Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Krystal?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do so. Ryan and Emilin yesterday hosted a
Speaker 1: big old debate on Israel, Palestine, campus protests, free speech
Speaker 1: and all the rest. It was Omar Badar and Destiny
Speaker 1: or Stephen Banell or mister.
Speaker 3: Barelli Itelli Binell, Okay Banell, all right.
Speaker 4: We'll go with that.
Speaker 1: I hope I'm not screwing that up anyway. I watched
Speaker 1: the rough cut of it last night. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: it for premium subscribers tonight for everybody else tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: Ryan and Amla are going to join us to break
Speaker 1: down some of the highlights from that debate and give
Speaker 1: us a little sneak peek, so definitely want to tune
Speaker 1: in for that. At the same time, we have some
Speaker 1: absolutely unhinged media reaction to the campus protests and the
Speaker 1: also unhinged crackdown on those protests. You are not going
Speaker 1: to believe some of the things that were said, some
Speaker 1: of the things that were claimed. I am losing my
Speaker 1: mind over all of this. And we have a completely
Speaker 1: unhinged congressional reaction to all of this, by the way,
Speaker 1: as well, as they seek to codify and ban certain
Speaker 1: criticisms of Israel. Foreign government not allowed to criticize that,
Speaker 1: so insanity all the way around. The White House handling
Speaker 1: this in the worst possible way, of course, So break
Speaker 1: all of that down for you. At the same time,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of news coming out of Israel
Speaker 1: as ces fire talks continue, more screw us from bb
Speaker 1: towards Biden as his humiliation toward continues. So we've got
Speaker 1: that for you. We also have Trump World panicking over
Speaker 1: RFK Junior as they realized this could actually be a
Speaker 1: problem for them. He's on a lot of conservative media.
Speaker 1: There's also some new poll numbers about his vaccine views
Speaker 1: that could be challenging for Trump and his positioning with
Speaker 1: his own base. That we'll talk about that. We also
Speaker 1: have Marjorie Taylor Green apparently still looking to follow through
Speaker 1: on her threat to try to oust Mike Johnson, even
Speaker 1: as Democrats say that they will save the speakers since
Speaker 1: they love him now, since he got them their Ukraine aid.
Speaker 1: And that's all kumbaya apparently with the bipartist and war machine.
Speaker 1: And then finally we had to add this in last night.
Speaker 1: I can't even believe I'm saying these words. Another Boeing
Speaker 1: whistleblower is now dead.
Speaker 2: He's a forty five year old healthy man. We'll tell
Speaker 2: it was a forty five year old healthy man.
Speaker 1: Some illness. We'll tell a two weeks later he's dead.
Speaker 1: So there you go. But let's go ahead and start
Speaker 1: with this big debate with Ryan and Emily. We've pulled
Speaker 1: a couple of the highlights. Like I said, I watched
Speaker 1: it last night. It really was extraordinary. I'm super excited
Speaker 1: for you guys to be able to see it. Ryan
Speaker 1: and Emily did a phenomenal job. We're going to go
Speaker 1: ahead and bring them in now into the studio so
Speaker 1: they can give us a breakdown of their experience. So,
Speaker 1: as we just mentioned, Ryan and Emily hosted kind of
Speaker 1: a major debate yesterday between streamer Destiny real name Stephen
Speaker 1: Banel and Omar Batter, who is a fantastic expert on
Speaker 1: the least in Israel Palastine specifically, I got to watch
Speaker 1: the whole rough cut last night. First of all, kudos
Speaker 1: to both of you, because it's not easy. It's almost
Speaker 1: harder when you're a duo. Saga and I have experienced
Speaker 1: to know when to jump in, how to manage it.
Speaker 1: It's a difficult balance to keep things on the rails
Speaker 1: but also to make sure that they're able to engage
Speaker 1: with each other. I thought you guys both to a
Speaker 1: fantastic job with that. Before we've got a couple of
Speaker 1: like little highlight clips that we want to share with
Speaker 1: the audience. But before I do that, I mean, what
Speaker 1: was your kind of like, what was the vibe, what
Speaker 1: was your sense of how all.
Speaker 5: Questions, FIBs were good, vibes were goodactly what you would expect. Yeah,
Speaker 5: that conversation, Now I hadn't watched previously they did a debate.
Speaker 1: I didn't know.
Speaker 3: That before we had booked them.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so we kind of had to go back and
Speaker 5: figure out what their dynamic was. They had met before,
Speaker 5: and then they'd continued to exchange these barbs online nasty
Speaker 5: stuff to us.
Speaker 6: We were not actually trying to go around keep yourself
Speaker 6: right grudge match.
Speaker 5: It just kind of yeah, yeah, but we also wanted
Speaker 5: to make sure that it didn't go down a rabbit
Speaker 5: hole of just personal because you know, the YouTube beef,
Speaker 5: sometimes it's like it's it's inseparable. Sometimes you're just like, well,
Speaker 5: you said this on this stream month, this day. So
Speaker 5: we wanted to make sure that didn't happen.
Speaker 3: And I think that worked.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Yeah, it actually was pretty substantive. Yeah, because it's like,
Speaker 6: on the one hand, it's kind of embarrassing, you're like, really,
Speaker 6: you're gonna have a streamer on you just kind of
Speaker 6: only learned in October, like said, like she says, like
Speaker 6: I learned in October about this issue.
Speaker 3: I didn't care about it before.
Speaker 6: But he is an extremely sharp guy, and he makes
Speaker 6: a lot of the arguments that you see being made
Speaker 6: from people in his camp.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and he makes them very effectively.
Speaker 6: Okay, so I think it's useful to see how those
Speaker 6: can and can't be you know, combat had counteracted, and
Speaker 6: I think, uh, we also brought it to a little
Speaker 6: bit of a higher level where we ask questions about
Speaker 6: kind of broader issues like racism, islamophobia, anti Semitism, like
Speaker 6: root causes and root solutions to the conflict which can't
Speaker 6: which which you can't really take those down a rabbit
Speaker 6: hole and and kind of get distracted. And I thought
Speaker 6: that was the most enlightening part.
Speaker 5: The only other thing I would add to that is
Speaker 5: the value of the way Destiny approaches it is he
Speaker 5: says things that people on his side think but probably
Speaker 5: would just tiptoe around, wouldn't actually actually gets out of
Speaker 5: exactly and then right, and then Omar can respond to
Speaker 5: that instead of like, you know, tiptoeing around it.
Speaker 1: It's useful to have the actual position laid out because
Speaker 1: when you get into the well I didn't say that,
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, but you freaking mean it. We all
Speaker 1: know what you mean to say, so that is helpful
Speaker 1: when you actually like, just say it. Just say that
Speaker 1: they're using cookies to make rockets, for example, is one
Speaker 1: thing that came up.
Speaker 3: In the debated one.
Speaker 1: In any case, the first clip we have for you
Speaker 1: is an exchange about safe soans in the context of like, okay,
Speaker 1: like if you're a palacetint in Gaza, what do you do.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to how that went down.
Speaker 7: Look, they've destroyed eighty percent of the building, they've displayed it,
Speaker 7: They've displayed.
Speaker 4: Through they've displaced ninety percent of the population.
Speaker 7: Can you name any other conflict in which you displaced
Speaker 7: ninety percent of the civilian pop.
Speaker 8: Nation, because usually they just destroyed them. Do you think
Speaker 8: it dressden they told the civilians to flee? Do you
Speaker 8: think in the Tokyo fire bombs Saki Hairoshima and we
Speaker 8: tell the civilians to leave? Can you can you acknowledge
Speaker 8: what he just was incredibly fucking stupid that, No, they
Speaker 8: don't sell civilians to leave first.
Speaker 3: Normally they just kill.
Speaker 4: Them ycause.
Speaker 7: Because because he thinks, because he thinks that that's a
Speaker 7: clever line, let me explain something to you.
Speaker 4: He's not going to I'm going to acknowledge.
Speaker 7: I'm going to acknowledge that, yes, they told civilians to
Speaker 7: leave and then they dropped massive two thousand bombs on
Speaker 7: the safe zones.
Speaker 4: That they told the civilians.
Speaker 3: Just want to say, no, the beach or whatever.
Speaker 7: There have been countless incidents of them dropping.
Speaker 4: Now you're just lying.
Speaker 8: I looked it up, like all the data on all
Speaker 8: the same four hours of roads make Safe York. They
Speaker 8: Guarantee Travels investigation that attackers.
Speaker 7: A New York Times investigation, and there's an NBC investigation.
Speaker 7: Both of them document the fact that Israel is bombing
Speaker 7: safe zones where they tell civilians to flee.
Speaker 3: And real investigations hold on it.
Speaker 5: It's really admitted at CNN that intelligence indication that these
Speaker 5: places were safe houses for commanders of the Row of
Speaker 5: a brigade of the Hamas Terra organization. This is back
Speaker 5: in December about bombing areas that were supposed to be
Speaker 5: evacuation routes.
Speaker 3: Evacuation routes are not safe zones.
Speaker 8: There's been one official declared they shouldn't Hams not operate
Speaker 8: from there.
Speaker 3: I mean, we're talking again, that's a good question question.
Speaker 1: Okay, So they're talking about Al Malassie. Is what he
Speaker 1: I think is referring to there? And I want to
Speaker 1: get your reaction, which is so I was gonna say.
Speaker 5: I asked him if that's what he was referring to.
Speaker 5: I like wrote it down on a piece of paper.
Speaker 5: Because we had it fact checked and I handed it over.
Speaker 1: To him and he said, yes, yes, that's it a Malasi,
Speaker 1: So we covered when they at first we're like, go
Speaker 1: to Al Malassie. There's like nothing, there's no infrastructure, there's
Speaker 1: not sufficient sanitation, water, food, it's or the idea that
Speaker 1: millions of Palestinians could shelter in this area is preposterous.
Speaker 1: But he's kind of getting this technicality of like, well,
Speaker 1: this is the official safe zone, so no, no, no
Speaker 1: safe roots, evacuation roots, that doesn't count. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: specifically this one safe zone.
Speaker 6: And I think this was I think why it's useful
Speaker 6: for people to see this. This was the most kind
Speaker 6: of bitchy, nasty back and forth, whereas I think everything
Speaker 6: else was a little bit calmer and more reason might
Speaker 6: not be the word, but reason like that that was the.
Speaker 1: Kind of it was. I mean, you were kind of bad.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a bitchiness, which I don't mind.
Speaker 3: Right, I thought this was the height of it.
Speaker 1: This was one of the more like tense you know,
Speaker 1: and sort of message.
Speaker 3: It wasn't that bad.
Speaker 2: I've seen it, you know, ten times worse, and it
Speaker 2: is more you know, a shout out to your guys's moderation.
Speaker 2: How was it with Omar as well, Like, in terms
Speaker 2: of the challenging questions, did you throw it to him?
Speaker 9: More?
Speaker 3: Was Destiny throwing things to him? How is it handling that?
Speaker 10: Uh?
Speaker 6: Destiny was actually I thought respectful in this of Omar's time,
Speaker 6: and in a way that I was worried he might
Speaker 6: not be like when we would come in and be like, look,
Speaker 6: just look enough, let him respond, he would actually he
Speaker 6: would actually let him respond. Omar was very good at
Speaker 6: not taking the bait. There he called him what effing stupid? Yeah,
Speaker 6: that's right. At another time he said, I think you're
Speaker 6: probably more anti Semitic than than we even know, or
Speaker 6: something like just just a nasty personal attack that was
Speaker 6: completely baseless, And he didn't really take the bait. And
Speaker 6: because I think he understood that Destiny was going to
Speaker 6: try to steal Destiny.
Speaker 1: I had Kyle and I interviewed Omar shortly after his
Speaker 1: last debate with Destiny, and a debate that he found
Speaker 1: to be extremely frustrating. And he's he's not a YouTuber
Speaker 1: like we are, right, he didn't know who Destiny was,
Speaker 1: and he consumed his content so we didn't really want
Speaker 1: he agreed to the debate. I think he didn't initially,
Speaker 1: like the first one, really know what he was getting.
Speaker 1: And so I think between then and this one, I
Speaker 1: think he was able to develop better strategies for handling
Speaker 1: some of the tactics that were thrown out. I mean,
Speaker 1: Destney is is like, obviously he has assimilated a large
Speaker 1: amount of information about this conflict in a very short
Speaker 1: period of time, a large amount of propaganda talking points
Speaker 1: in my opinion, in a very short period of time.
Speaker 1: He's able to roll them out very effectively. There was
Speaker 1: nothing you guys asked him about that he wasn't ready
Speaker 1: with an answer that he hadn't thought through, that he
Speaker 1: wasn't able to do. And I mean his whole thing
Speaker 1: and why he's popular and successful where he's a debate bro.
Speaker 1: So he's good at this. And so it seemed to
Speaker 1: me like Omar was able to kind of come up
Speaker 1: with some better strategies than the first time that he
Speaker 1: met up with Destiny that created the initial like you know,
Speaker 1: whatever you too, beef situation.
Speaker 6: Kind of meta identifying what Destiny was doing, yes, saying
Speaker 6: like okay, in this moment, what you are doing trying.
Speaker 3: To get me to chase this right so that you
Speaker 3: can avoid.
Speaker 1: Answering yeah, because he would say, okay, wait to raise
Speaker 1: a totally irrelevant rabbit hole point that's going to like
Speaker 1: distract me in this direction. But I'm going to focus
Speaker 1: on yes, that's that he did do again.
Speaker 6: Otherwise you'll say, well, you're avoiding answer At this point,
Speaker 6: it's like, well, the reason I'm avoiding is because it's
Speaker 6: just a distraction.
Speaker 2: Well, we have a second clips here that we can
Speaker 2: play about the March of Return. This was another interesting
Speaker 2: moment that we wanted highlight for everybody. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen and we'll get the reaction on the other side.
Speaker 8: Towards the end of the Great Marshal Return, there were
Speaker 8: people that were throwing stones, that were setting over incendiary
Speaker 8: balloons that were causing like fires to spread on the
Speaker 8: other side of the fence. All this is documented even
Speaker 8: by the UN and that was when the majority of
Speaker 8: the firing from the Israeli police happened. If you want
Speaker 8: to say that they shouldn't be shooting at people who
Speaker 8: were close to the fence because you don't like that
Speaker 8: policy or whatever, that's fine, But characterizing that is like
Speaker 8: just open firing into a bunch of innocent people that
Speaker 8: are standing there with the goal of just maiming people
Speaker 8: for no reason. Is the most unbelievable retelling of what
Speaker 8: happenedwar to the end of that event, that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 7: Actually, just to characterize it, just you know, get an
Speaker 7: even more complete pick.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 7: Israeli policy is people in Gaza have no right to
Speaker 7: go in and out of the cage that they've been
Speaker 7: placed into, their complete siege, their economies and shambles because
Speaker 7: Israel does not allow them to trade with the outside world.
Speaker 7: They can't have an airport because Israel doesn't feel like
Speaker 7: they are entitled to an airport, can't have a seaport.
Speaker 7: You know, when you look at the rates of unemployment
Speaker 7: over fifty percent in Gaza at the time, And if
Speaker 7: those people who are trapped in this cage come a
Speaker 7: little too close to the border, then we open fire
Speaker 7: at them and kill them, even when they're unarmed, because
Speaker 7: that's border policy.
Speaker 4: If this is something that more than If this is something.
Speaker 3: It's more than six thousand.
Speaker 6: According to the un quote unquote, more than six thousand
Speaker 6: unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers week after week
Speaker 6: at the protest sites and the separation fence.
Speaker 4: There's no denying that.
Speaker 7: Yes, some people try to open up, and some people
Speaker 7: send insidiary balloons over the border and so on, but
Speaker 7: by and large, when you look at the cases, human
Speaker 7: rights organizations have been clear about the fact that people
Speaker 7: were targeted when they posed absolutely no threat to Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 4: So Israeli soldiers open fire on.
Speaker 7: People and targeted specifically metics journalists and children that is, and.
Speaker 8: People who are game that's being played when we say
Speaker 8: posed no threat to Israeli soldiers. There was one un
Speaker 8: report that came out that analyzed it the claim that
Speaker 8: every single shooting except for one was unjustified. But the
Speaker 8: way that they got that is they didn't analyze that
Speaker 8: as an armed conflict.
Speaker 3: They analyzed that as a policing event.
Speaker 8: And when you analyze things internationally as a policing event,
Speaker 8: typically police aren't allowed to shootor kill anybod unless they
Speaker 8: pose a direct threat to the individual.
Speaker 6: Why would why would they analyzed as an armed conflict
Speaker 6: If one side wasn't dark.
Speaker 8: Because Hamas was present, it doesn't matter if they were shooting.
Speaker 8: If you've got an enemy. If you've got an enemy
Speaker 8: military that is present amongst people that are that are
Speaker 8: there was no ammas, is considered oppositional force.
Speaker 3: And if you've got people that are participating and you.
Speaker 7: Don't have guns not of course nothing to do with
Speaker 7: a clear about the fact that the situation. You can
Speaker 7: only kill combatants if they're in combat and they're armed.
Speaker 4: You can't somebody, absolutely not.
Speaker 3: You do not become yster combat You do not.
Speaker 8: You not do you not all of a sudden gain
Speaker 8: the protections of a civilian if you're an enemy combatant
Speaker 8: without a gun.
Speaker 4: If you have to google l let's do that. Just
Speaker 4: to go back to a point that you made earlier
Speaker 4: about sort of I just.
Speaker 8: Wanted just so you're saying that like if if there's
Speaker 8: a military and you're fighting the enemy, you guys going
Speaker 8: to if you just drop your guns, you can just
Speaker 8: like run back and nobody can.
Speaker 4: If you drop your guns and raise your arms, you
Speaker 4: can't know that surrendering.
Speaker 3: That's different than running away.
Speaker 8: You can't drop your guns and just run away, and
Speaker 8: you can't get shock because you're no firef.
Speaker 1: Okay, that exchanged my meal and saying Ryan was your
Speaker 1: reaction after this, and I.
Speaker 6: Thought the whole March of Return conversation was was interesting
Speaker 6: from beginning to end because he just kind of mentioned
Speaker 6: the March of Return as something that you as an
Speaker 6: example of something that Hamas had done that had kind
Speaker 6: of triggered Israel to like attack it, and Omar and
Speaker 6: I pointed out it was a civil society led non
Speaker 6: violent action, and that that later led into I thought
Speaker 6: the most useful conversation, which was that you know, Hamas
Speaker 6: was pressured by the non violent civil society led March
Speaker 6: of Return into eventually supporting it. They didn't want to
Speaker 6: because it takes away from their argument, which is that
Speaker 6: only armed resistance is appropriate against Israel. And it made
Speaker 6: our point that the way to dismantle the ideology of
Speaker 6: Hamas is through non violence, is through peace, is through
Speaker 6: reaching a deal with the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: It is the violence by.
Speaker 6: The Israelis towards the Palestinians that actually supports the ideology
Speaker 6: of Hamas, and that I thought was the most interesting
Speaker 6: part of the debate to tackle that broader subject.
Speaker 1: Because that was really important. I thought that you brought
Speaker 1: up a couple of times Ryan that if you look
Speaker 1: at Hamas popularity. It plummets when there's an actual possibility
Speaker 1: of negotiated peace and when there's not, and when it
Speaker 1: feels to Palestinians like my only chance is armed, like
Speaker 1: nothing else is working. We do the Great March of Return,
Speaker 1: it's overwhelmingly non violent, and we get snipers firing at us,
Speaker 1: like what the hell are we supposed to do here?
Speaker 1: That's one support predictably, and also when your mom and
Speaker 1: your brother and your sister are being slaughtered, guess what,
Speaker 1: that's probably going to create a lot more commitment to you.
Speaker 6: And Destiny understands that on the other side, because he's
Speaker 6: he's very quick to say, look, the second reason, the
Speaker 6: reason Israeli is one of the genocide the Palestinians is
Speaker 6: because of the second and they fought in the suicide bombings.
Speaker 3: Why doesn't it work.
Speaker 1: The other way?
Speaker 3: Well, of course it does.
Speaker 1: I also thought that exchange, though, was very illustrative of
Speaker 1: a technique that he uses very effective, which is it
Speaker 1: got bogged down in this question about like you know,
Speaker 1: arms comeback and dropping your weapons or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's like international did you and whether it was a.
Speaker 1: Police action or military action. It takes you away from
Speaker 1: the basic facts that because this is what people well,
Speaker 1: if if you know, Palestinians had their own gandhi, if
Speaker 1: they had their own non violent it could be over
Speaker 1: so quickly. And it's like, well, they tried that, and
Speaker 1: so you get away from these basic facts of they
Speaker 1: tried that and thousands of them were with sniper bullets
Speaker 1: and intentionally maimed, and medics and journalists target All of
Speaker 1: this is accurate document and by human rights organizations. It
Speaker 1: gets you away from those very uncomfortable facts and arguing
Speaker 1: about some little minor technicality that he's educated himself on
Speaker 1: and everyone's else like I don't really know about it.
Speaker 6: There's a strategic and moral question of whether it is
Speaker 6: good for either cause to kill unarmed protesters, right, and
Speaker 6: then there's the legal question of whether or not they
Speaker 6: are engaged, you know, whether or not they're allowed to
Speaker 6: kill them, because hamas count is police or hamas count
Speaker 6: as combatants who are somewhere within the vicinity, and so
Speaker 6: they're like, right, So we kept trying to push it
Speaker 6: back to the strategic and moral and ethical questions and
Speaker 6: keep it away from these rabbit holes.
Speaker 3: Any last thoughts, simile, Well.
Speaker 5: You know, I think to the extent that you can
Speaker 5: have a spoiler for a debate. What Crystal just mentioned
Speaker 5: about Ryan's point on peace support for peace declining in
Speaker 5: those particular moments is the devastating that I felt like,
Speaker 5: and that comes towards the end. I felt like that
Speaker 5: was clearly a moment where we all sort of looked
Speaker 5: around and we're like, this is but he kind of,
Speaker 5: I don't want to say he changed the terms, but
Speaker 5: then he said, but you know, we're talking about peace
Speaker 5: from a Western perspective. What both sides really want is justice,
Speaker 5: and that is again like coming to that later in
Speaker 5: the debate. We just sort of looked around, We're.
Speaker 3: Like, you know, and then he dips into weird oriental stuff.
Speaker 2: Okay, well so as we as we already it's a
Speaker 2: two hour debate, literally two hours to the mark.
Speaker 1: It was actually hard to wrap.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've been there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, we were getting the messages in real time
Speaker 1: our max like, you know, you could probably wrap up now.
Speaker 1: And then it goes into the whole conversation about human shields,
Speaker 1: which is another interesting moment. Human shields. Okay, when the
Speaker 1: idf uses them based on again some you know, legalies
Speaker 1: whatever cookies being used to build rockets. That's another interesting moment.
Speaker 5: Yes, and it's also I just wanted it's not a
Speaker 5: total pileon, and we maybe made it sound like that,
Speaker 5: but like, there are some things that I agree with Destiny,
Speaker 5: and there were some moments where we pushed Omar and
Speaker 5: he was a good faith willing to engage it.
Speaker 1: I think, so I think people, I think people who
Speaker 1: watch it, even if you you know, if you share
Speaker 1: Destiny's view, if you share Omar's view, I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna feel like your view was well represented, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, and that's all we can ask for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's absolutely right. You guys did a really effective job,
Speaker 1: like I said, moderating it, creating that climate, I think,
Speaker 1: making everybody feel like they had a chance. I also
Speaker 1: will just say, as like, having watched so many of
Speaker 1: these Israel debates at this point, one on one is
Speaker 1: so much better. It's so then when you have the
Speaker 1: panel for four people andever you try, it's so much
Speaker 1: better to have had Omar and Destiny have it well moderated.
Speaker 1: That to me is like the best model. I think
Speaker 1: that's why you were able to get to so much,
Speaker 1: so many interesting substantive conversations I'm very excited for people
Speaker 1: to watch that. I'm really excited about you guys doing
Speaker 1: the Friday show because I think this is just a
Speaker 1: great preview of things to come.
Speaker 3: This is an awesome proof of cons.
Speaker 1: Ryan's getting fashion tips from Don, Ryan's getting better.
Speaker 3: Just what else could we have?
Speaker 6: The record I had this last spring, which that's all.
Speaker 3: That's right, Don's ready describe to breaking points.
Speaker 2: If you want to watch it early drop tonight for
Speaker 2: our premium subscribers, we publicly available tomorrow. Support us there
Speaker 2: if you want to be able to support Friday shows
Speaker 2: like this. It's a great proof of concept for what
Speaker 2: we're all about. And I guess with that, let's get
Speaker 2: to the show.
Speaker 1: So, as you guys likely know, and Ryan and nominally
Speaker 1: covered very ably yesterday there was a massive police crackdown
Speaker 1: across New York City colleges, including at Columbia University, and
Speaker 1: the next day morning, Joe, of course, ready to manufacture consent,
Speaker 1: they brought on the Deputy Commissioner of Police to make
Speaker 1: some extraordinary claims about some of the tools that these
Speaker 1: protesters were using at what Hamilton Hall, what they named
Speaker 1: Hins Hall. Let's take a listen, tell us about this change.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so when we will.
Speaker 11: This is not what students bring to school, okayshals bring
Speaker 11: to campuses and universities. These are heavy industrial chains that
Speaker 11: were locked with Bilock bike locks. And this is what
Speaker 11: we encountered on every door inside a Hamilton hall and
Speaker 11: so in order for our emergency services group to into
Speaker 11: the building, they had to first cut through these chains.
Speaker 1: Heavy industrial chains. This saga is what professionals bring. This
Speaker 1: isn't what students would have access to, which plays into
Speaker 1: this whole trope that was being pushed relentlessly on CNN
Speaker 1: and other places that oh it was actually this isn't
Speaker 1: even students. This is outside agitators to make this like
Speaker 1: super extra scary. It didn't take long for people to
Speaker 1: pull up. This is literally a bikelock that is sold
Speaker 1: by Columbia University.
Speaker 2: At the Columbia University gift shop, literally the exact same one,
Speaker 2: which is very likely where they bought it from. It
Speaker 2: is really hilarious and it's also one of those where
Speaker 2: just this morning, Crystal mayor Eric Adams actually was asked
Speaker 2: on MSNBC how many people who were not Columbia University
Speaker 2: students were arrested. Approximately three hundred of the people who
Speaker 2: were arrested, he's only able to name two so far
Speaker 2: that we're there, which is actually far below the average
Speaker 2: at University of Texas, Austin and others where you actually
Speaker 2: saw a majority of the people at some of those
Speaker 2: protests which were arrested, which were not students. But in
Speaker 2: this particular case, it does seem that the absolute vast
Speaker 2: majority two hundred and ninety eight out of three hundred
Speaker 2: so far confirmed to have been students at Columbia University.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean, just how you understand why this
Speaker 1: was like an important propaganda point, and Anderson Cooper was
Speaker 1: pushing this, the police department was pushing this whole narrative
Speaker 1: of like, we don't even think this is students. We
Speaker 1: think this is outside agitators. Is because outside agitator sounds
Speaker 1: like crazy, scary, violent radicals, whereas college kids, you're like,
Speaker 1: these are college students who've been camping out, who are
Speaker 1: engaging in the sort of protest techniques that we've seen,
Speaker 1: you know, for decades that are sort of tried and true.
Speaker 1: Even if you don't like them or agree with them,
Speaker 1: or disagree with them, whatever, it's a very different valence
Speaker 1: when you're crafting this narrative about these Gary radical outside
Speaker 1: agitators coming in with professional, industrial grade chains, then college
Speaker 1: students who have bikelocks that they bought at the campus bookstore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just totally ridiculous what we've seen from a
Speaker 2: lot of the NYPD, I.
Speaker 3: Will say, the outside agitator.
Speaker 2: Like I said, I initially I was skeptical but willing
Speaker 2: to believe some of it because of the UT Austin
Speaker 2: numbers that had previously come out. The other thing is
Speaker 2: that Columbia University and the NYPD put together an entire
Speaker 2: presentation before the raid somewhere around eight pm where they
Speaker 2: specifically highlighted students or people who were wearing ski masks
Speaker 2: and others that were entering the building, specifically saying that
Speaker 2: these individuals were from outside of the university. And it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 2: and again, if you'll remember when we were all talking
Speaker 2: about this live, I said, this will be a great
Speaker 2: claim to check after the arrests have been made, whether
Speaker 2: they were telling the truth or not. And I think
Speaker 2: people should also understand this is a key pretext for
Speaker 2: the launch of the raid on Columbia University. Yes, there
Speaker 2: was Hamilton Hall being keep hied, the property damage and
Speaker 2: all of that, but the actual pretext, if you look
Speaker 2: at the letter that was sent by Columbia University to
Speaker 2: NYPD very specifically highlights that it claims that were non
Speaker 2: students that were inside of the hall.
Speaker 1: That's really important. And I also want to point out
Speaker 1: because you know, the windows that were broken and the
Speaker 1: occupation of Hamilton Hall was used as a pretext for this.
Speaker 1: Like I mean, you saw how many police and riot
Speaker 1: gear and the heavy yell artillery and all of this. Okay,
Speaker 1: but it didn't just happen at Columbia University. You know,
Speaker 1: at City College, which is just up the street about
Speaker 1: twenty blocks that I actually used to live right there
Speaker 1: in that neighborhood in Northern Manhattan. There were by all accounts,
Speaker 1: entirely peaceful protests far as I know, there were no
Speaker 1: was no even property damage, no buildings occupied or anything.
Speaker 1: And they still had this overwhelming police crackdown of the
Speaker 1: sort that we've seen, you know, on campuses across the country.
Speaker 1: So and also obviously this is not the normal response
Speaker 1: for broken windows and trespassing. I think we get all
Speaker 1: see very clearly the reason for their response is because
Speaker 1: They don't want the dissent. They want to make sure
Speaker 1: this entire movement is completely crushed. It's all a method
Speaker 1: of avoiding the conversation about what these students are actually
Speaker 1: protesting and whether or not their cause is actually just.
Speaker 1: But we've got more for you from the NYPD. This
Speaker 1: is Rebecca Winer, head of the NYPD counter Terrorism Bureau,
Speaker 1: talking about why this response was necessary. Take a lesson.
Speaker 9: This is not about students expressing ideas. It is about
Speaker 9: a change in tactics that presents a concern, and a
Speaker 9: normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric. And I'm not just talking
Speaker 9: about language. I'm now talking about tactics and that's what
Speaker 9: shifted our response yesterday. But a normalization and mainstreaming of
Speaker 9: rhetoric associated with terrorism that has now become pretty common
Speaker 9: on college campuses.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 9: You see people wearing headbands associated with foreign terrorist organizations.
Speaker 9: This happened in October when you had a viral TikTok
Speaker 9: reissuing of Osama bin Laden's two thousand and two letter
Speaker 9: to America.
Speaker 3: So that's a larger concern.
Speaker 9: It's separate from what happened yesterday, but they're related. We
Speaker 9: do not want ideas. We do not want campuses, which
Speaker 9: are where people are supposed to be learning and being
Speaker 9: in a conducive environment for all of the things that
Speaker 9: we do in schools being turned into places where people
Speaker 9: are committing vandalism, property damage, and committing crimes.
Speaker 1: I like the part where she says we don't want ideas.
Speaker 1: That's very clear. I mean, this is Listen. You can
Speaker 1: hate their cause, you can hate their speech, you can
Speaker 1: think that it's, you know, the same thing that a terrorist.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. There is no car mount in the
Speaker 1: First Amendment for hate speech or ideas you don't like.
Speaker 1: And that's what's so ridiculous about this and the whole
Speaker 1: of government and whole of media effort to censor, crush,
Speaker 1: and criminalize certain speech critical of Israel.
Speaker 3: It's insane, and that's what's happening right now.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're got to get to it in terms
Speaker 2: of the House of Representative's passage of its anti semitism
Speaker 2: while I mean, this is one of the biggest fringe
Speaker 2: infringes upon the First Amendment since World War One. If
Speaker 2: you go back and you look at some of the
Speaker 2: anti war acts that were imposed at that time on
Speaker 2: Americans who were trying to dissent from the war machine
Speaker 2: of that time about one hundred years ago. So this
Speaker 2: is an extraordinary moment. And it's not even for a
Speaker 2: war where American troops are dying. Isn't that a little
Speaker 2: interesting in terms of the war powers willing to basically
Speaker 2: insert and totalitarianize our democracy on behalf of a foreign
Speaker 2: power which is prosecuting a war. Similarly, Crystal, I think
Speaker 2: it's very important. I realized we haven't even had a
Speaker 2: chance to react to some of the things going on
Speaker 2: at Columbia. And I think people can say, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not like a pro Kefia person or any of this,
Speaker 2: but I did a lot of research and I have
Speaker 2: to be honest so tact fact, when we looked previously
Speaker 2: at Hamilton Hall and the occupation, I said, I think
Speaker 2: the line because in property damage of vandalism and trespassing. However,
Speaker 2: I do think and again, and this is kind of
Speaker 2: where the discourse breaks apart.
Speaker 3: People are like, well, what would you expect?
Speaker 2: And I don't have any problem with arresting those individuals,
Speaker 2: but we have to come back to some of the
Speaker 2: original response to January sixth. So immediately in the aftermath
Speaker 2: of January sixth, Crystal, you and I were sitting here
Speaker 2: in our studio. I'll never forget, not here but over
Speaker 2: at the hill, and I'll never forget, you know, having
Speaker 2: to go through Bagdad like checkpoints, you know, to get
Speaker 2: to our office. Yeah, a full federalization. So again we
Speaker 2: were talking there about Okay, so the people should be prosecuted, certainly, right,
Speaker 2: people who entered the capital unlawfully. But does it mean
Speaker 2: that we should be prosecuting this domestic terrorists? Does it
Speaker 2: mean that we should have spent half a billion dollars,
Speaker 2: you know, locking down our entire capital, deploying the National Guard,
Speaker 2: trying to institute a Patriot Act two point zero. And
Speaker 2: that's where I would really urge people, where, even if
Speaker 2: you are skeptical or even outright oppositional to some of
Speaker 2: these protesters, I would urge proportionality in a response. And
Speaker 2: watching one thousand and NYPD police officers basically walk into Colombia,
Speaker 2: it's one of the most insane things I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: You know, Again, we can arrest people, and we can
Speaker 2: have the situation handled in a proportional manner relative to
Speaker 2: the crime that is being committed. Another thing is and
Speaker 2: I'll be honest, I didn't actually know this is I
Speaker 2: went back and did some research. So back in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty five, I talked previously about how protesters had occupied
Speaker 2: Hamilton Hall previously. Protesters actually occupied Hamilton Hall for three
Speaker 2: weeks in nineteen eighty five, and actually it led to
Speaker 2: a Columbia University vote of divestment from apartheid South Africa
Speaker 2: at the time. So I have to be real, I
Speaker 2: have a lot more sympathy now for the people who
Speaker 2: did this, because the university itself has a long history
Speaker 2: of both, you know, allowing these types of things to
Speaker 2: happen and also even following through with their demands. I
Speaker 2: don't even necessarily agree with the fact that you should
Speaker 2: be able to trespass on a hall and then your
Speaker 2: university three weeks later is going to you know, bout
Speaker 2: your demands, but you did it already in the past.
Speaker 2: So not only that, based upon all of their recruiting materials,
Speaker 2: they have consistently said Columbia is a state of social
Speaker 2: justice action. They brag about the Hamilton Hall occupation of
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty eight and nineteen eighty five. They talk specifically
Speaker 2: about how their student body is like highly socially engaged.
Speaker 2: So it is very clear here that we are acting
Speaker 2: in a different manner as opposed to Israel. So I
Speaker 2: think then that and I want people to hear this
Speaker 2: from somebody like me, who's not necessarily the most sympathetic person.
Speaker 2: I want them to understand that, Look, a thousand people
Speaker 2: coming in to a private university under these pretexts and basically,
Speaker 2: you know, occupying this campus. Whenever you have a long
Speaker 2: history of allowing such behavior in the past and bragging
Speaker 2: about it, that is very, very different, you know, this
Speaker 2: time around. So we can have law and order, and
Speaker 2: we can have proportionality, and we can also understand, I
Speaker 2: think where there is a clear exception being made now
Speaker 2: here in the case of Israel, and in that you know,
Speaker 2: I have to object as an American citizen for what's happening.
Speaker 1: Amen to all of that, And I mean, listen, just
Speaker 1: ask yourself, right, like I said before, what is the
Speaker 1: normal response to a broken window and trespassing? Is it
Speaker 1: a thousand police in rya gear. I'm pretty sure there's
Speaker 1: some other criminal activities happening in New York City where
Speaker 1: those cups might be useful. The smearing of these students
Speaker 1: as actual terrorists by the NYPD, by you know, the
Speaker 1: mourning Joe. It's so I really am losing my mind
Speaker 1: over this because we're about to get into what happened
Speaker 1: at UCLA as well. In terms of a protest movement,
Speaker 1: like we can debate tactics, we've debated tactics. Even within
Speaker 1: the movement. There's debates about what tactics work, and what's
Speaker 1: going to win people over and what's not going to
Speaker 1: be effective, et cetera. That's all fine and good, But
Speaker 1: in terms of a protest movement, which is massive in
Speaker 1: scale and size and nationwide, et cetera, they've been about
Speaker 1: as perfect as you could get. There have been so
Speaker 1: few instances of even property damage that it's actually incredible
Speaker 1: when you have this many human beings, some of whom
Speaker 1: are gonna be a loll out there that doesn't undermine
Speaker 1: the justice of their cause in this particular instance. But
Speaker 1: you're gonna have radicals, you're gonna have weirdos, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have freed that's human beings. Okay. The fact that you've
Speaker 1: had so few instances that are even colorably violent is
Speaker 1: actually astonishing. And when you look at what happened at UCLA,
Speaker 1: the one instance where we had genuine violence. It is
Speaker 1: now very clear that it was nearly, if not entirely,
Speaker 1: one sided pro Israel counterprotesters coming in, shooting fireworks at them,
Speaker 1: busting down their encampment, assaulting them for hours, with the
Speaker 1: police nowhere to be seen. So we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: student safety. Dozens of anti war protesters, some of whom
Speaker 1: may well have been Jewish, since this is the concern
Speaker 1: of the day, which listen, I think old people, including
Speaker 1: Jewish people, should be safe. You had dozens of students
Speaker 1: sent to the hospital. Where's a media concern about those students' safety. Clearly,
Speaker 1: this risk to student safety has been in the crackdown
Speaker 1: and has been from these counter protesters who are again
Speaker 1: were allowed to assault them and run wild for hours.
Speaker 1: Where were the riot cops then, in their gear with
Speaker 1: their heavy artillery to protect students when they actually were needed.
Speaker 1: They were nowhere to be found. And the UCLA rent
Speaker 1: a cop, security guards or whatever they had. They were
Speaker 1: treated in hidden and building and were such cowards they
Speaker 1: locked out the student journalists who had been given agreement
Speaker 1: that they could retreat into that building if their safety
Speaker 1: was under threat, and by the way, their safety was
Speaker 1: under threat. Four of them were assaulted, according to the
Speaker 1: LA Time this morning, were assaulted by those pro Israel counterprotesters.
Speaker 1: Where's the media outrage about that? Where's the concern about
Speaker 1: Jewish student safety about any of that? Instead you get
Speaker 1: this completely insane commentary from Dana Bash. She Dana or Dana,
Speaker 1: We'll go with both. Whoever. Dana Bash, who is supposedly
Speaker 1: first of all, she's a congression christ but she's not
Speaker 1: foreign affairs, she's not opinion, and yet she had the
Speaker 1: most insane take on this whole situation. I can scarcely
Speaker 1: even believe it. Take a listen to what this lady
Speaker 1: had to say.
Speaker 12: Many of these protests started peacefully with legitimate questions about
Speaker 12: the war, but in many cases they lost the plot.
Speaker 12: They're calling for a ceasefire, Well there was a ceasefire
Speaker 12: on October sixth, the day before Hamas terrorists brutally murdered
Speaker 12: more than one thousand people inside Israel and took hundreds
Speaker 12: more as hostages. Making Jewish students I feel unsafe at
Speaker 12: their own schools is unacceptable and it is happening way
Speaker 12: too much right now.
Speaker 4: I'm a Ucile A student.
Speaker 3: I deserve to go here.
Speaker 4: We pay tuition, this is our school, and they're not
Speaker 4: letting me walk in my classes over there. I want
Speaker 4: to use that entrance.
Speaker 3: Why can't Will you let me go in? This could
Speaker 3: be over in a second.
Speaker 4: Just let me and my friends go in.
Speaker 1: Again.
Speaker 12: What you just saw is twenty twenty four in Los Angeles.
Speaker 12: Hearkening back to the nineteen thirties in Europe. And I
Speaker 12: do not say that lightly. The fear among Jews in
Speaker 12: this country is palpable right now.
Speaker 1: So one video of someone claiming, which how many of
Speaker 1: these freaking hoaxes have we seen at this point? That
Speaker 1: they're being blocked from going to class, and it's nineteen
Speaker 1: thirties in Europe. It's the equivalent to the Holocaust and
Speaker 1: millions of Jews being being murdered on an industrial scale.
Speaker 1: This is so completely insane, especially Saga, given the fact
Speaker 1: that we know the bulk of the violence. Violence has
Speaker 1: been perpetrated against the anti war protesters.
Speaker 2: And this is a look, I believe very strongly an
Speaker 2: equal application of the law. And I think that those
Speaker 2: protesters you know, who were having it took four hours
Speaker 2: for the LAPD to come in.
Speaker 3: I think it's outrageous.
Speaker 2: It's very clearly that they just didn't feel like getting involved.
Speaker 2: Their excuse was that what that they didn't have enough
Speaker 2: troops or something like that, which I just simply don't
Speaker 2: believe honestly, because they had campus security there as well.
Speaker 2: The other thing is, you know, time for a little
Speaker 2: history lesson there, Dana. I believe it is Dana, by
Speaker 2: the way, I just looked it up. So for the
Speaker 2: nineteen thirties Germany, do people really want to know what happened?
Speaker 2: There were thousands of actual street brawls in the street
Speaker 2: between the Nazis, between the center right parties, the socialists,
Speaker 2: the communists. I mean, it was an absolute bloodbath. Thousands,
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of people were killed in street violence.
Speaker 2: There wasn't an actually state violence necessarily, and in fact,
Speaker 2: the vacuum of power and all of that at the
Speaker 2: time the chaos is eventually what led to some of
Speaker 2: the rise of the Nazi Party. And that's exactly why
Speaker 2: so many of our brain dead comparisons to the nineteen
Speaker 2: thirties are frankly insulting, you know, to people who lived
Speaker 2: through the period of wy Mar Germany and saw what
Speaker 2: happened at that time of violence perpetrated against Jews. I mean,
Speaker 2: every once in a while I'll see somebody, for example,
Speaker 2: you know, I said here, I said, I think it
Speaker 2: crosses the line to break into Hamilton Hall. And then
Speaker 2: I go online and people are like, this is Christalnacht
Speaker 2: because there's some broken glass, and I'm like, oh again again, Okay,
Speaker 2: it is deeply insulting to these survivors of Christalnacht to
Speaker 2: compare the occupation and the breaking into Hamilton Hall to
Speaker 2: what happened in nineteen thirties Germany.
Speaker 3: But this is in a.
Speaker 1: Consistent Holocaust denial, honestly acts as being anything like the
Speaker 1: acts that led.
Speaker 4: Up to that.
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean, it'd be like saying that any
Speaker 2: time that you detain some that they're like slaves, or
Speaker 2: you know, any time that you have you know, even
Speaker 2: if you have a I don't know, Like it's like
Speaker 2: comparing affirmative action to Jim Crow or something. Right, you
Speaker 2: could say it is a policy like Jim Crow, or
Speaker 2: like a policy that has the echoes of something, But
Speaker 2: even then I think it's outrageous and frankly insulting. So
Speaker 2: here again, like everybody, calm down. You know, I even
Speaker 2: pulled the numbers and went back Hamilton Hall this time
Speaker 2: around was roughly half the number, actually less than half
Speaker 2: of the number of people who were arrested in nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty eight. There were over seven hundred people were arrested
Speaker 2: and had a lot.
Speaker 1: Of other buildings.
Speaker 2: They occupied quite a lot of other buildings. There was
Speaker 2: actually a shitload more violence than also at the time,
Speaker 2: And that's part of why I'm just like, look, guys, everybody,
Speaker 2: just take a chill pill. It is not nineteen thirties Germany.
Speaker 2: We've gotten through ten times worse in our country, not
Speaker 2: even you know, a lot that long ago. It's everybody's fine.
Speaker 2: And yet for some reason, you know, everything is just
Speaker 2: getting ratcheted up. Where these you know, a CNN anchor
Speaker 2: who that let's be honest, he probably has personal security
Speaker 2: or something like that. You know, mal time millionaire, longtime
Speaker 2: denizen of Washington. You're not unsafe, your kids aren't unsafe.
Speaker 2: Everybody's fine. If you are unsafe, it's because there's what
Speaker 2: shitload of crime here in DC. Four people got shot
Speaker 2: yesterday here in our city. I don't hear them complaining
Speaker 2: about that. That's not nineteen thirties Germany.
Speaker 1: It's not because it's like protesters and GW twos.
Speaker 2: Because of protesters at GWA, exactly right. It's that's the
Speaker 2: big problem that we have.
Speaker 1: I would love to take a shill pill Soccer, because
Speaker 1: I'm losing my mind over this.
Speaker 3: Point, over the media reaction.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, you're not saying, like I am physically unsafe
Speaker 2: now at this moment, and that's what I'm talking.
Speaker 1: No, I know, I know, I just yeah, I can't
Speaker 1: believe what a bunch of liars these people are. Like
Speaker 1: I can't believe how fake this all is. I can't
Speaker 1: believe how manufactured it is that now you have. I mean,
Speaker 1: we just showed you a little slice of a completely
Speaker 1: insane media reaction. Now College, they're Nazis, they're terrorists, they're hummus,
Speaker 1: they deserve or you know, the equivalent to nineteen thirties Germany,
Speaker 1: when again, the one violent protest, it was entirely because
Speaker 1: and caused by and perpetrated by pro Israel protesters assaulting
Speaker 1: anti war protesters. And it is so clear what the
Speaker 1: game is. It's so clear what the game is. Look
Speaker 1: at our poll, look at any polling out there. These
Speaker 1: college kids and other members of this protest movement have
Speaker 1: won the debate. The numbers in favor of a ceasefire
Speaker 1: are overwhelming. Among people who voted for Joe Biden, the
Speaker 1: numbers are even more overwhelming, and so to distract from
Speaker 1: the clear righteousness of their cause, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: all of these people ten years from now will be
Speaker 1: pretending that they were on their side, or they'll be
Speaker 1: covering their ass about why it was understandable at the
Speaker 1: time that they compared them to Nazis and all this crap. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's all to distract from what the kids are actually
Speaker 1: protesting about and the clear justice of their cause. When
Speaker 1: they say I don't want my tax dollars going to
Speaker 1: bomb babies. I also think it's important, and Sager brought
Speaker 1: this up a number of times and other segments as well,
Speaker 1: to keep in mind their specific asks and to make
Speaker 1: the comparison. So at Brown University, they had protests, they
Speaker 1: had an encampment, and the administration met with them said,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're not going to commit to divesting,
Speaker 1: which is the specific ass from like Lockey Martin or
Speaker 1: whoever they invest in. We're but we are going to
Speaker 1: schedule a vote and it's going to be taken up
Speaker 1: and we're taking your concerns seriously. Guess what they the
Speaker 1: protests Okay, we're going to disband the encampment were also
Speaker 1: all fine.
Speaker 2: It also then if they rejected that, then they would
Speaker 2: look a lot worse if they were like if they
Speaker 2: were like, okay, we'll have a vote and you can
Speaker 2: what Brown agreed to, like you said, is not just
Speaker 2: a vote, but they said that you can come and
Speaker 2: you can present your case to the Board of Governors,
Speaker 2: which I think I'm actually totally fine with because that
Speaker 2: means that the Bord of Governors will ultimately make an independentency.
Speaker 1: It still gets to, I mean, some of the critique
Speaker 1: that you have sometimes with these institutions, which is like
Speaker 1: why is why are your investments so dear to you,
Speaker 1: like your particular investments, But you're right right exactly, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: and we see too, you know, Robert Kraft and these
Speaker 1: other large donors in the way they're willing to say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're not going to play goodball if you deal with
Speaker 1: these if you don't crack down on these protesters. So
Speaker 1: then that's how you end up in this utterly absurd situation.
Speaker 1: Just so you know too, Washington Posts had a great
Speaker 1: graphic of the way that these protests have spread like
Speaker 1: wildfire since that initial Columbia University crackdown, which you'll recall
Speaker 1: President of Columbia University gets summoned Capitol Hill to talk
Speaker 1: about anti Semitism on campus and basically she pledges to
Speaker 1: quote unquote do more. In the very next day, the
Speaker 1: cops are brought in and you know, there's a massive
Speaker 1: crackdown and that has sparked a huge uptick in terms
Speaker 1: of the number of these protests across college campuses and
Speaker 1: kids are getting arrested to coast to coast in you know, universities,
Speaker 1: small schools, like I said before, the Ivy League and
Speaker 1: the elite institutions get a lot of the attention Columbia
Speaker 1: does because they're in New York City, but any manner
Speaker 1: and variety small, large, more working class, more upscale of
Speaker 1: schools across the country now are seeing these protest movements
Speaker 1: and attendant crackdowns and arrests. Let's take a look at
Speaker 1: these graphics that the Washington Posts pulled together, so you
Speaker 1: can see there on the left they have the protests
Speaker 1: that amror protests, the size of the protests at the
Speaker 1: week beginning April tenth. Then you have the crackdown at
Speaker 1: Columbia that was on April twenty third, you can see
Speaker 1: how they grew, and then after that you can see
Speaker 1: how it really just explodes. And that's when you're talking
Speaker 1: about you know, any number of schools, coast to coast,
Speaker 1: types of schools, you know, elite, normal state institutions, and
Speaker 1: everything in between. So if your goal was to actually
Speaker 1: diminished the energy of this protest movement, congratulations, you've done
Speaker 1: exactly exactly the opposite. And if you think these students
Speaker 1: are going to stop now because of what they've seen,
Speaker 1: I've got another thing coming for you. Let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and move on to the White House response, which has
Speaker 1: also been pissed. Poor Korean. John Pierre was asked specifically
Speaker 1: about those UCLA counter protesters pro Israel counter protesters assaulting
Speaker 1: the anti war activists. Didn't have a lot to say
Speaker 1: about that. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: I'm wondering if the White House has any response to
Speaker 10: the reports of violent clashes on UCLA's campus last night
Speaker 10: that there was a group of counter protesters that tried
Speaker 10: to fortunately dismantle the pro Pala sign encampment and the
Speaker 10: clash that resulted afterwards.
Speaker 13: So, look what I can say more broadly, any form
Speaker 13: of violence we are going to denounce. We're going to
Speaker 13: call out violent rhetoric, any type of violence we have
Speaker 13: to call out. That doesn't change anything.
Speaker 14: We're going to continue to do that, and that could
Speaker 14: quin on the communications with protests and people related to protests.
Speaker 14: Has the President spoken to Mayor Adams since the NYPD
Speaker 14: became involved in dealing.
Speaker 13: With them, You know, understand the question. Don't have anything
Speaker 13: to read out as far as a conversation with the
Speaker 13: mayor from the President, but I think we've been very
Speaker 13: very clear about what we're seeing on the ground. I've
Speaker 13: been answering these questions for the past couple of days.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, thanks.
Speaker 1: So, I think it's really important to understand the role
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration has played in green lighting these
Speaker 1: unhinged crackdowns. And you know, Biden put out multiple statements
Speaker 1: smearing the kids as these college students, as terrorists, effectively
Speaker 1: anti Semitic, et cetera. And very soon after this, you know,
Speaker 1: specifically with regards to Columbia, put down a statement and
Speaker 1: that's when you see all the heavy artillery broad in
Speaker 1: in one thousand member police response, and so funny how
Speaker 1: when you get asked specifically about actual violence that happened,
Speaker 1: the language is very well, in general, we condemn violence,
Speaker 1: but you're not going to have this specific violence. You
Speaker 1: don't actually have anything to say about this specifically at all.
Speaker 1: You're just vaguely Yeah, of course we theoretically condemn violence
Speaker 1: if that happened. It's just it's so clear the bias
Speaker 1: here and how differently these two groups are treated.
Speaker 2: I would like to live in a world with White
Speaker 2: House doesn't have an opinion on all this stuff.
Speaker 3: I've said this before.
Speaker 2: I don't think they really should be weighing in on
Speaker 2: local matters at UCLA and everywhere else. But if we're
Speaker 2: going to live in a world where we're going to
Speaker 2: take you a single transperson or whatever is like allegedly
Speaker 2: assaulted somewhere and that's a national demanding of a white
Speaker 2: House statement, or here in the Columbia case, it's like
Speaker 2: anti semitism is deplorable. But then we're going to ignore
Speaker 2: like violence over here on this side and just issue
Speaker 2: like no statement, then yeah, you look like an idiot
Speaker 2: and a hypocrite, and I think it is very obvious
Speaker 2: what is happening here now, and that's part of the
Speaker 2: dishonesty in this is honestly driving me really crazy because
Speaker 2: what we're watching again is that we basically have a
Speaker 2: fake moral panic which is being used to construct the
Speaker 2: biggest expansion of the DEI regime in let's say, since
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act. What we are
Speaker 2: watching today is our Congress past a piece of legislation
Speaker 2: that declares and expands the definition of anti semitism to
Speaker 2: opposition of the State of Israel, codifying that into the
Speaker 2: Civil Rights Act, and then empowering the Office of the
Speaker 2: Civil Rights Act in the Department of Justice to prosecute
Speaker 2: universities and potentially Christal even you or I as commentators,
Speaker 2: as American citizens. And I can tell you this, like,
Speaker 2: maybe they won't come after us, but they very well
Speaker 2: could under the text of that legislation. And I've warned
Speaker 2: about this from the very beginning against Bill Ackman and
Speaker 2: all these other folks, is that they don't want Jews
Speaker 2: to be considered like everybody else. They want them included
Speaker 2: as marginal a bipoc, LGBTQ and all this other stuff.
Speaker 2: This is a liberal expansion of the regime being used
Speaker 2: to try and crush speech in the future, and you know,
Speaker 2: we have to speak out.
Speaker 3: We have to stand against.
Speaker 1: This absolutely, absolutely, and listen. It's another thing that drives
Speaker 1: me insane is it's really not about protecting Jewish students.
Speaker 1: That's bullshit, because there are so many Jewish students who
Speaker 1: are you know, being assaulted and arrested and you know,
Speaker 1: assaulted by pro Israel protesters. In fact, you mentioned Bill Acne.
Speaker 1: Can put this next piece up on the screen. He
Speaker 1: helped to fund. I think it was one of the
Speaker 1: top funders, if not the top funder of that violent
Speaker 1: pro Israel counter protest that assaulted many students at UCLA,
Speaker 1: included among them, probably since so many Jewish students are
Speaker 1: involved in the anti war protest Jewish students, so they
Speaker 1: don't actually care about Jewish students safety. And Jessica Seinfeld,
Speaker 1: by the way, Jerry Seinfeld's wife also so kicked in
Speaker 1: a number of thousands of dollars to these violent thugs
Speaker 1: who rampaged and shot rockets and assaulted anti word demonstrators
Speaker 1: for hours before the cops showed up. So it's nonsense
Speaker 1: that they even care about Jewish student safety. No, they
Speaker 1: care about this ideology of Zionism. That's what they care about,
Speaker 1: and that's fine. They're allowed to care about that. That's fine.
Speaker 1: But don't conflate it like this is a religious sectarian conflict.
Speaker 1: It's not. And certainly do not go and ban Americans
Speaker 1: from having a critique of a foreign government. You know,
Speaker 1: I a couple things cyber and response to what you
Speaker 1: were saying. I was actually talking to Kyle about this
Speaker 1: last night. I remember how when Trump was first elected,
Speaker 1: there was like some resistance lived journalist who would post
Speaker 1: every day like it's day number whatever. And I'm still afraid,
Speaker 1: like they thought they were going to be like rounded
Speaker 1: up and arrested by Trump, which, listening as his own
Speaker 1: authoritarian in stings, I'm not gonna like whatever is certainly
Speaker 1: the case. We have never been more actually a danger
Speaker 1: of being arrested, criminalized whatever for our views.
Speaker 2: Then right now, oh, absolutely, especially here on the show
Speaker 2: that you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And it's because it's because of the bipartisan consensus around this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is we've talked about this a lot
Speaker 1: in other context, like the times when you should really
Speaker 1: be scared are when you have the elites of both
Speaker 1: parties agreeing on a pro censorship regime or a security
Speaker 1: state expansion. We've seen this many times. We saw it
Speaker 1: during the Iraq War. The other thing that I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about is like, you know, obviously it's easiest for
Speaker 1: me to compare to my own historical experience because we
Speaker 1: live through it and I have a very fine grasp
Speaker 1: on what the climate was like. There was a lot
Speaker 1: of hysteria around the anti war movement during the Iraq
Speaker 1: War and build up to the Iraq War as well,
Speaker 1: but people were smeared as being traders and how you stand,
Speaker 1: You got to stand with the president, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: But there was never any effort to actually like criminalize
Speaker 1: or say you can't even say these things in that way.
Speaker 1: This is it really is extraordinary different. And it also
Speaker 1: harkens back to I mean, we've had laws on the
Speaker 1: books in many states now for years that's anti BDS
Speaker 1: laws that's codify exactly the same thing of like you
Speaker 1: are not allowed to boycott or divest, or you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to participate in this boycott movement against a foreign government.
Speaker 1: You can boycott our own government, but you can boycott
Speaker 1: this random foreign government. It's complete infringement on our rights.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely a gateway to if you're cool with
Speaker 1: this particular expansion, what you think it's going to stop there?
Speaker 1: Give me a break. This the expansion of the censorship
Speaker 1: regime here is truly astonishing. And I can't not that
Speaker 1: anyone you know, changes their mind because they're called a hypocrite.
Speaker 1: But we had a whole movement of people who claimed
Speaker 1: that campus free speech was like the biggest issue of
Speaker 1: their time and that they really deeply cared about it.
Speaker 1: And now you have an actual House vote to codify
Speaker 1: censorship and ban criticism of a foreign government. And they're
Speaker 1: on board with it. It's not even that you don't
Speaker 1: hear about you just they're by and large they're on
Speaker 1: board with it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, you are absolutely right, Crystal, And let's get to
Speaker 3: some of that.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the
Speaker 2: screen as well, because this is what stage is that
Speaker 2: quote unquote democrats enter panic mode as the Gaza protests erupt.
Speaker 3: So you basically have two options. Whenever you're in panic mode.
Speaker 2: You can continue to go after or you can pull back,
Speaker 2: and you can try to understand what is going on.
Speaker 3: Well, what do we think all happened.
Speaker 2: Well, we had the introduction and now the passage of
Speaker 2: a quote unquote anti semitism piece of legislation now through
Speaker 2: our Congress.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Shout out to Representative Thomas Massey, a genuine hero on
Speaker 2: this subject, who says, today the House will vote on
Speaker 2: a bill to define anti Semitism with the intent to
Speaker 2: increase prosecutions of activity on campus. This bill has a
Speaker 2: problem beyond violating the First Amendment. The definition of anti
Speaker 2: Semitism appears nowhere in the bill. What they see is
Speaker 2: that they are going to codify into law definition of
Speaker 2: anti Semitism that was introduced by the International Holocaust Museum
Speaker 2: and Remembrance Organization.
Speaker 3: Now it's very clear, because.
Speaker 2: I want to read examples of what we'll be called
Speaker 2: anti Semitic quote unquote making accusing Jews as people being
Speaker 2: responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single
Speaker 2: Jewish person or group, or even acts were committed by
Speaker 2: non Jews, denying the fact, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of
Speaker 2: the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of
Speaker 2: the Nazi Party. So basically, Holocaust denile is now illegal
Speaker 2: under US law.
Speaker 3: If this is where to.
Speaker 1: Pass, Dana Bass, I don't sorry about you downplaying the
Speaker 1: events leading up to I.
Speaker 2: Do not support Holocaust denile, obviously, but I think people
Speaker 2: should have the right to say it.
Speaker 3: And if you don't disagree. If you disagree with me,
Speaker 3: you can.
Speaker 2: Go and look at the speech of Mark Zuckerberg in
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen where he specifically defended holocaust de isle on
Speaker 2: the Facebook platform under well established First Amendment law. For
Speaker 2: this is my other personal favorite. Accusing Jewish citizens of
Speaker 2: being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities
Speaker 2: of use worldwide to the interests of their own nation. Again,
Speaker 2: once again dual loyalty accusations. They can be tricky. I'll
Speaker 2: be honest, This conflict has actually convinced me. It's more
Speaker 2: of a real problem than I ever thought before, and
Speaker 2: I believe it is my right as an American citizen
Speaker 2: to accuse somebody of having dual loyalty if I suspect so. Similarly,
Speaker 2: it says applying double standards by requiring a behavior not
Speaker 2: expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, so that
Speaker 2: means directly criticizing the standards of the State of Israel
Speaker 2: and their prosecution of this war would then be considered
Speaker 2: anti Semitic under US law. And who wants to guess
Speaker 2: that this law passed the House of Representatives with over
Speaker 2: three hundred votes just last night. It is stunning, it's astounding.
Speaker 2: Put this up there, please, just to show everybody look
Speaker 2: at this. I mean, one hundred and eighty seven Republicans
Speaker 2: voted yes, one hundred and three Democrats, only twenty one
Speaker 2: Republicans and seventy Democrats voted No. Crystal three one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty to ninety one to mandate that the Education
Speaker 2: Department use this definition when enforcing federal anti discrimination law,
Speaker 2: meaning that campus is any organization subject to the Civil
Speaker 2: Rights Act which all of us are, either as employers,
Speaker 2: as educations, and others, will then be liable to prosecution
Speaker 2: under this. It's just insane, it's outrageous.
Speaker 1: And you know what another item in this definition of
Speaker 1: anti semitism says you're not allowed to draw comparisons of
Speaker 1: contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. And again
Speaker 1: it's not like like no matter what they do, like
Speaker 1: they can actually do a full on genocide, and you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to say the word Nazi in comparison because
Speaker 1: some of the ideology is very reminiscent. Sorry it is,
Speaker 1: and that what I just said is now apparently that's
Speaker 1: that's criminal as illegal according to this vote in the House.
Speaker 1: And the other one, which is ironic to me is
Speaker 1: quote holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State
Speaker 1: of Israel. Well, actually it's these Zionists who I see
Speaker 1: doing that by and large, who I see making an
Speaker 1: aggressive attempt to conflate Judaism and all Jewish people with
Speaker 1: the actions of the State of Israel. That happens almost
Speaker 1: exclusively on that side of the Ledger. But you know
Speaker 1: when they do it, when they say, you know, we
Speaker 1: want the Jews of the future to be able to
Speaker 1: look back and say that's what we did in our
Speaker 1: destruction of Goz or whatever the quote was from some
Speaker 1: Israeli minister, then that's not anti Semitic. When they demand
Speaker 1: that every single Jew in the world be conflated and
Speaker 1: associated with the State of Israel, when Joe Biden says
Speaker 1: no Jews will be safe without the State of Israel.
Speaker 1: When they do it, oh, that's not anti Semitic, but
Speaker 1: I don't even hear. In fact, the overwhelming number of
Speaker 1: people on the anti war side are at pains to
Speaker 1: say Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing. And
Speaker 1: that's so clear because you you have so many Zionists
Speaker 1: who are not Jewish, and we have very clearly in
Speaker 1: this movement so many anti Zionists who are Jewish, So
Speaker 1: they're not two the same things. Zionism is a political ideology.
Speaker 1: Israel is a nation state that, by the way, doesn't
Speaker 1: only contain Jewish people. So it's just if you look
Speaker 1: at this, it's very clearly an effort to make it
Speaker 1: so that you cannot criticize the State of Israel without
Speaker 1: being tarred as an officially by the government, tarred as
Speaker 1: an anti semi. This is the fondest wish of you know,
Speaker 1: the ADL, the State of Israel. They were pushing this
Speaker 1: view for years and years and years, and now you
Speaker 1: have overwhelming majorities in the House voting in favor. You
Speaker 1: can bet there will be similarly overwhelming margins of the Senate,
Speaker 1: if not more so. You can bet Joe Biden will
Speaker 1: certainly sign this into law. And it's it's complete insanity,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't end here. By the way, it doesn't
Speaker 1: end here. Once you open the door to hey, we
Speaker 1: can codify what is hate speech. We can you know,
Speaker 1: make it official at the Department of Education, and your
Speaker 1: federal funding can be revoked if we feel that you're
Speaker 1: you know, questioning the state of Israel in a way
Speaker 1: that we don't like. It does not stop there. It's
Speaker 1: so outrageous.
Speaker 2: I could scarcely wrote my head it's crazy, and I
Speaker 2: just want to again flip it around. This is what
Speaker 2: drives me crazy, is you know, Okay, I'm Indian, so
Speaker 2: and we're by the way, we're the richest people in America.
Speaker 2: We could if we wanted to exert this amount of
Speaker 2: political power. What if we had a highly funded lobby
Speaker 2: to make the government pass a law disputing territorial claims
Speaker 2: on Kashmir and said that you could, you would be
Speaker 2: that basically would criminalize the speech, let's say, of Pakistani Americans.
Speaker 2: Do you think that would be acceptable or would you
Speaker 2: think that that's an outrageous abuse by a foreign power
Speaker 2: who has been, you know, propping up our diaspora community
Speaker 2: to enforce outside norms. Now, listen, I'm Indian but I
Speaker 2: would speak out against that. But why do they get
Speaker 2: a special carve out and why do they you know,
Speaker 2: they want the US government to enforce their territorial acquisitional
Speaker 2: dreams on the speech of US citizens on college campuses.
Speaker 2: But you're right, the ground for this was laid in
Speaker 2: the BDS laws. They've always been on. Our only hope
Speaker 2: in this case is the Supreme Court. I pray, I
Speaker 2: pray you know that something like this actually would make
Speaker 2: it up to SCOTUS. But to be honest, you know,
Speaker 2: with the current makeup, we don't know for sure.
Speaker 1: Typically in most instances where the ANTIBEDS laws have been challenged,
Speaker 1: they've been struck down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it's a state court level. It's never made
Speaker 2: it to SCOTUS.
Speaker 1: So I mean that is somewhat hopeful. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean that is our only hope because the bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: is in favor of using the full force of the
Speaker 1: federal government to tell people how, how and when they
Speaker 1: are allowed to criticize the state of Israel, and every
Speaker 1: American who cares about their free speech rights, I don't
Speaker 1: care where you are on the you know, on the
Speaker 1: spectrum of opinion about this particular conflict. It really doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because it's about so it's about a core right
Speaker 1: as an American citizen, a cherished right. And if you
Speaker 1: happen to be on the right side of elite opinion
Speaker 1: on this one, okay, but it will come for you.
Speaker 1: There will be some opinion that you have that is
Speaker 1: deemed outside of acceptability, and now these same powers can
Speaker 1: be used against you as well. You know, free speech
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights are about protecting speech that is challenging
Speaker 1: to elite consensus, that is can be outright offensive at times.
Speaker 1: As I said before, there is no hate speech carve
Speaker 1: out in the First Amendment, you know. I mean the
Speaker 1: Skokie case. You had literal neo Nazis mark marching through
Speaker 1: a predominantly Jewish town. Okay, that's offensive as it could
Speaker 1: possibly be. We had literal neo Nazis marching through Charleston,
Speaker 1: West Virginia. I think they're disgusting, but I think they
Speaker 1: have a right to do it. You know, I was
Speaker 1: on the side of allowing the Charlottesville ultimately like neo
Speaker 1: Nazi rioters to have what should have been a piece.
Speaker 1: If they had just march piece, I would have supported
Speaker 1: their right to do it.
Speaker 2: I didn't know that they tried to block it. Oh
Speaker 2: that's crazy.
Speaker 1: There was. Actually it was a whole fall out of
Speaker 1: the ACLU because the ACL you backed their permit to
Speaker 1: have this march. And then this is part of what
Speaker 1: led to the ACL you get a little squishy and
Speaker 1: their free speech principles because they had raised a lot
Speaker 1: of money in the trump eras, like you know, resistance organization,
Speaker 1: So those are the types of people they had on board.
Speaker 1: So it caused big schism there. But in any case,
Speaker 1: this is all just to say, like offensive speech also
Speaker 1: is protected. Hate speech, sorry, it also is protected. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's what these anti war protesters have
Speaker 1: been doing. I wildly disagree with the mischaracterization of like
Speaker 1: their rally chants and whatever. But listen, if you're offended
Speaker 1: by it, that's your right, you can be. That's okay.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that it should be criminalized. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly the path that we're moving towards.
Speaker 3: Agree one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, So have some updates for you coming
Speaker 1: out of Israel's specially with regards to these ongoing potential
Speaker 1: ceasefire negotiations, so we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Another big screw you from bib to the US. He
Speaker 1: told Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln he will not agree
Speaker 1: to end the war on Hamas as part of the
Speaker 1: hostage deal. Of course it's been we're on the entire
Speaker 1: Gaza strip, but put that aside for a moment. He
Speaker 1: told him he wouldn't accept an end to the war.
Speaker 1: He said, we are interested in reaching a deal and
Speaker 1: determined to topple Hamas. Israel conveys latest offerreed amaster Egyptian
Speaker 1: mediators late last week, expecting response Wednesday evening. We don't
Speaker 1: have an update for you this morning, and Israeli official
Speaker 1: told The Times of Israel. He also told Blincoln that
Speaker 1: a hostage deal with Hamas does not mean an invasion
Speaker 1: of Rafa would be avoided. Details of this deal, sager,
Speaker 1: such as we know them is that you know Israel
Speaker 1: wants just a forty day ceasefire is basically what they
Speaker 1: have floated. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire. The way this
Speaker 1: has been painted in Western media is basically Hamas is
Speaker 1: the whole obstacle to any sort of a deal. But
Speaker 1: in reality, this is a negotiation and Israel's saying basically like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll pause for forty days, but then we promise we
Speaker 1: are going to still do our full on assault on Rafa,
Speaker 1: including the reporting that we provided earlier in the week,
Speaker 1: or that we shared with you earlier in the week
Speaker 1: about how the Israelis are setting up checkpoints to make
Speaker 1: sure that all military age men are stopped and kept
Speaker 1: in Rafa as that assault on that city, that planned
Speaker 1: assault and ground invasion on that city proceeds. And you know,
Speaker 1: one thing I realized after we talked about that saga,
Speaker 1: which is really incredibly sick, is the way that the
Speaker 1: death numbers have been reported in the media and the
Speaker 1: way that Israel has interpreted the death numbers is basically,
Speaker 1: any man is deemed and assumed to be a Hamas fighter.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: So if you want to improve what the media is
Speaker 1: claiming to be your ratio of civilian to militant deaths,
Speaker 1: you just murder a lot of men. Innocent men, non
Speaker 1: innocent men. Any men are just characterized as some ass militants.
Speaker 1: So it's a great way to improve your supposed proportional
Speaker 1: death rate and be able to say, oh, all these men,
Speaker 1: they're all Hamas fighters, if you just massively slaughter thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of men. So I think that's part of
Speaker 1: the part of the strategy here in terms of what
Speaker 1: they're planning for Rafa.
Speaker 3: No, yeah, it's very possible.
Speaker 2: And again this is why the death numbers can't really
Speaker 2: be trusted on all sides. We really have no idea
Speaker 2: if unall likely, it's probably much higher than at whatever
Speaker 2: it is, what the proportion is, maybe ten years from
Speaker 2: now will be lucky if we ever find out. But
Speaker 2: you flagged this crystal there. It was a development with
Speaker 2: this Israeli minister smow Tritch.
Speaker 3: I know you wanted to get to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you actually had an op ed in Haratz
Speaker 1: even calling for Smotrich to step down. He's the Israeli
Speaker 1: finance minister. So his word's a little bit more important
Speaker 1: than what some random nineteen year old may or may
Speaker 1: not have said on a college campus somewhere. That's just
Speaker 1: my personal opinion. On the media doesn't seem to see
Speaker 1: it that way. We can put some of his latest
Speaker 1: comments here up on the screen. He says, moments before redemption,
Speaker 1: we must not hesitate, we must just destroy Rafa. Nuserret
Speaker 1: and dear al Balah wipe out the memory of Amelek.
Speaker 1: There's no half measure Rafa dear al balas absolute destruction.
Speaker 1: So just not even it's not even colorable. It's just
Speaker 1: out and out genocidal rhetoric from a top and very
Speaker 1: influential minister within the Netanyahu government. And you know why
Speaker 1: these statements matter is not just because they say, you know,
Speaker 1: this is what I always say. Oh, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: it's heated rhetoric or it's populoust rhetoric or whatever. But
Speaker 1: it's also consistent and commeasure it with the actions that
Speaker 1: the government is actually taking. So it's not just that
Speaker 1: it's words. As you know, if you don't like a
Speaker 1: rally channel on a college campus, those are just words.
Speaker 1: Those college students don't have any actual ability to effectuate
Speaker 1: the policies that they want to see and acted. This man,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, does, and so that's why it's
Speaker 1: important to pay attention to things that he's saying and
Speaker 1: the way that they match up with the reality of
Speaker 1: the way that they are prosecuting this onslaught. Let's go
Speaker 1: ahead onto the next one. So apparently Biden is really
Speaker 1: pinning a lot on these ceasefire talks, which don't frankly,
Speaker 1: seem to be going all that well because Israel is
Speaker 1: so insistent on no, we want to continue bombing your
Speaker 1: children after the ceasefire ends. Let us put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is Barack revied. He was just
Speaker 1: honored at the White House Corresponds dinner. By the way,
Speaker 1: Israel Hamas deal is the only hope for Biden's Middle
Speaker 1: East strategy. So in this report, he says, President Biden's
Speaker 1: been personally involved in intense efforts in recent days to
Speaker 1: reach a hostage and ceasefire deal between Israel Jimas, which
Speaker 1: he sees as a crucial element of a much wider
Speaker 1: strategy at home and abroad. President's senior advisers say the
Speaker 1: deal on the table right now is the only conceivable
Speaker 1: path to a ceasefire in Gaza, possibly ending a war
Speaker 1: that has drawn sharp criticism of Biden among some of
Speaker 1: his key supporters ahead of the presidential election. Even White
Speaker 1: House spokesperson John Kirby admitted as much on Tuesday, saying
Speaker 1: he Biden's putting all his focus on the hostage deal. Quote.
Speaker 1: There just has to be a deal, he said when
Speaker 1: asked about a Plan B. If negotiations aren't successful, temporary
Speaker 1: seaesfare could also turn into a permanent one, although Bobe's
Speaker 1: pretty clear he doesn't want that. That could allow the
Speaker 1: Biden administration to return in negotiations for a consequential mega
Speaker 1: deal with Saudi Arabia that the US was working on
Speaker 1: before October seventh. I'd love to hear your thoughts on
Speaker 1: this supposed Saudi Arabia mega deal. This has been like
Speaker 1: the Biden Administration's fantasy from the beginning of this, and
Speaker 1: I think it's utterly absurd. The Saudis have come out
Speaker 1: multiple times and said there's no way we're doing this deal,
Speaker 1: and that's there's actually for real a Palestinian state, and
Speaker 1: yet the US keeps claiming that this is still like
Speaker 1: somehow on the table. And the idea is that you'd
Speaker 1: have a ceasefire, ultimately a permanent ceasefire, and then Saudi
Speaker 1: would agree to normalization with Israel and exchange for a
Speaker 1: pathway to two state solution. Problem is Bibi Netanyahu's whole
Speaker 1: raison deetra is to prevent such a two state solution
Speaker 1: number one, and the Saudis have been, like I said,
Speaker 1: very clear that that's a non starter for them.
Speaker 2: The other problem with that is that, yes, it's contingent
Speaker 2: on it two state solutions, contingent on Saudi recognition of Israel.
Speaker 2: Whenever nobody tells you, there's also contingent on a massive
Speaker 2: weapons transfer from the United States to Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: Like defense guarantee.
Speaker 2: For defense guarantee from US as well, which would put
Speaker 2: US even further into de facto war state if Iran
Speaker 2: were to ever attack them. That's the other thing. Do
Speaker 2: we all need another treaty alliance with Saudi Arabia? I
Speaker 2: don't think so, especially not you know, formalized in this manner,
Speaker 2: So it would only be an expansion of the US
Speaker 2: security umbrella. And even and here's the thing, I'm may
Speaker 2: be willing to trade it if we were actually going
Speaker 2: to get a two state solution, but I don't think
Speaker 2: that that's on the table. So then what's the point
Speaker 2: of this entire thing, And that most likely would lead
Speaker 2: to the mega deal being instituted first prior to to state,
Speaker 2: then the Israelis would just never do it, and now
Speaker 2: we have to sell a bunch of arms in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: Israel continues to get to do what they want, we
Speaker 2: continue to sell you know, all the weapons there.
Speaker 3: So the whole thing is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Face, it's not hard to figure out what you would
Speaker 1: have to do to get to force some sort of
Speaker 1: a two state solution. Would have to completely withdraw their
Speaker 1: support for Israel and the weapons I mean, because the
Speaker 1: reason Israel acts with such insane like impunity and like
Speaker 1: the bullies that they are, and like you know, going
Speaker 1: around assassinating Iranian generals and embassies and doing whatever the
Speaker 1: hell they want to do is because they know we
Speaker 1: where their backstop. If we weren't there enabling all of this,
Speaker 1: Suddenly the power balance is a little different. Suddenly their
Speaker 1: behavior is a little constrained. Suddenly there is some incentive
Speaker 1: to have to like, yeah, I guess we're going to
Speaker 1: have to figure this thing out and resolve it because
Speaker 1: we no longer have our you know, big buddies down
Speaker 1: the block to back us up and ship us our
Speaker 1: weapons and provide us with diplomatic cover and all of that.
Speaker 1: Like it's so clear that's the only way that this
Speaker 1: dynamic ultimately changes, not going to come through some like
Speaker 1: fantasy deal that's never going to happen. With Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: and it's certainly not going to happen. By asking bb Nanya,
Speaker 1: who pretty please will you change your mind about something
Speaker 1: you've been adamant about for literally decades at this point
Speaker 1: not going to happen. Something that could have an impact
Speaker 1: in terms of maybe bringing this word and at some
Speaker 1: point in the future is Israeli domestic political opinion is
Speaker 1: very much in favor of some sort of a ceasefire
Speaker 1: hostage deal right now. To put this up on the screen,
Speaker 1: this was a little surprising to me, Zagar. Over half
Speaker 1: of even right wing voters in Israel support a hostage deal,
Speaker 1: even at risk of having elections, which you know, understanding
Speaker 1: is bbe and that coalition could very much be at
Speaker 1: risk if they did have elections right now, So fifty
Speaker 1: one percent of center right and right wing voter support
Speaker 1: the signing of a deal to release the hostages being
Speaker 1: held by Hamas, even at the risk of disbanding the
Speaker 1: coalition and going to elections. Overall, sixty six percent of
Speaker 1: the Israeli public supports signing such a hostage deal even
Speaker 1: if it leads to elections. Additionally, fifty seven percent of
Speaker 1: Israelis think that correctly. By the way, Mabe is the
Speaker 1: laying efforts to reach a hostage deal, with thirty eight
Speaker 1: percent of center right and right wing voters holding that
Speaker 1: same view. So even a sizable minority chunk of Bebe's
Speaker 1: own voters believe he is blocking a hostage deal. And listen,
Speaker 1: the hostages have been used by Bibe and by his
Speaker 1: allies throughout this conflict to say, you know, anytime there's
Speaker 1: a call for ceasefire or whatever, it's like, why don't
Speaker 1: you call on them to release the hostage. Well, by
Speaker 1: the way, I haven't, many other people have as well,
Speaker 1: but it's also very clear they don't give a shit
Speaker 1: about the hostages. Like they've killed more hostages than they've
Speaker 1: been able to rescue, so many of the hostages are
Speaker 1: probably dead now, which is unbelievably tragic because they've been
Speaker 1: in a war zone for seven months. They've been subject
Speaker 1: to the same starvation conditions. Now Israel's threatening to bomb
Speaker 1: the city where they claim their own hostages are likely
Speaker 1: held in Rafa, How do you think that is going
Speaker 1: to be for the safety and security of hostages. So
Speaker 1: these really public which actually does care about the hostages,
Speaker 1: is seeing very clearly through this attempt to claim that
Speaker 1: the hostages are their number one priority when obviously obviously
Speaker 1: they're not. The only time when there was a significant
Speaker 1: release of hostages was when there was a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: And yet we see Bebe delaying and dragging Speen and
Speaker 1: doing everything he can to avoid such a ceasefire deal
Speaker 1: because he is worried about his own political position of power.
Speaker 2: And that's very clear, right, and let's go put the
Speaker 2: next one and please up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: That's also very important.
Speaker 1: This is incredible.
Speaker 2: What the Israelis are basically saying is that if there
Speaker 2: is an ICC warrant that is issued against them, they
Speaker 2: will then punish the Palestinian authority and basically make it inoperable,
Speaker 2: which would lead to basically a collapse of the West
Speaker 2: Bank and any semblance of Palestinian governing authority which is
Speaker 2: already there and has remained shaky. And there's all this
Speaker 2: violence that continues there. So just to show you that
Speaker 2: they are willing to very much to flex their muscles,
Speaker 2: you know, on their behalf. And there's a last thing
Speaker 2: here that I wanted to get in because this is
Speaker 2: further evidence of the biden A ministry complete subservience to
Speaker 2: the State of Israel, where they have now confirmed and
Speaker 2: are now discussing plans to bring refugees from Gaza to
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 3: Here's the White House talking about it as.
Speaker 14: The administration considers bringing Palestinians here to the US as refugees.
Speaker 14: Do you know how many people that the US hopes
Speaker 14: to reocate? And secondly, given the challenges getting in and
Speaker 14: out of Gaza, will the US assist in physically bringing Palestinians.
Speaker 13: Here besides of course getting the hostages home, but also
Speaker 13: creating an opportunity to get that more additional humanitarian aid
Speaker 13: in and would lead to a ceasefire. Now, in terms
Speaker 13: of the refugee admissions program, which is what I believe
Speaker 13: you're asking me about, we are constantly evaluating policy proposals
Speaker 13: to further support Palestinians who are family members of American
Speaker 13: citizens and may want to come to the United States.
Speaker 13: So we're evaluating it. I don't have anything to announces.
Speaker 3: Here's why this is wrong, Cristel.
Speaker 2: They just like the PEER, are assisting the Israelis in
Speaker 2: their project. What did the Israelis say whenever we built
Speaker 2: the Keer If any Peer, if anyone wants to leave,
Speaker 2: they can leave too, So we are building the peer
Speaker 2: and then they're like, oh, by the way, if they
Speaker 2: want to leave and get the hell out of this land,
Speaker 2: we're gonna want be the ones assisting and basically displacement from.
Speaker 3: Their land to our land. The whole thing is utterly insane.
Speaker 2: It only opens the door further to the Israelis being like, yeah.
Speaker 3: Please take them. They've already said it.
Speaker 2: Members of the Kanesset wrote in The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: November twenty twenty three, West should take all of the
Speaker 2: people from Gaza. Whenever they say what are you going
Speaker 2: to do the day after, they're like, we don't worry
Speaker 2: about that. That's America's problem. Us peacekeepers are the ones
Speaker 2: that should govern, So I think, listen to what they
Speaker 2: are trying to and we're assisting them. That's the most
Speaker 2: outrageous part of this. This is under active consideration. Who
Speaker 2: knows how many thousands of these peop people going to
Speaker 2: come here? If they do, we know you and I
Speaker 2: know they're never going to leave. And this is one
Speaker 2: of those where it is a clear it is a
Speaker 2: benefit to the Israelis. It is a direct you know,
Speaker 2: playing into their hands of what they want to happen
Speaker 2: in this case, and that's what just drives me so
Speaker 2: nuts about this entire thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this is where this Biden plan is
Speaker 1: guaranteed to piss off everyone across the political spectrum because
Speaker 1: on the you know, the right wing doesn't want refugees,
Speaker 1: doesn't want more brown refugees coming to the country.
Speaker 3: Just brown any refugees. Well, so I'll say that at
Speaker 3: least some.
Speaker 1: Yeah, some, it's very specifically brown refugees. The Ukrainian ones
Speaker 1: would be fine, but anyway, we'll go aside that debate
Speaker 1: for another day. The right doesn't want more refugees, and
Speaker 1: the left is like, oh, so you just are going
Speaker 1: to help Israel with their ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 3: Ya yo, Yeah, that's what's happened.
Speaker 1: Cool, Yeah, because I mean this is the same thing
Speaker 1: with you know, with regard to Egypt, there's always this
Speaker 1: put well, why doesn't Egypt just take people in? And
Speaker 1: it's like, well, okay, so first of all, they have, yeah,
Speaker 1: their own domestic concerns and their own economic at all
Speaker 1: that stuff, right, but also they don't want to help
Speaker 1: Israel with their ethnic cleansing plan. Listen, I'm happy to
Speaker 1: have Palestinians here, but that's not what Palestinians want. They
Speaker 1: want their own home. They want to live in their
Speaker 1: home and be free. That's what they want, Okay. So
Speaker 1: this floating of we're gonna actually our humanitarian plan is
Speaker 1: to do that ethnic cleansing is just it's just astonishing
Speaker 1: that they would think that this is okay, that they
Speaker 1: think that this is something that the American people would
Speaker 1: be like favorable towards. Its incredible tone deafness. And then
Speaker 1: I just have to reflect also on that ICC news briefly,
Speaker 1: which is also insane. If you if arresta warrants are issued,
Speaker 1: you're going to punish the Palestinian authority, which listen, I
Speaker 1: have no love for the Palestinian authority, and Palestinians have
Speaker 1: no love for the Palestinian authority because they're basically just
Speaker 1: like collaborators with the occupation regime. And you know, you
Speaker 1: can talk to Palestinis in West Bank about how they
Speaker 1: feel about that. But how are these things connected. The
Speaker 1: claim is that the PA is like using all of
Speaker 1: their incredible might to pressure the ICC to issue these
Speaker 1: arrest warrants and the other thing that you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it does sort of serve a Pea's interest because the
Speaker 1: thought is that it would likely be both Israeli figures
Speaker 1: and Hamas leaders, which I support in both directions by
Speaker 1: the way, But you know, I've come to realize that
Speaker 1: it's not just the threat against like bb and Yoov
Speaker 1: Galant and whoever the other dude is that they floated
Speaker 1: that may be facing these arrest warrants that will constrain
Speaker 1: their international travel. I'm sure they don't like that idea,
Speaker 1: but it also raises the prospect of if you are
Speaker 1: an IDF soldier, anytime you travel abroad, which many Israelis hold,
Speaker 1: you know, dual citizenship, or travel you know frequently around
Speaker 1: the world, they may be getting asked when they're entering
Speaker 1: a country that signs onto the ICC, hey did you
Speaker 1: fight in Gaza. So it is hugely impactful and I
Speaker 1: think very psychologically impactful for Israelis if these arrests, these
Speaker 1: arrest warrants actually go through. Now I want to say,
Speaker 1: apparently there was some previous Net and Yahoo freaking out
Speaker 1: about potential arrest warrants I'm talking about years ago that
Speaker 1: never never came to fruition. There are some analysts who
Speaker 1: are saying Hey, these aren't as like imminent as it's
Speaker 1: being portrayed. I have no idea, but it is pretty
Speaker 1: it's a pretty stunning development, and it's also pretty wild.
Speaker 1: The way that is, it's not wild, it's it's sensical
Speaker 1: that the Israelis use everything they have in their toolkit
Speaker 1: and throw their weight around in every way possible and
Speaker 1: use whatever leverage they possibly can to get their way
Speaker 1: in a way that the US never ever ever does.
Speaker 1: And the reason that the PA is important in the
Speaker 1: US is because this is our fig leaf of like
Speaker 1: a plant a day after a plan is you know,
Speaker 1: supposedly the PA is going to ride in and be
Speaker 1: the leaders in Gaza, which also is you know, a
Speaker 1: sort of preposterous notion that they would have legitimacy in
Speaker 1: that context.
Speaker 2: No, you're absolutely right. Okay, let's move on to RFK
Speaker 2: Junior and some of the domestic news. There's been some
Speaker 2: major developments with Donald Trump and very clearly seeing RFK
Speaker 2: Junior as a major threat. Let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. This was leaked to Politico.
Speaker 2: They say that RFK junior quote is all over conservative
Speaker 2: media and Trump's camp is very concerned, increasingly his frequent
Speaker 2: appearances are raising alarms at mar Lago quote a sign
Speaker 2: on the rising threat that Kennedy poses to Trump. Kennedy
Speaker 2: has become popular, they say on Fox News and Newsmax.
Speaker 2: They're getting very upset watching him be interviewed by Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 2: Glenn Beck, and Megan Kelly, and they especially don't want
Speaker 2: him on quote Trump's turf. This is directly from the
Speaker 2: campaign manager. It is concerning and beyond logic. The conservative
Speaker 2: platforms continue to give you a voice to someone that
Speaker 2: is called the NRA, a terrorist group who believes eliminating
Speaker 2: gas powered engine, believes in a seventy percent tax bracket,
Speaker 2: and generally subscribes to the same thought as a school
Speaker 2: of thought as Carl Marx. So another big sign of
Speaker 2: how afraid they are of RFK Junior was actually this,
Speaker 2: This really blew my mind.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump will be speaking at the Libertarian National Convention
Speaker 2: later this month. Thank you, by the way to Dave
Speaker 2: Smith who flagged this for me. He put out a
Speaker 2: statement saying that Libertarians are some of the most independent,
Speaker 2: thoughtful thinkers in our country.
Speaker 3: I'm honored to join them. In Washington, DC later this month.
Speaker 2: We must all work together to advance freedom and liberty
Speaker 2: for every American.
Speaker 3: We will work together and win.
Speaker 2: This was the biggest sign to me of how dangerous
Speaker 2: they view the RFK Junior threat, because RFK Junior specifically
Speaker 2: has got a lot of resonance amongst more libertarian minded Americans,
Speaker 2: specifically on the issue of vaccines. Now, Libertarian Party previously
Speaker 2: only drew a couple of percent or so away from
Speaker 2: Republicans in twenty sixteen and in twenty twenty, but when
Speaker 2: Junior projected to get some thirteen percent of the vote,
Speaker 2: it's a fight to the death for every single margin.
Speaker 3: And this is it's very clearly an attempt.
Speaker 2: Another thing that really I saw flagged is that the
Speaker 2: MAGA Warring account, which is like the account by the
Speaker 2: Trump campaign to surface clips damaging to opponents, and started
Speaker 2: tweeting all kinds of stuff against RFK Junior. Here's one
Speaker 2: of their latest ones, a clip of RFK Junior from
Speaker 2: I Think It's back in the nineteen nineties going after Republicans.
Speaker 3: Here's what they tweeted.
Speaker 15: Out, red state people are more likely to murder you
Speaker 15: to impregnate your teenage daughter to commit a violent crime
Speaker 15: against you, to commit a nonviolent crime against you, to
Speaker 15: watch Desperate Housewives on TV, to buy pornography, to buy,
Speaker 15: you know, degenerate video games like Grand Theft Atto.
Speaker 3: He's not wrong on Grand Theft Auto. On the rest
Speaker 3: of it, it's a little complicated.
Speaker 2: But Chris, I mean, all of this just shows us
Speaker 2: that they are freaking out right now, absolutely losing it
Speaker 2: because they can read a poll just like we can,
Speaker 2: where everybody thought it was gonna be bad for Biden,
Speaker 2: but a lot of the evidence now shows it's bad
Speaker 2: for Trump. You know what's interesting too, Junior just put
Speaker 2: out a new video where he really is putting himself
Speaker 2: up against Trump. He put out a challenge and he's like,
Speaker 2: President Biden can't win. I'm challenging him to drop out,
Speaker 2: and then I will be the one who goes up
Speaker 2: against Trump. And you're like, wow, you're really you know,
Speaker 2: you're bringing it to Donald Trump here on every level
Speaker 2: on social media, the campaign is really, you know, going
Speaker 2: after you.
Speaker 3: So it's very interesting what's happened.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm very amused by it because it's such
Speaker 1: a monster of their own making. You know, one of
Speaker 1: the one of the things that they're specifically freaked out
Speaker 1: about is how much he is a fixture of the
Speaker 1: like right wing conservative podcast. He's gone on with Ben Shapierr,
Speaker 1: is going with Megan Kelly, he's on Newsmax, he's on
Speaker 1: Fox News. And the way this happened is very clear.
Speaker 1: Like when he was in the Democratic primary, they love
Speaker 1: this guy. They loved him, they built him up, he
Speaker 1: was great. They had him on because he was a
Speaker 1: nice cudgel against the Democrats, and now because he is
Speaker 1: ideologically like the things he's leaned into now are very
Speaker 1: coated right wing. And they built up his favorability among
Speaker 1: Republicans by embracing him during that time period, and you know,
Speaker 1: really sort of made him code with the Republicans as
Speaker 1: opposed to the Democrats. You can see his approval rating
Speaker 1: with Democrats is in the toilet, and his approval rating
Speaker 1: with Republicans is sky high. So they got to do
Speaker 1: something to bring that down. The other thing that's interesting is,
Speaker 1: you know, his specifically his like anti vax stances are
Speaker 1: the thing that at this point that previously would have
Speaker 1: coded as liberal right, but now it codes very much
Speaker 1: as Republican. And the more people learn about his views
Speaker 1: on vaccines. The more Republicans are open to him, and
Speaker 1: the more Democrats are, you know, pushed away from him.
Speaker 1: We've had some pulling that the Washington Post highlighted that
Speaker 1: was interesting to that effect where effectively So the headline
Speaker 1: hear polls show how RFK juniors appeal to anti vaccine
Speaker 1: right could hurt Trump. And they asked people whether they
Speaker 1: were aware that Kennedy claims that autism is linked to
Speaker 1: vaccines and that he's floated a theory that COVID was
Speaker 1: targeted at certain races. About half of Republicans said they
Speaker 1: were aware about six and ten Democrats said they were aware.
Speaker 1: After they made people aware of that, then they asked
Speaker 1: them again, with this knowledge, would they consider voting for him. Suddenly,
Speaker 1: the percentage of Republicans who said they would consider Kennedy
Speaker 1: rose by eight percentage points. The percentage of Democrats who
Speaker 1: said they would consider Kennedy dropped by seven points. So
Speaker 1: that's the other challenge I think that Trump is perhaps
Speaker 1: realizing is that the more people actually focus on Kennedy,
Speaker 1: focus on the race, learn about his views, the more
Speaker 1: appealing he is to potential Trump voters versus potential Biden voters.
Speaker 1: And you know, the other thing, Sager, is that on
Speaker 1: the vaccine specifically, this is an area where Trump is
Speaker 1: a little shaky. He's a little shaky because he's the
Speaker 1: guy who you know, Operation Warp speed and made it happen,
Speaker 1: and you know, he was in charge during COVID and
Speaker 1: this was something that DeSantis tried to capitalize in his
Speaker 1: primary run against Trump, and there wasn't enough constituency for
Speaker 1: it during a primary run. But you're not talking about
Speaker 1: RFK having to out and out win. You're talking about
Speaker 1: are there a few percentage points of people who this
Speaker 1: is their number one issue and they feel like Trump
Speaker 1: kind of failed them there and RFK saying all the
Speaker 1: right things on this issue. I think that's entirely a plausive.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, It's all a game of margins. That's where we're discussing.
Speaker 2: That's why Trump is going to the Libertarian Convention. RFK
Speaker 2: Junior is the biggest threat both to Biden and to
Speaker 2: Trump on the ballot that we've seen since Ross Puro
Speaker 2: and since nineteen sixty eight. So how all these individuals
Speaker 2: handle this is going to be really really interesting. Let's
Speaker 2: move on to the housing section. We would drop this
Speaker 2: from our Tuesday show because we had to interview Jill Stein,
Speaker 2: but we didn't want to skip out on it because
Speaker 2: there's actually some good news we want to make sure
Speaker 2: we included in our show. Let's put it up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. Wall Street quote has spent billions buying homes.
Speaker 2: Now a crackdown is looming, so this is really good.
Speaker 2: It says that Democrats in the House and in the
Speaker 2: Senate have now sponsored legislation that would specifically force large
Speaker 2: owners of single family homes to have to sell houses
Speaker 2: to family buyers. There's now a Republican bill also in
Speaker 2: Ohio to drive out institutional owners through very heavy taxation.
Speaker 2: Similar laws being considered in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota,
Speaker 2: North Carolina. Homeowners associations right now are also trying to
Speaker 2: crack down on investors from buying and renting out houses
Speaker 2: in their neighborhood. And all of the legislative proposals quote
Speaker 2: represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall
Speaker 2: Street's appetite for single family housing. So, according to the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal, from the latest data that has come out,
Speaker 2: they have found that the highest level ever of single
Speaker 2: family homes were purchased by investors by portfolio size in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three, and twenty twenty four, respectively,
Speaker 2: and in each case you're actually seeing a huge increase
Speaker 2: in the number of people who actually have over one
Speaker 2: thousand homes inside of their company. From twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: on we've seen a massive expansion of that crystal and
Speaker 2: even people who own between one hundred and ninety nine houses.
Speaker 2: So what's happening right now is that you'll have smaller
Speaker 2: investor groups that dabble in this stuff, then they get
Speaker 2: rolled up into a larger private equity group, people like Blackstone,
Speaker 2: Blackrock and others. And the overall effect of this is
Speaker 2: that we have a huge housing shortage right now in
Speaker 2: the country. This is driving up the house It also
Speaker 2: means that these people have tons of cash that they're
Speaker 2: disposally and come in with an all cash offer. But
Speaker 2: the danger is that when you gobble up all of
Speaker 2: the houses there in that market, you can stabilize the
Speaker 2: rent and increase it to wherever you want drop services.
Speaker 2: And then more importantly, you know, a single family landlord
Speaker 2: is somebody who at least usually lives in the same area.
Speaker 2: Maybe you know, they can come over something if the
Speaker 2: if the dryer is broken, you know, something like that.
Speaker 2: But when you're dealing with the corporation, you know, good
Speaker 2: luck getting your services better, right, you know, and they're
Speaker 2: going to charge you double for something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we've covered here the way that more and
Speaker 1: more of these companies are using algorithms to collude and
Speaker 1: you know, extract higher rent from individuals in these markets.
Speaker 1: So basically, this is a situation that's bad for renters.
Speaker 1: It's bad for would be homeowners who want to buy
Speaker 1: that first, that first home as they start a home,
Speaker 1: but starter homes aren't really a thing or given the
Speaker 1: average price tag is just insane, and and I think
Speaker 1: this is why this actually has a shot at getting through.
Speaker 1: It's also bad for existing homeowners who don't like that
Speaker 1: their neighborhoods are being bought off and turned into rentals
Speaker 1: because they feel like, you know, renters are less committed
Speaker 1: to the area. And whether this is true or not,
Speaker 1: but it is true that you're less like exactly that's
Speaker 1: I mean. But that's the thing is Nimby's are extraordinarily powerful,
Speaker 1: like actual homeowners are extraordinarily powerful, and so I only think.
Speaker 1: I think the reason why this has so much traction
Speaker 1: and actually has a shot at becoming something you have
Speaker 1: a little bit of bipartisan interest in support, is because
Speaker 1: you've pissed off homeowners. They don't they don't like this direction.
Speaker 1: So it's you know, they don't like it for like
Speaker 1: I said, you know, sort of questionable Nimmi reasons, but
Speaker 1: it is what it is. And then it's bad for
Speaker 1: would be home owners? Is it bad for renters? So
Speaker 1: you put that up against you. On the other side,
Speaker 1: you have very powerful interest in terms of these like
Speaker 1: Wall Street firms that are buying up all this real estate,
Speaker 1: and it becomes an actual battle where you do have
Speaker 1: some powerful interests on both sides.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And the reason why this matters is that right
Speaker 2: now housing affordability again is at near record low level.
Speaker 3: So let's go put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: I wanted everybody to see specifically at what's happening right
Speaker 2: now with mortgage rates, where we have seen a stabilization
Speaker 2: at seven percent, which is incredibly high historically, may have
Speaker 2: dropped a little bit over the last couple of months,
Speaker 2: but only by point one or two percent. So we're
Speaker 2: now in a situation where if you have an eight
Speaker 2: hundred credit score, the best credit score that exists, you're
Speaker 2: still more getting a mortgage rate of some seven point
Speaker 2: one percent. And if you are in the average credit score,
Speaker 2: let's say under eight six eighty or something like that,
Speaker 2: you're getting what seven point three at seven twenty or
Speaker 2: get seven point two. I mean, these are very very
Speaker 2: high interest rates. And just to normalize that, I mean,
Speaker 2: if put a twenty percent down payment and you do
Speaker 2: an average, you know, thirty year mortgage, the vast majority
Speaker 2: of your payments for the first several years are just
Speaker 2: gonna be interesting. You're basically just renting your house from
Speaker 2: the bank and building up like tiny little slivers of
Speaker 2: home equity, as opposed to if you have a two
Speaker 2: or a three percent mortgage rate like they had in
Speaker 2: the past. So this is the danger is that right now,
Speaker 2: not only are you gonna need that's twenty percent or
Speaker 2: whatever to avoid PMI if you're trying to put down
Speaker 2: something like that, but that your mortgage payment is gonna
Speaker 2: be so high even with a very very good credit score,
Speaker 2: that it reduces the overall top line number of what
Speaker 2: is even accessible to you, making those banks even more
Speaker 2: competitive whenever they are working in this and there is
Speaker 2: no sign of anybody coming to save you.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there please on the screen.
Speaker 2: The Federal Reserve just announced yesterday that they will be
Speaker 2: holding interest rates steady. No sign that it will cut
Speaker 2: soon as the quote inflation fight stalls.
Speaker 3: That's questionable in terms of what all that means.
Speaker 2: But the bottom line is that the expected election day
Speaker 2: cuts that we're supposed to come between now and November, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not happening. Jerome Powell from basically what Fed Walkers
Speaker 2: and all those have shown Crystal, they're not cutting until November,
Speaker 2: until after election day. So, by the way, whoever wins
Speaker 2: the election is going to be a lucky sob because
Speaker 2: the economy is going to do super well.
Speaker 1: After Biden was really hoping for these.
Speaker 3: Rate cuts, hoping and praying, yeah, that's what they needed.
Speaker 1: That's why it was really important these last couple of
Speaker 1: inflation numbers that came in hotter than expected and showed
Speaker 1: their you know, were still issues there. And instantly a
Speaker 1: lot of analysts had been thinking that the Fed may
Speaker 1: well cut rates at the next session, and instantly that
Speaker 1: was basically off the table. And even the prospect of
Speaker 1: them raising rates came into into you know, plausible reality.
Speaker 1: But what we see here is their holding rate study
Speaker 1: that means no relief for mortgage interest rates, you know,
Speaker 1: no sort of like fueling the economy and the way
Speaker 1: that Biden would hope going in to election day, and
Speaker 1: I do it. You know, it's obviously it's extremely important
Speaker 1: politically because as much as the abortion is incredibly critical
Speaker 1: and you know, very understandably emotional for a lot of
Speaker 1: people and very motivating for a lot of people, as
Speaker 1: much as the unconditional support for Israel is for young
Speaker 1: voters especially, you know, significant issue and probably going to
Speaker 1: drive a lot of voting behavior. Still overwhelming with the
Speaker 1: issue that you know, many people say is their number
Speaker 1: one is the economy. I mean, this is classic politics,
Speaker 1: one on one. So the assumption that had been made
Speaker 1: here for at least a little while so that the
Speaker 1: economy was going to continue to improve leading up to
Speaker 1: election day, and now that's a lot that picture is
Speaker 1: a lot fuzzier and a lot more challenging for Biden.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure he's not happy about this news. But
Speaker 1: you know, the mortgage indust rates being the mortgage rates
Speaker 1: being what they are is pretty pretty astonishing, and typically
Speaker 1: when you have this sort of situation, you'll see prices
Speaker 1: drop to reflect that in creased costs. But because you
Speaker 1: have such a limited supply and you know, partly driven
Speaker 1: by some of the Wall Street acquisitions, but also just
Speaker 1: overall picture, it's meant that you haven't gotten that break.
Speaker 1: So it really is sort of worst of all worlds
Speaker 1: in terms of housing market.
Speaker 3: For it's bad, it's also it's just dry. Borrowing costs
Speaker 3: are so high right now.
Speaker 2: You know, good luck to anybody who's trying to get
Speaker 2: a loan or anything like that, even a car loan.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think car loan's out there are like
Speaker 2: thirteen fourteen percent right now, which is wild. Yeah, some
Speaker 2: of the Texans who were paying you know, the average
Speaker 2: car payment in Texas is like twelve hundred dollars. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you guys need to stop buying such expensive trucks. Do
Speaker 2: you really need the big Dot dram or whatever it's
Speaker 2: is it the raptor? I see a life, oh thet
Speaker 2: I was just down in Texas and I was looking around.
Speaker 2: I'm like, why do you end up in my parents'
Speaker 2: suburban neighborhood. I'm like what do all you people need
Speaker 2: a truck for no offense? Like, I know that it's
Speaker 2: fun and probably is, you know, fun to drive, But
Speaker 2: what do we do when it's been in seventy grand
Speaker 2: truck when you're not all in anything. If you actually
Speaker 2: need it, that's a different story. But my point is
Speaker 2: just that it's making fun in life right now.
Speaker 3: It's it's a little bit too telling.
Speaker 1: Most people who actually need it aren't getting like the
Speaker 1: fancy luxury ones.
Speaker 2: I've always have the same you now, Yeah, every time
Speaker 2: I see actual ranchers, all them, they're driving like a Toyota,
Speaker 2: the Coma or something that is unbreakable.
Speaker 3: But one fifty one school, I think it looks cool.
Speaker 2: It certainly does, but I've only driven a truck a
Speaker 2: couple of times.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure it's for me. Let's move on to Congress.
Speaker 2: This is the most important segment I think in terms
Speaker 2: of what matters for Washington. As you can all see
Speaker 2: the uniparty, it rewards those who do their bidding, and
Speaker 2: so there has been a motion to vacate effort against
Speaker 2: Speaker Mike Johnson by Marjorie Taylor Green and by Thomas
Speaker 2: Massey in retaliation for passing the aid to Ukraine and
Speaker 2: to Israel. However, Marjorie is now actually being attacked by
Speaker 2: even pro Maga Republicans who are like, hey, hold on
Speaker 2: a second, and she's getting an assist by the Democrats.
Speaker 2: So here she is asked by CNN, why are you
Speaker 2: going against Donald Trump's wishes and doing a motion to
Speaker 2: vacate against Speaker Mike Johnson.
Speaker 3: And here's what she had to say.
Speaker 2: Former President Trump has said positive things about the speaker
Speaker 2: and has said he doesn't favor a motion to vacate.
Speaker 1: Aren't you defying the former president's wishes?
Speaker 16: Absolutely not. I'm the biggest supporter of President Trump, and
Speaker 16: that's why I probably wear this Maga hat. I fight
Speaker 16: for his agenda every single day, and that's why I'm
Speaker 16: fighting here against my own Republican conference to fight harder
Speaker 16: against the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson has fully funded.
Speaker 16: The Department of Justice that wants to put President Trump
Speaker 16: in jail.
Speaker 2: So, as you guys can see right there, I mean,
Speaker 2: Marjorie is fighting. But this really doesn't matter now because
Speaker 2: the Democrats have basically made it a moot point, and
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson is actually in the most powerful position that
Speaker 2: he's been in in a long time, ever since that
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Israeli had passed. Here he is in responding
Speaker 2: to Marjorie Taylor Green in a recent interview, Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen.
Speaker 3: Talk about your future. Yeah, Marjorie Taylor Green, H.
Speaker 4: No fan of yours.
Speaker 10: H that's herd.
Speaker 3: Is she a serious lawmaker? I don't think she's proving
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 17: I don't spend a lot of time thinking about her.
Speaker 17: I got to do my job, and we do the
Speaker 17: right thing, and we let the follow they may. And
Speaker 17: that's that's my philosophy. That's how we're governing. We're gonna
Speaker 17: we're going to keep the train on the tracks and
Speaker 17: show the American people that not just what we're against,
Speaker 17: but what we're for. That there's a conservative agenda that
Speaker 17: is necessary to get the country back on the right track.
Speaker 17: And the way to what for us to do that
Speaker 17: is to keep and grow the House majority. Descending into
Speaker 17: chaos and closing the house down and vacating the chair
Speaker 17: again is exactly the opposite.
Speaker 2: It's the opposite of what needs to happen, of course,
Speaker 2: because whenever you pay the piper, thenever you get rescued.
Speaker 2: Here is a friend of the show, Glenn Greenwald, flagged
Speaker 2: just how much of a double face you know, person
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson has turned out to be.
Speaker 3: Here's what he used to sound like.
Speaker 2: On the issue of PISA whenever he was interviewed by Glenn,
Speaker 2: and then recently he just passed the Pfizer reauthorization.
Speaker 3: Here's what he sounded like. That is what keeps us
Speaker 3: up at night, Glenn.
Speaker 17: We're worried about what has become of these agencies that
Speaker 17: have such broad and expensive powers.
Speaker 3: Do you see what I mean.
Speaker 18: He's not just saying he's going to vote yes or no.
Speaker 18: He's saying this issue, this concern is so pressing to
Speaker 18: me that it keeps me up at night. The secrecy
Speaker 18: of the FBI, the ability of the US Security State
Speaker 18: to spy on American citizens with no limits, it keeps
Speaker 18: him up at night. He said, just in July of
Speaker 18: twenty twenty three.
Speaker 17: Bring legislative reforms to do our best to ensure that
Speaker 17: these abuses cannot happen again in the future.
Speaker 3: He said.
Speaker 18: The only thing we can do is bring legislative reform
Speaker 18: to ensure these abuses do not happen again. He becomes speaker,
Speaker 18: there's pending legislation to do exactly that, that has bipartisan support,
Speaker 18: to do exactly that, to reform the powers of the
Speaker 18: US Security States so they can no longer spy on
Speaker 18: us in a secret and abuse their spying powers and
Speaker 18: other powers for politicized domestic ends.
Speaker 3: He said, that's the thing I'm to do. Sickening.
Speaker 2: It's sickening, Crystal, It's incredible out face. And here's the
Speaker 2: best part. You know, it's before you weigh in. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Democrats are going
Speaker 2: to save him. They've decided and they've announced that they will.
Speaker 2: They will rescue Mike Johnson when he faces that ousterro vote.
Speaker 2: Why Marjorie Taylor Green sometime next week. They got to
Speaker 2: pay him off in in you know, in exchange for
Speaker 2: that Ukraine Aid passage that just happened.
Speaker 1: He wanted that Israel Aid to go through. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was his He made it really clear. He made
Speaker 1: it really clear as soon as he got in. First
Speaker 1: person called his baby at Niya who first thing he
Speaker 1: passed with some resolution about anti Semitism or whatever. It's
Speaker 1: not only the the Fies apiece, but he also you know,
Speaker 1: his house just passed this bill codifying as hate speech
Speaker 1: criticism of the government of Israel, and so once they
Speaker 1: had that into him and it was like very clear
Speaker 1: that the only way to get it through was to
Speaker 1: package that with Ukraine Aid and all these other things.
Speaker 1: Guess what, That's what he was going to do. So
Speaker 1: it is astonishing to me that the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to save this guy. Like I I understand it from
Speaker 1: an ideological perspective, because the minute that he passed their
Speaker 1: Ukraine Aid they were like calling him Churchill literally Churchill.
Speaker 3: Yeah, They're like, this is his nineteen thirty eight music moment.
Speaker 2: I just can't selling weapons to Ukraine and bankrupting.
Speaker 1: America absolutely incredible, absolutely incredible. So you know, ideologically they're
Speaker 1: very aligned. They got is. They also probably see him
Speaker 1: as easy to manipulate, because he probably is because he's
Speaker 1: very inexperienced. He came out of nowhere, and now they're like,
Speaker 1: you know, can take him into some classified briefing and
Speaker 1: scare the shit out them and get him to do
Speaker 1: whatever the hell they want him to do. Pretty much
Speaker 1: from that perspective, I understand it. From another tactical perspectives,
Speaker 1: how I don't, because there were some rumors that if
Speaker 1: you did have a successful motion of vacate and you
Speaker 1: threw it back into this like previous chaos, there were
Speaker 1: some rumors that there were a couple of modern Republicans
Speaker 1: who were actually going to switch parties. Yeah, that were reported,
Speaker 1: so and that's all it would take to flip the
Speaker 1: House to the Democrats. So it's like, Okay, well, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't she try? Wouldn't you try for that, just as
Speaker 1: you know, power exercise whatever. Not to mention the fact
Speaker 1: that these chaotic periods for the Republicans, for your average
Speaker 1: American who's not paying too much attention that ends announced,
Speaker 1: they just look at it and like, these people aren't serious,
Speaker 1: they can't government, like they're fighting with themselves constantly, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And you know, personally, I think there should
Speaker 1: be more tension within these call because I think there
Speaker 1: should be more of these battles, et cetera. But I
Speaker 1: think the way it reads the American people is just
Speaker 1: as chaos, and so I don't know also why they
Speaker 1: would want to rescue the Republicans from that. But hey,
Speaker 1: the ukraineate, I guess, is so important to them that
Speaker 1: now that they've got their guy in there who's willing
Speaker 1: to do whatever it takes to get it through. They're
Speaker 1: going to stick with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is what it looks like.
Speaker 2: And it's just like, this is the most extraordinary thing
Speaker 2: that's happened in modern Congress in the last thirty forty years.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have a speaker who uses democratic votes
Speaker 2: when the majority of his party votes against something to
Speaker 2: pass aid. I mean, and this is you know, everybody
Speaker 2: talks about we can't norms and we got to worship
Speaker 2: norms and all that. They break it for one reason,
Speaker 2: not for aid for us, nothing to do with us.
Speaker 2: It's for aid to foreign powers, like this is the
Speaker 2: altar of which they worship. So and they get rewarded
Speaker 2: for it, They get awarded applied. You know, Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: is stronger today than he has at any point in
Speaker 2: his speakership for two reasons. This anti Semitism bs that
Speaker 2: we started our show with. You know, he's united as caucus,
Speaker 2: he's got the Columbia Act, Richie Torres and Gotttheimer backing him.
Speaker 2: The Democrats got their Ukraine aid. The Republicans are backing
Speaker 2: their speaker standing up against campus protesters.
Speaker 3: So this is what it looks like.
Speaker 2: This is what actual like majority rule looks like, and
Speaker 2: it's not favorable. So I agree, let's go back to chaos.
Speaker 2: I think it's a more beneficial to the country. All right,
Speaker 2: last thing here, we put this in there at the
Speaker 2: last minute, and we'll do our best just to tell
Speaker 2: you the full story because this is absolutely nuts. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Another Boeing whistleblower
Speaker 2: has died. So whistle blower Josh Dean, he was a
Speaker 2: whistleblower from supplier Spirit Arrow Systems, died on Tuesday morning,
Speaker 2: according to them, after struggling with a fast spreading infection.
Speaker 2: So Josh Dean was forty five year old man. He
Speaker 2: was in good health quote noted for healthy lifestyle. According
Speaker 2: to them, he was admitted to the hospital two weeks
Speaker 2: ago where he became sick with pneumonia. He was intubated
Speaker 2: and then suffered from MRSA. Now I agree MURSA is certainly,
Speaker 2: you know, a deadly thing and affects people in the hospital,
Speaker 2: but the circumstances are still a little bit fishy because
Speaker 2: literally just weeks ago he was actively involved in giving
Speaker 2: a deposition against Spirit shareholders in a lawsuit filed in
Speaker 2: a complaint against with the FAA alleging quote serious and
Speaker 2: gross misconduct by quality management on seven thirty seven at
Speaker 2: Spirit Error Systems. For people who don't know, Spirit Error
Speaker 2: Systems is a separate company from Boeing. It was spun
Speaker 2: off from Boeing back in I think it was the
Speaker 2: nineties or some two thousands it was sold off, but
Speaker 2: it's the exclusive supplier of the Boeing wide body aircraft
Speaker 2: to Boeing. Now it's being rebought by Boeing. For all
Speaker 2: intents and purposes, it's Boeing. So this is another whistleblower involved,
Speaker 2: you know, with the This is the company which directly
Speaker 2: was responsible for that door plug manufacture, and he's at
Speaker 2: the heart of FAA complaints and whistleblowing against the company.
Speaker 2: And then you know, just dies suddenly in just what
Speaker 2: a two week circumstance, after reaching the probably the highest
Speaker 2: level of prominence and Boeing whistleblowers have ever been in.
Speaker 2: So it's very shocking and it's disturbing to see that
Speaker 2: some of.
Speaker 3: This is happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and obviously comes on the heels up right. Another
Speaker 1: consequential Boeing whistleblower killing himself. And you know, obviously that
Speaker 1: individual had told friends like if I turn up dead,
Speaker 1: I did not kill myself. So with regards to mister Dean,
Speaker 1: he had told Spirit managers about miss drilled holes in
Speaker 1: seven thirty seven fuselage components parts that were then sent
Speaker 1: to Boeing, and he claims that those supervisors knew about
Speaker 1: those subpart parts and allowed them those unsafe products. And
Speaker 1: he also claims that he was directly retaliated against and
Speaker 1: lost his job because of raising these concerns. He was
Speaker 1: very consequential as a whistleblower, not only because of how
Speaker 1: Spirit was, you know, at the heart of this door
Speaker 1: plug that blew out mid air, but as Sagar just referenced,
Speaker 1: he also was really critical to this shareholder lawsuit against Spirit,
Speaker 1: claiming that because of these sorts of you know, just
Speaker 1: commitment to nothing but the bottom line and not caring
Speaker 1: about safety, that they mismanaged the company in a way
Speaker 1: that really damaged these shareholders. So his testimony was really
Speaker 1: critical to this massive shareholder lawsuit against the company. So
Speaker 1: this was a very significant individual, both in terms of
Speaker 1: the door plug issue specifically and also in terms of
Speaker 1: potential massive you know, financial legal consequences for the company
Speaker 1: because of the shareholders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, and now he's dead and you know, look,
Speaker 2: it's just one of those where clearly there needs to
Speaker 2: be an actual investigation. You know, these people's lives possibly
Speaker 2: could be at risk, and these are very fishy circumstance
Speaker 2: is that last whistleblower. The South Carolina Police have not
Speaker 2: issued any new update.
Speaker 3: Don't forget.
Speaker 2: Boeing is one of the most important companies in the
Speaker 2: state of South Carolina where all of this happened. These
Speaker 2: people genuinely, you know, according to them, are at risk,
Speaker 2: suffered retaliation. One of the whistleblowers testifiable for Congress, and
Speaker 2: one of his managers said that if he had spoken
Speaker 2: that way, they would have had him killed in a meeting.
Speaker 2: So it's not outside the realm of possibility. There's billions
Speaker 2: of trillions of dollars, you know, possibly at stake care.
Speaker 1: Possible well criminal liability depending on whatever the hell went down.
Speaker 1: We don't know what may be hidden here, certainly from
Speaker 1: the public eye. But all these Boeing whistleblowers that are
Speaker 1: out there, they need security, they need protection, they need
Speaker 1: people tasting their food and all the rest because for
Speaker 1: two of them to die in a short period of
Speaker 1: time raises a lot of eyebrows.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you
Speaker 3: very much.
Speaker 2: Make sure you subscribe Breakingpoints dot com so you can
Speaker 2: watch the Destiny debate with Omar and counter points exclusive
Speaker 2: and early breakoinpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: We will see you all later. H