaker 2: why is that the vast majority of people who will
Speaker 2: vote in a GOP primary are non college educated white people,
Speaker 2: and those people are dramatically pro Trump. Now there is
Speaker 2: a small portion which are college educated, the remnants of
Speaker 2: the Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush type voter
Speaker 2: by and large, though most of those people who are
Speaker 2: very political are Democrats now they voted for Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: There are very much like the CIA Democrats here in
Speaker 2: Northern Virginia, and that is the probably the great political
Speaker 2: realignment of our time. So if you're just winning college
Speaker 2: educated you know, so called wine track voters.
Speaker 3: It's just not going to work.
Speaker 2: This was the reason why the only two candidates and
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary of twenty twenty who had any shot,
Speaker 2: we're Bernie Sanders and we're Joe Biden. Yeah, they're the
Speaker 2: only two who had any chance with working class voters. Warren,
Speaker 2: you know, Kamala Corey, all these other people, they're MSNBC nobodies.
Speaker 2: It's like you got to be able to have a
Speaker 2: bartender or union worker, any these other people. Because while yes,
Speaker 2: a huge portion of the Democratic base is college educated,
Speaker 2: still the majority of people who vote Democrat in this
Speaker 2: country are not college educated. So but they're totally erased,
Speaker 2: you know, from media, from everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I agree with you on that. I do
Speaker 1: want to present the case for Niki right, the most hopeful,
Speaker 1: optimistic case of how she could find a path to
Speaker 1: winning the Republican primary outright.
Speaker 4: So you referenced this was.
Speaker 1: Really interesting and I think this was a real own
Speaker 1: goal from the Trump campaign. They released after Chris Christy
Speaker 1: dropped down, they released this internal poll that they had
Speaker 1: taken that showed what would head to head between Trump
Speaker 1: and Nikki Haley look like in the states of Iowa
Speaker 1: and New.
Speaker 4: Hampshire, and they still had Trump winning.
Speaker 1: But again, this is your own internal poll, so it's
Speaker 1: going to very likely be more favorable towards you than
Speaker 1: reality actually is. And they had him beating Nikki fifty
Speaker 1: six forty in Iowa and only fifty two forty four
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire.
Speaker 4: Those are not overwhelming numbers.
Speaker 1: That's a race, right for the overwhelming majority of the
Speaker 1: Republican primary process, save for right after the midterms, there
Speaker 1: has not been a race. These numbers here in single digits.
Speaker 1: You know, you're within ten fifteen points. That's actually a
Speaker 1: real race. Those are the sort of numbers where you
Speaker 1: can imagine if Nicki is surging right now in the
Speaker 1: right moment, which she appears to be, that she could
Speaker 1: theoretically close the gap.
Speaker 4: The way that this could.
Speaker 1: Happen is just to play the sound so Iowa caucuses.
Speaker 1: Ron has invested so much money in Iowa and it's
Speaker 1: not looking good. You know, his polls have continued to
Speaker 1: trail off. If he underperforms in Iowa gets third, Trump
Speaker 1: sort of get you know, wins but has a less
Speaker 1: more lackluster performance than expected, so he you know, does
Speaker 1: not meet or exceed expectations. Ron drops out, and then
Speaker 1: you are effectively facing this Nicki Haley versus Donald Trump
Speaker 1: race in New Hampshire, and if the Vek is still
Speaker 1: hanging in there, he's probably taking more from Trump than
Speaker 1: he is from Nicki.
Speaker 4: He's actually helping Nicki at that point.
Speaker 1: If he hangs in there, and then if Nicky's able
Speaker 1: to pull off the upset victory, which polls shows she's
Speaker 1: got a shot of at this point, then you could
Speaker 1: create a permission structure for people who have felt like
Speaker 1: I need to stay with Trump, or I need to
Speaker 1: say I'm staying with Trump, even though I'm kind of
Speaker 1: sick of him. I kind of do feel like he's old,
Speaker 1: Like I'm this chaos. I'm not really down for it,
Speaker 1: but I have felt like I need to stay in line,
Speaker 1: and I felt like he's the guy, and there isn't
Speaker 1: really room for an alternative. She creates a permission structure
Speaker 1: for this theoretical group of people that I don't know
Speaker 1: whether they exist or not, to then switch loyalties and
Speaker 1: for the polls to flip in a dramatic way in
Speaker 1: the way that they did for Joe Biden last time around.
Speaker 1: In the way that they did for Barack Obama back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight against Hillary Clinton. I think
Speaker 1: it's theoretically possible. Again, do I think it's the most
Speaker 1: likely outcome. No, I think the most likely outcome is
Speaker 1: Trump romps. He wins basically every state, and this is
Speaker 1: over in a couple of weeks. But this is the
Speaker 1: first time where I can even really visualize a path
Speaker 1: for anyone else to actually win out.
Speaker 3: Right now, I totally agree.
Speaker 2: I would say that the odds of it are less
Speaker 2: than twenty percent. Honestly, that might even be generous. But
Speaker 2: let's give it to her just for the sake of
Speaker 2: it being fun. It just makes New Hampshire. They'll all
Speaker 2: make or break. It's like she has to win. Yes,
Speaker 2: primary Luckily we'll be having a great show during New Hampshire,
Speaker 2: so we will all digest it. We would do so
Speaker 2: here together. But I'm excited to see it. Oh, I
Speaker 2: forgot to mention this. Have to put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. Trump is now pulling out the greatest hits
Speaker 2: against Nicki Haley. He is now says in Nikki Haley, this.
Speaker 3: Is from Gateway on It in one of the original
Speaker 3: birth places.
Speaker 2: He says in Nicki Haley situation, reports indicate that her
Speaker 2: parents were not US citizens at the time of her
Speaker 2: birth in nineteen seventy two. Based on the Constitution as
Speaker 2: interpreted by one of their in house analysts, Chris disqualifies
Speaker 2: Haley from presidential or vice presidential candidacy under the Twelfth Amendment.
Speaker 4: The birth certificate.
Speaker 2: Nikki, Well, no, this is different because this is she
Speaker 2: was born here, but her parents weren't citizens whenever she
Speaker 2: was born. Unfortunately for Trump, that's pretty well trodden territory
Speaker 2: in terms of US citizenship law.
Speaker 3: So anyway, though, you know, you got to throw whatever
Speaker 3: you can. I actually don't think it'll be impactful at all.
Speaker 2: It's more so that it demonstrates he sees her relatively serious, right,
Speaker 2: and so.
Speaker 3: He's got it. He needs a big win in Iowa.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think big win in Iowa twenty sox
Speaker 2: or some points, blowout win that softens her up a
Speaker 2: little bit going in New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: But let's say she gets them within ten. She could
Speaker 3: spin that and maybe she could win. Maybe that would
Speaker 3: be extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Because so much of politics is number one about expectations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the expectation for Trump is that it's a blowout
Speaker 1: in Iowa. And if so, if he doesn't meet those expectations.
Speaker 1: And you also know, the media loves Nicky Haley. They
Speaker 1: love her, and the billionaire class on the Republican side
Speaker 1: they have lined up behind her like she is their
Speaker 1: chosen Canadate.
Speaker 4: Fox News loves her.
Speaker 1: Yes, so you know they will do everything they can
Speaker 1: to spin the Iowa results in her favor even if
Speaker 1: she doesn't win. I think it's very unlikely she wins
Speaker 1: the Iowa caucus. I mean, listen, anything can happen, especially
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be like minus freaking thirty in Iowa
Speaker 1: that day. And so maybe she's really super organized, maybe
Speaker 1: her people are really dedicated and die hard. Trump's aren't aren't.
Speaker 1: If anything, I would think it would cut in the
Speaker 1: other direction. But who the heck knows. But if he
Speaker 1: fails to meet the very high expectations, the media is
Speaker 1: going to spend it in her favor. She goes into
Speaker 1: New Hampshire with the head of steam. Who knows what
Speaker 1: could happen?
Speaker 2: We will certainly see. Okay, let's move on to Trump
Speaker 2: and his legal problems. This's probably more This probably is
Speaker 2: the more important conversation for the overall election. There's a
Speaker 2: couple of different instances that have happened. There was recently,
Speaker 2: there have been a lot of hearings with respect to
Speaker 2: Trump and in much of his challenges, specifically to the
Speaker 2: January sixth prosecution that has been mounted against him by
Speaker 2: Jack Smith. That all centers around presidential immunity and the
Speaker 2: theory of how and when a president can be charged,
Speaker 2: even a former president, and be held liable legally for
Speaker 2: whether that person was currently occupying the executive office of
Speaker 2: the president. So one of the judges who is hearing
Speaker 2: this presidential immunity argument leveled a very interesting hypothetical. They
Speaker 2: got an even more interesting answer. Here's what they had
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 11: Did a president order sealed Team six to assassinate a
Speaker 11: political rival an official act in order to seal Team sits.
Speaker 7: He would have to be and would speedily be, you know,
Speaker 7: uh uh impeached and convicted before the criminals.
Speaker 11: But if you weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution,
Speaker 11: no criminal liability for that.
Speaker 7: Chief Justices opinion in murder against Macison and h h
Speaker 7: and the ar concut tradition and the plain language of
Speaker 7: the apeachment judgment clause all clearly presupposed that what the
Speaker 7: founders were concerned about was not.
Speaker 11: I asked you a yes, no, yes, or no question.
Speaker 11: Could a president who ordered seal team sits to assassinate
Speaker 11: a political rival who was not impeached would he be
Speaker 11: subject to criminal prosecution.
Speaker 7: If he were impeached and convicted first?
Speaker 11: And so your answer is.
Speaker 8: Is my answer is qualified?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 3: Answer? Is it qualified? Yes? Interesting?
Speaker 2: You know, I actually thought about it, and it doesn't
Speaker 2: seem as nuts as it sounds, because if we think
Speaker 2: back to the only similar analogous case Barack Obama. Uh,
Speaker 2: do you remember whenever you assassinated anwar al ALWICKI? Yeah,
Speaker 2: so this was twenty eleven. I mean, this is actually
Speaker 2: a crazy legal president. Yeah, Barack Obama, the president of
Speaker 2: the United States Executive Office, held a due process style
Speaker 2: hearing inside the executive branch and assassinated an American citizen
Speaker 2: on foreign soil using the United States military.
Speaker 3: Now, obviously it's substantively.
Speaker 2: Different in that we're talking about a political rival here,
Speaker 2: but technically, because all citizens are the same under the Constitution,
Speaker 2: it's one of those where we somewhat kind of had
Speaker 2: a test to this and nothing happened to him.
Speaker 3: Now, I do not believe that that was the right
Speaker 3: thing to do.
Speaker 2: I don't think it was right that that was even
Speaker 2: allowed to happen, and that there was some sort of crazy.
Speaker 2: But the problem is is that because that did happen,
Speaker 2: what I have seen is that could be cited as
Speaker 2: an instance for which this has been held.
Speaker 4: Right that I did.
Speaker 1: Anyone try to bring charge is dismissed on the presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: So his family brought charges or tried to bring them
Speaker 2: in a US Corps, they were dismissed. It wasn't necessarily
Speaker 2: on the grounds of immunity. I believe it was under
Speaker 2: counter I'd have to go back and read. It has
Speaker 2: been a while, but it was around counter terrorism grounds.
Speaker 3: But I mean, if you do think about it substantively,
Speaker 3: that was an insane.
Speaker 1: But like, of course it's an insane situation. But that
Speaker 1: couldn't be cited as precedent since there wasn't a ruling
Speaker 1: that this was barred because present unity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but your point is taken. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: That's what I hadn't thought of. But I mean, what
Speaker 1: he's arguing for here is really wild.
Speaker 3: I agree, because if you.
Speaker 1: Think about just to lay on a separate scenario under
Speaker 1: his legal theory here, Joe Biden could have Trump assassinated
Speaker 1: resign Yes, before there are impeachment hearings, good to go,
Speaker 1: can't prosecute me presidential immunity, this was an official act.
Speaker 4: I wasn't impeached. Sorry, you can't get me.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, it really is like an insane thing
Speaker 1: to argue that there is literally as long as they're
Speaker 1: not impeached, they can do absolutely whatever they want. And
Speaker 1: I believe it was perhaps our friend Bradley Moss on
Speaker 1: Twitter who was pointing out like there also may be
Speaker 1: a lot of politicians who are pretty reluctant to impeach
Speaker 1: in the Senate when they know this person is so
Speaker 1: crazy that they will just have you assassinated, you know,
Speaker 1: willy nilly.
Speaker 4: So it is, it is a wild thing dark.
Speaker 2: This all traces back to the imperial presidency theory under
Speaker 2: Richard Nixon and then really popularized by Dick Cheney and
Speaker 2: the White House phill a lot of these people who
Speaker 2: this is a very very actually recent interpretation of the
Speaker 2: US presidency, but it combined at a time, unfortunately, when
Speaker 2: the executive office became more powerful than ever before. This
Speaker 2: is the most logical conclusion of that. I absolutely heart that.
Speaker 2: I absolutely would hope that a court would strike somethingness
Speaker 2: down because this is as king like as it gets.
Speaker 3: Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is literally how they treated monarchs and
Speaker 2: so called monarch monarchical constitutional systems.
Speaker 3: They're like, yeah, the Constitution applies to everybody except for the.
Speaker 4: King, except the king.
Speaker 1: It seems like these judges were very skeptical of the
Speaker 1: Trump lawyer case that was being made here.
Speaker 4: This was in the d C.
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals. This applies to some of the
Speaker 1: crimes that Trump has been charged with. But even though
Speaker 1: it appears they're going to side against Trump on this
Speaker 1: pretty wide reaching claim he's making for immunity here, that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that this was necessarily a loss for Trump,
Speaker 1: in that his whole goal is to delay the longer
Speaker 1: that he files these appeals and challenges, and they have
Speaker 1: to be heard, and it takes a while to decide.
Speaker 1: The clock is ticking, and really his hope at this
Speaker 1: point is that he gets elected president and he's able
Speaker 1: to part himself and get out of all of this
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy. So even though again I think it seems
Speaker 1: like the court is going to side against him on
Speaker 1: this specific claim. There's still an important effect here in
Speaker 1: favor of Trump.
Speaker 4: Was just just to delay the proceedings.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, So let's combine there, because there's a lot of
Speaker 2: other developments. So that one was probably I would say,
Speaker 2: net bad for Trump. Well, this one is definitely a
Speaker 2: net good for Trump. Let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Some absolutely wild allegations that
Speaker 2: are coming out showing Fanny Willis, who's the district attorney
Speaker 2: in Fulton County, Georgia, Well, her name is now being
Speaker 2: brought up in divorce proceedings by a guy named Nathan Wade,
Speaker 2: who Fanny Willis had been tapped as the prosecutor against
Speaker 2: Trump in the grand jury investigation.
Speaker 3: In the subsequent case, well, it seems now.
Speaker 2: Quote as they put it here, the relationship between missus
Speaker 2: Willis and mister Wade has not taken center stage in
Speaker 2: the case against Trump, because on Monday, a lawyer for
Speaker 2: one of the co defendants charged in a court filing
Speaker 2: that miss Willis and mister Wade have been romantic partners
Speaker 2: who are now quote profiting significantly from the prosecution at
Speaker 2: the expense of the taxpayer. So in divorce proceedings, effectively
Speaker 2: against mister Wade, the allegation is made that mister Wade
Speaker 2: and miss Willis were in a romantic relationship, and that
Speaker 2: mister Wade, while being unqualified as the prosecutor, has now
Speaker 2: billed the Special Prosecutor Office for there are a total
Speaker 2: of six hundred and fifty three thousand, eight hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty one dollars. Now currently none of this has been
Speaker 2: confirmed Crystal, but much of it traces back to the
Speaker 2: ongoing divorce proceedings. I think we would probably trace it
Speaker 2: back to his wife, missus Joscelyn Wade, who is trying
Speaker 2: to burn everything but honestly good firm. Yeah, I hope
Speaker 2: she gets the bag. But the issue that comes through
Speaker 2: this is that it would obviously taint the investigation for
Speaker 2: the Georgia Fulton counter case, and in a lot of cases.
Speaker 2: I actually thought this is the single strongest one against
Speaker 2: Trump because.
Speaker 3: It's about state law.
Speaker 2: State law is the most iron clawed place where we
Speaker 2: know election law is completely you know, the jurisdiction and
Speaker 2: all that applies here. We had Trump on the phone,
Speaker 2: we had the Grand Jurian investigation that was against him,
Speaker 2: they have total authority. There's no actual major constitutional questions
Speaker 2: about whether Georgia a state, you know, Georgia state court.
Speaker 2: And that's part of the reason too, Crystal, why so
Speaker 2: many of the people that they were charged co conspirators
Speaker 2: have all flipped against him, including Sidney Powell and others.
Speaker 2: They don't have the same level of constitutional defense. But
Speaker 2: I mean, this is the thing about Trump. I don't
Speaker 2: know what he has been blessed by or whatever?
Speaker 3: Does how does how is it that.
Speaker 2: His opponents always seem to hand him something, because this
Speaker 2: would be genuine grounds for at least trying for dismissal
Speaker 2: in others, if you can argue a personal charge by
Speaker 2: the person who's investigating you, it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: It is wild if this is true of their allegations
Speaker 1: at this point. But she has been brought up in
Speaker 1: these Colors filings that part I think we have been confirmed.
Speaker 4: But if it is true, it's the level of slaughter.
Speaker 3: What are you doing here?
Speaker 4: It's wild.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this person who you know is allegedly in the
Speaker 1: relationship with Fanny well Willis and who was appointed as
Speaker 1: by her as the prosecutor. Apparently it's just some basically
Speaker 1: like kind of random suburban lawyer with no real relevant
Speaker 1: like in the Georgia legal community. When he got picked,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of head scratching of like, really,
Speaker 1: this guy, he doesn't really like the experience, Okay, whatever,
Speaker 1: I guess. And she was made to defend his choice
Speaker 1: a number of times. She said, this is someone she
Speaker 1: trusts that you know, she whatever he is, he has
Speaker 1: experienced that she knows that she can go at him
Speaker 1: and he'll come right back at her. She had to
Speaker 1: defend it a number of times. So that's part of
Speaker 1: why it looks a little bit fishier. I will say
Speaker 1: the legal analysts that they quoted in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: for whatever it's worth, seemed to think that it probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't be grounds to completely like dismiss the case. But
Speaker 1: for Trump, as we were just saying, so much of
Speaker 1: this is not about the legal arguments. It's about the politics.
Speaker 1: And this is a very potent political argument to make that,
Speaker 1: you know, if it's true that this is her lover,
Speaker 1: that she picked him and she's been, you know, funneling
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of dollars to him as part of
Speaker 1: this prosecution. There's also allegations that were going on vacations
Speaker 1: together using some of the money that came from this.
Speaker 4: You know that he's benefiting from from the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Again, this is allegations, but you can see how this
Speaker 1: will be very politically salient for Trump.
Speaker 4: And I just cannot imagine if.
Speaker 1: Your fanning will is and know the level of scrutiney
Speaker 1: you're going to get, you know what's coming at you,
Speaker 1: that you would be this sloppy.
Speaker 4: So we'll see how this one plays.
Speaker 2: I will certainly see who That is the best news
Speaker 2: for Trump that I've seen in a long time.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next one.
Speaker 2: Please, this just gets to a little bit we can't
Speaker 2: forget because there's so many freaking legal proceedings around Trump,
Speaker 2: So don't forget that he's also currently involved in a
Speaker 2: civil fraud trial. He was supposed to be able to
Speaker 2: give his own closing argument, where he was basically going
Speaker 2: to say that this entire thing is a crazy witch hunt,
Speaker 2: but the judge has now ruled that he is not
Speaker 2: going to be allowed to give a closing argument and
Speaker 2: instead that his attorneys will be required to do so.
Speaker 2: He said, quote mean and nasty of the decision so far.
Speaker 2: The issue here is that if this trial finds him guilty,
Speaker 2: he will be liable for quote, hundreds of millions of
Speaker 2: dollars in penalties, strips him of his business license in
Speaker 2: the state of New York. Currently he is fighting the
Speaker 2: allegation that he inflated his net worth.
Speaker 3: About you know, you've done a lot of work on this.
Speaker 2: People go and read in the past around whether he's
Speaker 2: guilty or not. Honestly, at this point, given the situation
Speaker 2: and all that, and also some of the prejudgments that
Speaker 2: were made before they even went to trial, it's almost
Speaker 2: certain that he's going to be convicted. So on a
Speaker 2: personal level, this actually is a huge threat to his
Speaker 2: overall quality of life.
Speaker 1: So they've already found that he inflated the networth.
Speaker 4: The question now is what is the penalties.
Speaker 1: And again this is a civil case, so he's not
Speaker 1: going to end up in prison. It's just a matter
Speaker 1: of how much is he going to have to pay,
Speaker 1: what is the impact to his businesses? And basically the
Speaker 1: rub here and why they didn't end up letting Trump
Speaker 1: give his own closing statement, is because the judge was like,
Speaker 1: you have to just stick to the merits of the case.
Speaker 1: You can't just go out and give some campaign speech
Speaker 1: and Trump was like, no, basically, I want to give
Speaker 1: a campaign speech, and they were like, you can't do that.
Speaker 4: So that is why that fell apart.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's a reminder that all of these
Speaker 1: things are unpredictable, chaotic. The timelines are incredibly unsettled. The
Speaker 1: revelations that continue to emerge are you know, interesting and
Speaker 1: potentially relevant in a political situation. And it also underscores
Speaker 1: Trump is politically he is in the fight of his life,
Speaker 1: Like if he does not end up in the White House,
Speaker 1: it is very likely he's going to prison. You said
Speaker 1: you thought the Georgia case was the strongest. I do
Speaker 1: think the Georgia case is strong I think the Documents
Speaker 1: case is probably stronger.
Speaker 3: Even though I honestly forgot about your right.
Speaker 1: In terms of the cases centering around January sixth and
Speaker 1: stolen electors and whatever, I think the Georgia case is
Speaker 1: the strongest. I think overall, the Documents case is strongest.
Speaker 1: And yes, they have some constitutional questions that they're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, assert, but it seems pretty open and shut
Speaker 1: that one, just in terms of the facts, in terms
Speaker 1: of the cover up, in terms of the level of
Speaker 1: classification of the documents, et cetera. So if he's not
Speaker 1: in the White House, it again very likely.
Speaker 4: He is headed to prison.
Speaker 1: So he's going to do whatever it takes to try
Speaker 1: to avoid getting nailed on these charges to try to
Speaker 1: make sure that he does end up back in the
Speaker 1: White House. And the stakes for him personally could not
Speaker 1: possibly be higher.
Speaker 2: Absolutely well said, let's go to the next part here
Speaker 2: about trials stakes, how they could not be higher. So
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden made a shocking and unannounced visit yesterday to
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill, despite actually not even being invited. So we
Speaker 2: have to remember he showed up to the opening of
Speaker 2: the House Oversight Committee. The reason why is that currently
Speaker 2: the House Overside Committee and Republicans have subpoenat Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: of which he's been refusing to cooperate with. He says,
Speaker 2: I will not testify behind closed doors and in a
Speaker 2: longer form setting. I will, however, testify in public. So
Speaker 2: yesterday mounted a publicity stunt showed up to the opening
Speaker 2: of that oversight hearing. He was not recognized actually to speak,
Speaker 2: but it didn't stop stuff from absolutely going crazy. Nancy Mace,
Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Green blasting him to his face, saying with
Speaker 2: some choice words, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 11: First of all, my first question is who bribed Hunter
Speaker 11: Biden to be here today? That's my first question. Second question,
Speaker 11: You are the epitome of white privilege, coming into the
Speaker 11: Oversight Committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena
Speaker 11: to be deposed.
Speaker 4: What are you afraid of?
Speaker 3: You have no balls to come up here, mister chairman,
Speaker 3: point of inquiry.
Speaker 2: Mister chairman, if the general, if the general lady wants
Speaker 2: to hear from Hunter Biden, we can hear from him
Speaker 2: right now, Miss chairman.
Speaker 3: Let's take a vote and hear from unter Biden. What
Speaker 3: are you afraid?
Speaker 11: Order?
Speaker 12: Order?
Speaker 11: Speak?
Speaker 3: Are women allowed to speak?
Speaker 1: To keep interrupting me, I'll interrupt.
Speaker 3: I know that he's a lady.
Speaker 5: I think that, uh that Hunter Biden should be arrested
Speaker 5: right here, right now and goes straight to jail.
Speaker 4: Our nation is founded on the rules.
Speaker 13: Come on, come on the premise that the law applies
Speaker 13: equally to everyone, no matter.
Speaker 3: What you're last point to order, mister chairman, point of matter.
Speaker 6: Who you are, chairman, big zob here?
Speaker 3: So all right?
Speaker 4: So no balls? Wow, that privileged white privilege, just white privilege.
Speaker 2: I can't stand Nancy May. She's like as MacCarthy. McCarthy
Speaker 2: was like, she's a whole other story. I could not
Speaker 2: agree with that. The way she conducts herself, opens her
Speaker 2: mouth everything she's said in the past.
Speaker 13: Uh.
Speaker 2: I Also, though, we have to show Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 2: shouting out Hunter Biden as he stormed out of the
Speaker 2: committee meeting hearing after he was not called actually to
Speaker 2: testify publicly.
Speaker 3: Here, let's see what happened.
Speaker 9: Gentlemen, Tom's expired Cherwick and as missus Green from Georgia for.
Speaker 4: Thank you, mister chairman.
Speaker 13: Excuse me Hunter, Apparently you're afraid of my words and
Speaker 13: why you Ah, I like to reclaim my time, mister chairman.
Speaker 7: Wow, that's too bad.
Speaker 2: So he stormed out there of the committee room hearing.
Speaker 2: You know, we were saying, I have to give Hunter this.
Speaker 2: This was a Trumpian move, like he showed up and
Speaker 2: he's like, all right, call on me, call on me,
Speaker 2: even though you know he knew it wasn't going to happen.
Speaker 2: And it showed he both is able to defy a
Speaker 2: subpoena and then draw attention to the fact that he
Speaker 2: is literally defying a congressional subpoena. So look, that's the
Speaker 2: overall like quote unquote investigation update and all of that.
Speaker 2: I do wonder though, how the White House feels, because
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of talk that Joe Biden and
Speaker 2: the White House would really prefer that Hunter hiding a
Speaker 2: rock in Malibu and live off of his millions with
Speaker 2: his latest wife and just you know, just not be
Speaker 2: in the headlines. But it seems here that he has
Speaker 2: hired his own counsel and he's determined to fight back,
Speaker 2: which politically, I mean, I'm not gonna say it.
Speaker 3: Matters all that much.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I can't imagine that he's not doing this without Dad's.
Speaker 3: Maybe you're right, I can't imagine that.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So just to give people the backs, right, so they
Speaker 1: subpoenaed him, he said, I'll testify and public, but I'm
Speaker 1: not doing it in private, partly because of what happened
Speaker 1: with Devin Archer, where he helped testified in private and
Speaker 1: then they like cherry picked and sort of misrepresented some
Speaker 1: of the things that he said. So Hunter's like, listen,
Speaker 1: I'll answer questions, but I'm going to do it in public.
Speaker 1: So that's the context in which this stunt plays out.
Speaker 1: So he comes in and it's like, listen, I'm here,
Speaker 1: you got questions for me, I'll answer your questions. I
Speaker 1: do think it was kind of a clever, like Trumpian stunt,
Speaker 1: but then I don't think that necessarily storming out is
Speaker 1: the right way to stay there, and you look like
Speaker 1: you're the adult in the room, as they like accuse
Speaker 1: you of having no balls in right proplas. There was
Speaker 1: also a bunch of like conservative girl boss moments of
Speaker 1: like he just doesn't want to hear a strong conservative
Speaker 1: woman and are women even allowed to speak in this hearing?
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, the wokeness on the Republican side
Speaker 1: has really gotten out of control lately, which I know
Speaker 1: you're covering in your mind life, which I'm very excited.
Speaker 3: About as well, but does genuinely make me want to
Speaker 3: kill more.
Speaker 1: I just I don't know what to say about this
Speaker 1: Hunter thing. Everything's so fake in American politics. Like the
Speaker 1: investigation is fake, the concern is fake, the stunt is fake,
Speaker 1: the like.
Speaker 3: The defense is fake.
Speaker 1: It's all just theater. It's all just theater, and it's
Speaker 1: sort of disgusting to.
Speaker 2: Watch it unfold, certainly, and you know to to that point,
Speaker 2: I mean, like Hunter's corruption is just so blatant and obvious.
Speaker 2: Now listen, you can say whether it should be you know,
Speaker 2: voted on or not. But just the latest example of this,
Speaker 2: the braziness of this man. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. I just I love this. So new
Speaker 2: revelations show us if you guys will remember about Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden and his art. So it turns out from what
Speaker 2: we can see here is it quote Hunter Biden actually
Speaker 2: knew most of his art buyers, despite the quote unquote
Speaker 2: ethics plan contradicting the White House. If you guys will
Speaker 2: recall when Hunter, out of nowhere just decided to start
Speaker 2: selling art and doing it for a very high dollar. Well, Crystal,
Speaker 2: it turns out that the major buyer of Hunter's art
Speaker 2: is the very same person who paid off his irs
Speaker 2: two million dollar tax bill, which is the end as
Speaker 2: a major Democratic donor and is the only reason.
Speaker 3: He was never criminally prosecuted. Like, this is the most
Speaker 3: obvious form of money laundering I have ever seen, Crystal.
Speaker 2: He bought eight hundred and seventy five thousand dollars worth
Speaker 2: of this man's art. Yeah, and he previously had paid
Speaker 2: off his tax bill and is a huge Democratic donor.
Speaker 2: Now list today this is the most important story in
Speaker 2: the world. No, but it's just like, come on, this
Speaker 2: is just it's almost an accounting gimmick at this point
Speaker 2: as to who's being propped up who's not. Recall also
Speaker 2: that the White House said that they had a whole
Speaker 2: ethics plan in place for Hunter's art.
Speaker 3: Since he's not going to know who bought it and
Speaker 3: all this, it's complete bist. It's like, what, he's not
Speaker 3: going to.
Speaker 2: Go to his friend's house and see his art on
Speaker 2: the wall and know that he received almost a million
Speaker 2: bucks even though he'd never painted anything in the past. Look,
Speaker 2: I know it's clownish. Whether Biden himself got any of
Speaker 2: the dollars, I don't know. I think he's certainly benefited
Speaker 2: from it in the past. You know, we'll see. But
Speaker 2: the art thing is just like whole Biden is the president,
Speaker 2: You've got the donor who's getting paid off.
Speaker 3: It's just as blatant as when.
Speaker 2: Trump was president and all those foreign dignitaries which just
Speaker 2: go stay at his hotels.
Speaker 3: It's like you.
Speaker 2: Cannot deny that you're getting paid that him and his
Speaker 2: family are not benefiting well.
Speaker 1: And this is this is why Republicans have no leg
Speaker 1: to stand on when they're in you know, Foe concerned
Speaker 1: suddenly about corruption because yeah, we just got this report
Speaker 1: about the many millions of dollars that were spent by
Speaker 1: foreign governments like China and Saudi Arabia at his properties,
Speaker 1: and he got asked about it, by the way, at
Speaker 1: the Fox Newstown. They basically bribed about it. I mean
Speaker 1: did he totally admitted to it. So you know, when
Speaker 1: you're looking at his foreign policy actions, you're like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: is this on behalf of the country or is this
Speaker 1: because you got millions into your personal bank account through
Speaker 1: via your businesses from China, from Saudi Arabia, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean this is why there's no accountability.
Speaker 1: This is why these things are not prosecuted. This is
Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court has made it basically impossible to
Speaker 1: prove corruption because they're all so complicit and they're so
Speaker 1: selective in which types of corruption they're going to care about,
Speaker 1: depending on whether it's a D or whether it's an R.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it shows you why, you know, It's like you said,
Speaker 2: a lot of it is just theater, and most of
Speaker 2: it is almost entirely fake. But at least we did
Speaker 2: get a hilarious clip of Nancymas out of it, So
Speaker 2: thank you Hunter, at least.
Speaker 12: Thank you for that.
Speaker 4: Yes, all right, Sacher, were we looking at.
Speaker 3: It's become cliche and it's tried.
Speaker 2: But in discussions about free speech or any other principle,
Speaker 2: the maximum is this. Unless you support free speech, or
Speaker 2: you apply your principles for those who you hate most
Speaker 2: in society, those even who you find the most reprehensible,
Speaker 2: then you don't really believe in it at all. For
Speaker 2: a while there many Republican politicians were singing a tune
Speaker 2: that I could get on board with pro free speech,
Speaker 2: anti affirmative action in essence an embrace of equality of
Speaker 2: outcome and equal application of law. That is, a heterogeneous
Speaker 2: society of three hundred and thirty million should be governed
Speaker 2: under this equal application. By and large, this is mostly
Speaker 2: the case in the last seven years since the mainstream
Speaker 2: establishment decidedly became liberal with the capital L. But much
Speaker 2: of it was then thrown out of seemingly overnight after
Speaker 2: October seven. Sames is what we'll discuss with Glenn Greenwald
Speaker 2: later this week that much of the American right now
Speaker 2: has a pro Israel exception, and there is perhaps no
Speaker 2: better example of this than Governor Ron DeSantis's Israel turn.
Speaker 3: One of the ways that Ron de Santa's built.
Speaker 2: A national name for himself was specifically signing into legislation
Speaker 2: anti critical race theory measures, a key tenant of which
Speaker 2: is attacking the foundation of affirmative action, the notion that
Speaker 2: specific groups in American society deserve special treatment and separate
Speaker 2: admissions categories because they have been so called oppressed throughout history.
Speaker 2: The day after that ruling actually came out on affirmative
Speaker 2: action from the Supreme Court, Desantas said that his state
Speaker 2: would go even further. They would not only abolish affirmative
Speaker 2: action in Florida, but also eliminate diversity, diversity, equity, and inclusion,
Speaker 2: otherwise known as DEI. As those who watch no, I'm
Speaker 2: very anti DEI. I think it is on American and
Speaker 2: has imported the affirmative action rules into the workplace, elevating
Speaker 2: people based on the color of their skin or their
Speaker 2: sexual orientation instead of whether they're good at their jobs
Speaker 2: or not. In fact, the day after the ruling, af
Speaker 2: new Florida law went into place, specifically prohibiting colleges or
Speaker 2: universities from spending state or federal money quote to promote,
Speaker 2: support or maintain programs campus activities that advocate for diversity, equity,
Speaker 2: and inclusion. Again, that is law and policy that I
Speaker 2: have one hundred percent support, which is why it was
Speaker 2: so shocking to see someone who has said this, acted
Speaker 2: on it, and touted it flip on a dime. In
Speaker 2: the last three months of moral panic about so called
Speaker 2: anti semitism on college campuses, Republicans have turned themselves into
Speaker 2: the same snowflakes that they castigated for the last eight years. Now,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, a student crying on campus or
Speaker 2: quote not feeling safe because of words is caused for action,
Speaker 2: so much cost for action that in the state of Florida,
Speaker 2: DeSantis is now funneling state resources specifically.
Speaker 3: For Jewish students, he announced.
Speaker 2: Yesterday quote Today, I am directing Florida's colleges and universities
Speaker 2: to make it easier for Jewish students to transfer to
Speaker 2: a Florida higher education institution. While leaders of if elite
Speaker 2: universities enable anti semitism we will protect Jewish students and
Speaker 2: welcome them to Florida. So, in other words, DeSantis invented
Speaker 2: affirmative action for Jews. It is beyond parody because affirmative
Speaker 2: action itself has roots that go back to the early
Speaker 2: twentieth century, specifically to keep Jews out of universities. Without
Speaker 2: explicitly saying so, the new DeSantis policy will allow the
Speaker 2: state University system of Florida to waive credit hour requirements
Speaker 2: and application date windows for Jewish students who are quote
Speaker 2: facing anti semitism on their campuses to transfer into a
Speaker 2: Florida based university. The policy will also grant in state
Speaker 2: tuition on a case by case basis, so quite literally
Speaker 2: directing state resources for special treatment of American Jews. Even
Speaker 2: more clownish is the defense that I have seen from
Speaker 2: the pro DeSantis crowd. They say soccer k read in
Speaker 2: the executive order, it says it applies to any religious
Speaker 2: group who is facing discrimination. It doesn't technically say anything
Speaker 2: about Jews as usual. They should read the words of
Speaker 2: the governor, who on Twitter and in his official release
Speaker 2: from his state office, said that the policy is specifically
Speaker 2: intended for Jewish students. Imagine a counterfactual, Governor Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2: He said, I'm going to direct state resources for black kids,
Speaker 2: but that technically the policy will apply to all races.
Speaker 2: Would we say yeah, I mean he said it would
Speaker 2: direct to all races, right, Or would we believe him
Speaker 2: when he said he's going to preference blacks over everyone else?
Speaker 2: The same defense is so patently absurd and pathetic here
Speaker 2: they would have been better off just staying silent and
Speaker 2: hope that their blatant hypocrisy is unnoticed.
Speaker 3: The Dessantis policy already has.
Speaker 2: Come after he banned the Students for Justice for Palestine
Speaker 2: organization on Florida campuses in executive order that the free
Speaker 2: speech organization fire said quote believes higher education can only
Speaker 2: fulfill its important mission when students can speak their minds.
Speaker 2: We will defend the rights of all Florida students and
Speaker 2: all Americans.
Speaker 3: To speak freely. That's exactly correct.
Speaker 2: Being for free speech, being against racial or religious quotas
Speaker 2: is only a principle when you hold it both against
Speaker 2: people who you don't like, and you don't make special
Speaker 2: exceptions for those that may be politically convenient for you
Speaker 2: in the moment. Otherwise you're a hypocritical hack. That's what
Speaker 2: Desanta say is now and that's what it seems that
Speaker 2: a lot of the American right is too so Honestly, and.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com. Crystal,
Speaker 1: what are you taking a look at a violent incident
Speaker 1: unfolded recently in the occupied West Bank, which has seen
Speaker 1: an onslaught of violence and land grabs by extremist settlers
Speaker 1: enabled by the IDF as well as IDF raids. Two
Speaker 1: Palestinians rammed into Israeli border police. Those police then fired
Speaker 1: on the assailants and in the chaos, astray bullet fired
Speaker 1: by the Israelis killed a three year old Bedouin Palestinian child.
Speaker 1: Take a listen though to how Sky News described these events.
Speaker 8: This happened to the border checkpoint.
Speaker 14: You can see a car going through and ramming some
Speaker 14: of the police that we're actually manning that checkpoint. The
Speaker 14: video going to free shortly, but the two people as
Speaker 14: a man and a woman in the car.
Speaker 8: In the subsequently they were killed by the police.
Speaker 14: But it looks like accidentally a stray bullet found its
Speaker 14: way into the van ahead, and that killed a three
Speaker 14: or four year old young lady.
Speaker 8: So tragic events in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: That's right, a three year old was described as a
Speaker 1: quote young lady. The bullet, of course, just magically found
Speaker 1: its way into the vehicle. Now contrast this language to
Speaker 1: a recent report in The Daily Mail decrying the continued
Speaker 1: captivity of four Israeli women still being held by Hamas.
Speaker 1: Their headline reads the faces of the girls still being
Speaker 1: held by Hamas as their families make a desperate plea
Speaker 1: for their release three months.
Speaker 4: After they were captured.
Speaker 1: The article features deeply emotional interviews with the families of
Speaker 1: these women, who I am sure are absolutely tormented. But
Speaker 1: these are not, in fact girls. They are adult women,
Speaker 1: old enough to serve in the IDF, which all four
Speaker 1: of them do, a fact that was conveniently left out
Speaker 1: of that entire Daily Mail Peace. So you're left with
Speaker 1: the specter of a literal toddler being called a young lady,
Speaker 1: while adult women soldiers are called girls. And while these soldiers,
Speaker 1: combatants in an ongoing war, are portrayed in the fullness
Speaker 1: of their humanity, with their hopes, their wishes, the terror
Speaker 1: of their families all showcased. We will never know anything
Speaker 1: more than the most basic of details about the three
Speaker 1: year old. What was her favorite toy? Does she have
Speaker 1: a big brother who misses her? Will her parents ever
Speaker 1: be able to get over the loss of their darling girl.
Speaker 1: Now you might think I'm cherry picking here one off
Speaker 1: incidents of shoddy and one sided journalism, but a growing
Speaker 1: mountain of evidence shows that the dehumanization of Palestinians and
Speaker 1: gregiously lopsided coverage is systematic, and it is widespread. In fact,
Speaker 1: according to a new analysis, the unprecedented toll that Israel's
Speaker 1: assault on Gaza has taken on children has been rendered
Speaker 1: nearly invisible, featured in just two headlines out of eleven
Speaker 1: hundred that were examined by the Intercept.
Speaker 4: But that is far from all.
Speaker 1: Wild imbalances are happening at CNN, where we now know
Speaker 1: they willingly operate under the IDF censorship regime, but also
Speaker 1: at prestige papers like The Washington Post, which positions itself
Speaker 1: as a beacon of journalistic courage and integrity, At right
Speaker 1: wing outlets like Fox News, and also at liberal ones
Speaker 1: like MSNBC. Right here in the US, that imbalance is manifest,
Speaker 1: but also in Britain at the BBC. Even for someone
Speaker 1: as Jaden's skeptical of mainstream coverage, as I certainly am,
Speaker 1: the insanely imbalanced nature of these numbers is still shocking.
Speaker 4: So let's start with the new report.
Speaker 1: This was published in The Intercept, compiled by Adam Johnson
Speaker 1: and Athmanali. They took a look at coverage in three
Speaker 1: ostensibly liberal outlets, The Times, The Washington Post, and The
Speaker 1: La Times over a six week period from October seventh
Speaker 1: through November twenty fourth, and they compiled a number of
Speaker 1: metrics seeking to show the consistent way that Israeli lives
Speaker 1: are valued to a dramatically greater degree than Palestinian lives.
Speaker 4: Just take a look at this chart.
Speaker 1: So they calculated that the words slaughter was used to
Speaker 1: describe the killing of Israelis on October seventh sixty times,
Speaker 1: Yet when it came to Palestinians, many thousands more of
Speaker 1: them have been killed, only a single time was their
Speaker 1: mass killing described as it should be, as a slaughter.
Speaker 1: It's a similar story with the word horrific. Hamasa's actions
Speaker 1: were described as horrific thirty eight times. That's appropriate Israeli
Speaker 1: assaults on innocent civilians were only described as horrific four
Speaker 1: times in six weeks. October seventh was labeled a massacre
Speaker 1: a full one hundred and twenty times during the relevant period,
Speaker 1: but as Palestinians were being killed by the tens of thousands,
Speaker 1: these deaths were only described as a massacre four times. Now,
Speaker 1: keep in mind, according to EUROMED Monitor twenty eight thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred and one Palestinian civilians have been killed by
Speaker 1: Israel since October seventh, and estimated six hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: five civilians were killed and the Hamas attack on October seventh.
Speaker 1: In other words, forty times more Palestinians have been killed
Speaker 1: than Israelis. But if you were to judge the relative
Speaker 1: loss of life by the number of mentions in media outlets,
Speaker 1: you would have to presume far more dead Israelis than
Speaker 1: Palestinians by long stretch. According to Adam and Ali's analysis,
Speaker 1: for every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For
Speaker 1: every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times, or a
Speaker 1: rate sixteen times more per death than that of Palestinians.
Speaker 1: And you can see this from this chart. As more
Speaker 1: Palestinians were killed, they were actually mentioned less and less.
Speaker 1: We witness this in real time. How invented university anti
Speaker 1: semitism scandals and whatever the hell is going on with
Speaker 1: Bill Ackman, how that took the place of coverage of
Speaker 1: the increasingly undeniable horrors that Palestinians are being subjected to.
Speaker 1: This chart tracks how has the horror increased the coverage
Speaker 1: actually decreased. Also revealed in this report, real and invented
Speaker 1: anti semitism was covered far more vigorously than Islamophobia. This
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that multiple violent incidents during
Speaker 1: this time appeared spurred by anti Muslim or anti Arab hat.
Speaker 1: Eighty seven percent of mentions of discrimination concerned anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: only thirteen percent concerned Islamophobia. The cable news landscape is
Speaker 1: unso prizingly at least equally as grimm This chart from
Speaker 1: Adam Substack. The column tracks how many times Israelis were
Speaker 1: described as having been massacred versus Palestinians over the first
Speaker 1: month of the conflict. Out of seventeen hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: three massacre mentions, one thy six hundred and fifty five
Speaker 1: came of them. When describing Israelis killed on October seventh,
Speaker 1: This evocative language was only applied to Palestinian deaths seventy
Speaker 1: eight times. They further document in this piece that usually
Speaker 1: when massacre was actually used with regard to Palestinians, it
Speaker 1: didn't come directly from network anchors or commentators, but as
Speaker 1: comments attributed to Palestinians. So, for example, Richard Angel of
Speaker 1: NBC News he said that quote Palestinians call it a
Speaker 1: massacre passive language that is debatable rather than unequivocal. Ali
Speaker 1: and Adam also reveal in this report that although children
Speaker 1: in journalists, sympathetic and protected groups have been slaughtered at
Speaker 1: rates far higher than any other modern conflict, they have
Speaker 1: received scant media coverage. This contrasts dramatically with the cover
Speaker 1: of the Ukraine War, where the impact on children and
Speaker 1: on the press was a frequent subject of commentary and
Speaker 1: of reporting. Now, to be clear, six journalists were killed
Speaker 1: in the early days of the Ukraine War, and that
Speaker 1: is a terrible tool. Forty eight were killed in the
Speaker 1: first weeks of Israel's assault on Gaza. That number has
Speaker 1: now skyrocketed to over one hundred and ten. These people
Speaker 1: have the nerve to posture as defenders of the free press.
Speaker 1: What utter and complete garbage. Finally, to show you, I
Speaker 1: guess we're not alone in insufferable and completely dishonest coverage.
Speaker 1: British commentator Owen Jones recently featured analysis on BBC coverage
Speaker 1: conducted by Mona Chalabi with a lot of very similar results.
Speaker 1: Just take a listen to a portion of Owen's report.
Speaker 12: As for a motive, words murder or murdered is used
Speaker 12: one hundred and one times in reference to his reignees
Speaker 12: compared to one time in reference to Palestinians. So he
Speaker 12: might go, well, look, come on, an airstrike killing lots
Speaker 12: of people is extremely horrific, but it's different to someone
Speaker 12: just going up to someone and shooting them. Well, look,
Speaker 12: if you take that place, we'll have to beg to differ.
Speaker 12: There's ample evidence that Israel is deliberately killing civilians. I
Speaker 12: make no apology for saying that the so called diahead doctrine,
Speaker 12: first developed in the two thousand and six Lebanon War,
Speaker 12: to deliberately kill civilians to put pressure on civilian populations
Speaker 12: to achieve political goals, is clearly in action in Gaza
Speaker 12: and indeed, nine to seventy two magazine using leaked information
Speaker 12: from Israeli military intelligence sources, makes it abundantly clear that
Speaker 12: Palastine civilians are clearly being deliberately killed. In any case,
Speaker 12: what are the fact that several Palatins have been objectively
Speaker 12: murdered in the West Bank alone in this time period,
Speaker 12: and where it's extremely comparable actually to the way that
Speaker 12: many Israeli civilians were killed on the seventh of October.
Speaker 12: The West Bank, as you will know, is of course
Speaker 12: not run by Hamas. Now as for other emotive words, well,
Speaker 12: massacre or massacred is used twenty three times in reference
Speaker 12: to Israelis, it's used just once in relation to Gaza.
Speaker 12: That for me actually just sums up the whole problem
Speaker 12: western media coverage, because if it actually reflected reality, we
Speaker 12: would be referring to what's happening to Gas as one
Speaker 12: of the great masakers of our time. But in any case,
Speaker 12: clearly the BBC does not believe that, for example, wiping
Speaker 12: out entire blood lines of Palestinians constitutes of massacre. As
Speaker 12: for slaughter or slaughtered, those words that's used twenty times,
Speaker 12: twenty times in reference was Raeli's in reference to Palestinians zerotypes,
Speaker 12: not once.
Speaker 1: So here is a visualization of what Owen was just
Speaker 1: discussing there that you can take a look at. And
Speaker 1: the bottom line is this, So Raelis are murdered, Palestinians
Speaker 1: simply inexplicably die, something that I've grappled with over these
Speaker 1: past several months that has really shaken me. How How
Speaker 1: is the unrelenting assault allowed to persist? How is there
Speaker 1: not uniform condemnation of the killing of civilians, of their starvation,
Speaker 1: of their permanent destruction of their homes, schools, mosques, neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: and so much more, the massacre of children, journalists, aid workers, doctors.
Speaker 1: As fellow at the Institute for Global Affairs, Assaul Rale
Speaker 1: put it stupid for thinking that we believed as a
Speaker 1: society that killing thousands of children, bearing them under rubble
Speaker 1: and amputating their limbs without anesthesia is wrong. No matter
Speaker 1: what I naively thought, that was one thing we could
Speaker 1: all agree on. And when the history is written, how
Speaker 1: the West looked on with approval and rushed to supply
Speaker 1: the bombs that were dropped on the babies of Palestine.
Speaker 1: When that history is written, these charts will need to
Speaker 1: be shown. They must be shown because a vital part
Speaker 1: of that story is how the Western press their absolute
Speaker 1: damnedest to hide from citizens the horse that their own
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars are paying for. For the real story, you
Speaker 1: will do a hell of a lot better joining the
Speaker 1: zoomers over on TikTok and soger 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. Okay, we had
Speaker 2: a great show for you guys, really appreciate you. You
Speaker 2: can sign up breakingpoints dot com otherwise we will see
Speaker 2: you all on Monday.