Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have a great show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have rest indeed.
Speaker 1: We do once again, we have all the latest for
Speaker 1: you coming out of Israel and Gaza and the risks
Speaker 1: of that igniting a broader war is what we're starting
Speaker 1: our focus on today. We also have a little bit
Speaker 1: of movement in terms of humanitarian aid and the strikes
Speaker 1: that Israel has been committing on Gaza hitting very close
Speaker 1: to home for Justin mash former congressman.
Speaker 4: We're bringing that as well.
Speaker 1: And there's some new polling showing how the American people
Speaker 1: are viewing all of this, and I have to tell
Speaker 1: you I.
Speaker 4: Was a little surprised by it, so it's very interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the details and the divides and all of that
Speaker 1: are very interesting to get into, so we'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: We'll also talk about what we know about what the
Speaker 1: future might look like in Gaza. A lot of question
Speaker 1: marks there right now. Something in the US has been
Speaker 1: pushing Israel on. We'll also have some updates for you
Speaker 1: out of Trump World. Sydney Powell and Trump aligned attorney
Speaker 1: Kenneth Cheeseboro have both pled guilty, seeming to flip promising
Speaker 1: to testify for the prosecution, so we will take a
Speaker 1: look at.
Speaker 4: What that means. And Dave Chappelle.
Speaker 1: Making some controversial comments I suppose about Palestinians and big
Speaker 1: audience reaction, big fallout from that, so we'll tell you everything.
Speaker 2: I'm excited, well, I'm excited to see I just wanted
Speaker 2: to say before we started, thank you to everybody. People
Speaker 2: have been taking advantage of our focus group discount, but
Speaker 2: more importantly've just been getting so many nice messages from
Speaker 2: so many of the prescribers and others to be able
Speaker 2: to support like that. So it's something we're genuinely trying
Speaker 2: to do here which is different than everyone else. We
Speaker 2: put the full thing out as a podcast and on
Speaker 2: our YouTube channel, if you want to go and take
Speaker 2: a look.
Speaker 3: Next one coming is going to be independence.
Speaker 2: We're working on it right now, and if you can
Speaker 2: help us out with that, we would deeply appreciate it.
Speaker 2: But we're going to start with the news, as Crystal
Speaker 2: alluded to, about the fear of a broader war involving
Speaker 2: the United States, which is sweeping Washington. Let's go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. This is from
Speaker 2: an inside report of Axios headline quote, behind the curtain rattle,
Speaker 2: US government fears wars could spread. What they point to
Speaker 2: is that multiple officials inside of the White House said
Speaker 2: that this is quote the heaviest, most chilling week since
Speaker 2: President Biden took office just over one thousand days ago.
Speaker 2: And what they basically point to is the very basics
Speaker 2: of what we've already laid out here, which is that
Speaker 2: the response to the terrorist attack now at this point
Speaker 2: is seriously embroiling policymakers and fears of what comes next,
Speaker 2: because it's not just about whether the situation can be
Speaker 2: contained to Gaza and Israel. It is Lebanon going to
Speaker 2: join this war? Is Hesbola going to join this war?
Speaker 2: If so, then what is Israel going to bomb Iran.
Speaker 2: If they bomb Iran, is Iran going to retaliate against
Speaker 2: America and then the United States by supporting Israel, are
Speaker 2: we now inviting you know, Jihadis to attack us through
Speaker 2: anger in the Arab world. And on top of that,
Speaker 2: what about the Iranians? And this has already come. I
Speaker 2: brought everybody in the news on Thursday, Crystal about the
Speaker 2: United States being attacked, you know, on multiple bases in
Speaker 2: Iraq and in Syria. One of our civilian contractors actually
Speaker 2: died of a heart attack during the attack. But worse
Speaker 2: really is that we are officially now engaging Iranian proxies
Speaker 2: in Iraq and in Syria, and then also in off
Speaker 2: the coast of Yemen where the USS Carney, a guided
Speaker 2: missile destroyer was engaged in an hour's long shootdown of
Speaker 2: multiple drones and missiles, which they say we're headed towards Israel.
Speaker 2: So all of this is just igniting fear of This
Speaker 2: is before the so called invasion has even begun. This
Speaker 2: is before you know the ground, you know, hand to
Speaker 2: hand combat which is anticipated, is happening at the same
Speaker 2: time in fears of a bigger conflict with Iran.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is actually, in my opinion, the most significant piece
Speaker 2: of news from the US military, not the carrier groups,
Speaker 2: not any of the other stuff. The U s Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has ordered additional forces to the
Speaker 2: Middle East, including the deployment of a terminal high altitude
Speaker 2: area defense system as well as additional Patriot batteries. Now,
Speaker 2: as Lucas Tomlinson Hear from Fox News aptly points out,
Speaker 2: Hamastin has Mala, they don't have ballistic missiles, only irandas
Speaker 2: so Crystal. The moment I saw the THAD missile defense
Speaker 2: system being deployed to the region, I was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: they are very very seriously considering this. Just so people understand,
Speaker 2: these are the types of things that we deploy against
Speaker 2: North Korea and against very advanced military So the idea
Speaker 2: that we would immu imediately deploy this system to the region,
Speaker 2: in addition to the patriot missile defense systems which the
Speaker 2: Saudis have used in the past against who these tells
Speaker 2: us that they are extremely concerned about a broader war,
Speaker 2: not with you know, not with Hesbola, not against terrorism
Speaker 2: terrorist groups like hamas directly with Iran, you don't do
Speaker 2: it otherwise.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is the big concern here in Washington, and
Speaker 1: something obviously we need to be concerned about as well,
Speaker 1: because this is an incredibly fraught, dangerous situation that was
Speaker 1: supposedly the point of President Biden's trip to the Middle
Speaker 1: East was trying to dissuade, trying to deter other actors
Speaker 1: from getting involved here. Also, you know, while standing unequivocally
Speaker 1: beside Israel, apparently trying to talk behind the scenes to Netanyahu.
Speaker 1: There's reporting this morning that the US has become more
Speaker 1: insistent on delaying that ground invasion. They are putting it
Speaker 1: the way they are urging it is to try to
Speaker 1: deal with negotiating on the hostages before they push forward
Speaker 1: with the ground invasion. But this is just an incredibly,
Speaker 1: incredibly dangerous Chaota situation, and if we zoom out, even
Speaker 1: from the immediate threat of a broader war, and how
Speaker 1: that might implicate the US, how we might end up
Speaker 1: getting involved. And again we talked about how they've already
Speaker 1: laid out the legal justification that it's not like they'd
Speaker 1: be asking you or me, They wouldn't even be asking
Speaker 1: Congress before committing troops.
Speaker 4: If we did go in that direction.
Speaker 1: There's also the broader geopolitical picture of how this interacts
Speaker 1: with Hey, this isn't the only war that we are
Speaker 1: somewhat involved with. You also have what's going on with
Speaker 1: Ukraine and Russia, and you have had attempts from the
Speaker 1: Biden administration to try to charm the Global South, and
Speaker 1: they are looking at the situation in Gaza and Israel's
Speaker 1: relentless attacks. By the way, there was another massive barrage
Speaker 1: of missiles fired into Gaza overnight in a brutal assault
Speaker 1: on Gaza City in particular, they're looking at this very
Speaker 1: differently than US policy makers are, and they see a
Speaker 1: massive amount of hypocrisy. New York Times actually reporting on
Speaker 1: this this morning and the view not only from Palestinians.
Speaker 4: But from the Global South more broadly.
Speaker 1: They quote a Ramala based Palestinian political commentator who says
Speaker 1: when the war first broke out in Ukraine, Palestinians were
Speaker 1: actually elated by the tough stance taken by Western capitals
Speaker 1: against one country occupying another's land, But then then go
Speaker 1: on to say, it seems that occupation is only bad
Speaker 1: if the guys who are not on your side are
Speaker 1: doing it. So China and Russia of course taking advantage
Speaker 1: of this situation, consolidating war support among the global self.
Speaker 1: You know, countries like India trying to figure out how
Speaker 1: they are going to navigate a complex situation for them
Speaker 1: as well. But you know, the disparate views of occupation
Speaker 1: depending on whether it is Russia our adversary or Israel
Speaker 1: our ally is once again exposing the one consistent of
Speaker 1: US foreign policy, which is our hypocrisy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is why the entire time on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: I was like, look the point, you're this whole democracy,
Speaker 2: autocracy and all that. Obviously it falls apart at a
Speaker 2: cursory glance of US interests, which is why the best
Speaker 2: way to conduct US foreign policy is to talk about
Speaker 2: what's in it for us and doesn't benefit us, to
Speaker 2: goward to the benefit the net effect of how much
Speaker 2: we are funding this. That's the best way and always
Speaker 2: has been in reconduct yourself as a state. However, here
Speaker 2: in Washington, policymakers and others twisting themselves into notts to
Speaker 2: try and justify why if Israel were to be embroiled
Speaker 2: in a larger war, why it is worth actually the
Speaker 2: United States not going to war with Hamas, not going
Speaker 2: to war with Hesbolas, directly going to war with Iran.
Speaker 2: For a perfect example of what real bipartisanship looks like
Speaker 2: here in Washington, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Senator Lindsey Graham was in Tel Aviv yesterday with ten
Speaker 2: percent of the US Senate. As he so aptly noted,
Speaker 2: he says, I saw things today I never thought possible
Speaker 2: on Iran. Quote we are watching you destroying Hamas is
Speaker 2: non negotiable. I actually found it a bit funny that
Speaker 2: Corey Booker is there because he was actually in Israel
Speaker 2: during the attack. So does that mean that he left
Speaker 2: Israel after the attack, flew back to Washington, and then
Speaker 2: flew back to Tel Aviv, just to prove.
Speaker 3: How pro Israel.
Speaker 4: Ye, Wherever there is a camera.
Speaker 2: The thing is, let's keep this photo up here because
Speaker 2: this is important. This people, Susan Collins, Chris Coons. You've
Speaker 2: got John Thune, number two persons Republican in the Senate,
Speaker 2: Bloomenthal from Connecticut, Corey Booker, Katie Britt from Alabama.
Speaker 3: Lindsey Graham, the point.
Speaker 2: Of this is just to show people that is a
Speaker 2: that is a very good ideological representation of where most
Speaker 2: people in the Senate are. And so when we look
Speaker 2: at that, we can understand that war with Iran is
Speaker 2: very much on the table. And you can that's especially
Speaker 2: highlighted if we put this Haretz up on the screen
Speaker 2: and Israeli minister, actually the economy minister said that quote,
Speaker 2: if Hezbola does choose to open a front in the north,
Speaker 2: Iran will also Israel will also attack Iran. Israel Iran's
Speaker 2: plan is to attack Israel on all fronts. If we
Speaker 2: realize that that they intend to attack Israel, not only
Speaker 2: on all our fronts, we will then hit the head
Speaker 2: of the snake Iran, he said in an interview with
Speaker 2: The Daily Mail. He also threatened that opening a front
Speaker 2: on the part of Hesbola would result in Israel quote
Speaker 2: wiping it off of the face of the earth. All
Speaker 2: of this comes with pretty significant military activity on that
Speaker 2: northern border, which for some reason the media doesn't seem.
Speaker 3: To report responsibly.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've had multiple IDF soldiers killed, We've had
Speaker 2: multiple air strikes all across of the northern border of Israel.
Speaker 2: We've even seen an evacuation by all citizens in the
Speaker 2: United States included urging our people get the hell out
Speaker 2: of Lebanon. Now, you don't do that unless you think
Speaker 2: broader hostilities are going to happen, not just US, many
Speaker 2: other countries that are in the region. And we're watching
Speaker 2: Crystal as probably the most advanced the actual like military
Speaker 2: to military capabilities happening so far pre invasion. It's all
Speaker 2: Hezbolah and Israel in terms of or not even just Hezbola,
Speaker 2: Iranian proxies in terms of their much more advanced weapons systems.
Speaker 2: And that's what you know, really should we should all
Speaker 2: be afraid of?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And you know, just because perhaps the US is not
Speaker 1: interested in a war with Iran, they understand it might
Speaker 1: be biding off more than we can really to, does
Speaker 1: not mean that we don't get dragged into this conflict.
Speaker 4: These things take on a life of their own.
Speaker 1: And so when you have the Biden administration, I mean,
Speaker 1: they're not willing to use any of the considerable leverage
Speaker 1: that the US has to constrain Israeli actions to try
Speaker 1: to number one, avoid civilian casualties. Number two, perhaps even
Speaker 1: more critically, to try to avoid this broader war and
Speaker 1: then you've got sorry psycho like Lindsey Graham leading this
Speaker 1: delegation of senators into Israel. And recall some of the
Speaker 1: comments that we play. This man said, he's like framing
Speaker 1: this as a holy war and actively effectively calling for
Speaker 1: World War three.
Speaker 4: That's his position.
Speaker 1: And you've got ten percent of the United States Senate
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans, quote unquote, liberals and conservatives standing shoulder
Speaker 1: to shoulder with this man who has long been clamoring
Speaker 1: for war with Iran.
Speaker 4: I might act, and you come.
Speaker 1: To see very quickly what a precipice we are on
Speaker 1: and how quickly this could spiral out of control.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: And Martyr made who we mentioned before, Darryl Cooper does
Speaker 2: that podcast with Jocko Willing. He hopefully will be joining
Speaker 2: us on Thursday. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The thought he did a really good job of laying
Speaker 2: this out. When we say war with Iran, it just
Speaker 2: sounds like words, but it's not. And as he points out, quote,
Speaker 2: a war with Iran would have to be all or nothing,
Speaker 2: meaning that a draft would probably be necessary.
Speaker 3: We launch every Tomahawk we have in the region, and
Speaker 3: it wouldn't make a dent.
Speaker 2: All of the places on this map would find themselves
Speaker 2: under attack by Iranian missiles. It would be prohibitively dangerous
Speaker 2: for the US Navy to try and force in a
Speaker 2: post entry to the Gulf. Saudi oil refineries would be hit,
Speaker 2: The Iraqi embassy would probably overrun Kuwait, and the other
Speaker 2: places we previously staged invasions would be under continuous miss
Speaker 2: island drone attack. Turkey probably wouldn't allow us to use
Speaker 2: that country as a base. Coming from the east means
Speaker 2: driving over one thousand miles of barren desert before reaching
Speaker 2: a meaningful human settlement.
Speaker 3: Is it impossible.
Speaker 2: No, But it would be a real war, requiring consistent commitment,
Speaker 2: which I think and hope even the Biden administration knows
Speaker 2: is beyond us right now, And he points to this
Speaker 2: map of the deployment of US troops that I've referenced
Speaker 2: now multiple times. Just how many thousands of people that
Speaker 2: we have in the region and we got a very
Speaker 2: small glimpse of it. You know, when you've got thousands
Speaker 2: of troops in Syria, oh, you know, in a country
Speaker 2: which we never declared war on for some reason, we're
Speaker 2: continuing to have bases on well, you know, now we're
Speaker 2: they're fair game, but they're very very close to a
Speaker 2: lot of these proxies and people, missiles, drones gets launched
Speaker 2: at them. Same thing in the Gulf of in Yemen
Speaker 2: with our guided missile destroyers and all those. But what
Speaker 2: he's really pointing to is the extraordinary vulnerability that a
Speaker 2: lot of our troops have, you know, on these bases,
Speaker 2: the Bagdad Embassy, the bases on Iraq, and that's just
Speaker 2: you know, not even to mention Bahrain, which is right there.
Speaker 2: Remember that case when what was a bunch of a
Speaker 2: soldier or some sailors like drifted into Iranian water. That's
Speaker 2: how close we are two Iran every single day, we're
Speaker 2: right there, you know, on that line of where their
Speaker 2: waters are there territorial waters began in hours. You know,
Speaker 2: we're allowed to operate in the international waters.
Speaker 3: But that just.
Speaker 2: Points out when you can drift into the enemy territory,
Speaker 2: then it's not that easy for them to fire at you.
Speaker 3: And this is for all the sanctions, for all the
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 2: Efforts that we have made to degrade the Iranian military,
Speaker 2: to degrade their capacity. What lesson can we learn from Russia.
Speaker 2: Is that you can do all of that and you
Speaker 2: can still mount a pretty effective military campaign and you
Speaker 2: can kill a hell of a lot of people.
Speaker 3: Now, will you win outright.
Speaker 2: You know, as the US military might maybe not, but
Speaker 2: you can make it very painful, painful enough to kill
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of people where Americans are going to
Speaker 2: be like, Okay, what's actually going on here? Even in
Speaker 2: the global War on Terror, we never lost the amount
Speaker 2: of troops that likely would lose in the just you know,
Speaker 2: in the first year or so of a conflict like this.
Speaker 2: America has not felt anything like this since Vietnam. It's
Speaker 2: been a long long time, and I would say, let's
Speaker 2: try not to feel it again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no reason.
Speaker 1: To, indeed, absolutely, And just to underscore the level of volatility,
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: The US State Department has issued.
Speaker 1: A worldwide caution alert for US citizens due to Israel's
Speaker 1: war on Humas. This again just underscores how much we
Speaker 1: are on edge. It advises US citizens to exercise increased
Speaker 1: increased caution due to the potential for terrorist attacks, demonstrations,
Speaker 1: or violent actions against US citizens and interests. The brutality
Speaker 1: of the Israeli assault on Gaza, the number of civilian
Speaker 1: casualties that we have already had before they even have
Speaker 1: begun the ground invasion has really united a lot of
Speaker 1: countries in the Arab world and throughout the broader East, broader.
Speaker 4: Middle East against US.
Speaker 1: And as I was saying before, when you combine that
Speaker 1: with what they view as complete hypocrisy in terms of
Speaker 1: our stance on the Ukraine war versus how we are
Speaker 1: approaching Israel's war on Gaza, it is an incredibly tense,
Speaker 1: fraud and dangerous situation that could spiral with one incident.
Speaker 1: I mean think we had a little bit of a
Speaker 1: glimpse of that with this hospital bombing and the way
Speaker 1: that instantly led to mass protests, anger fury, not just
Speaker 1: throughout the region, but really throughout the world. And you
Speaker 1: can see how one incident could be a spark to
Speaker 1: a much broader conflagration.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you are absolutely correct to note that. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's move on to the next part here with some
Speaker 2: still very very significant news. Let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Israel has confirmed that two
Speaker 2: American hostages that have been released.
Speaker 3: They were Judith and Natalie run On they had been.
Speaker 2: In Israel celebrating a relative's birthday and were at a
Speaker 2: kibbutz only a mile away from the Gaza border. Now,
Speaker 2: those hostages were released after the United States brokeer some
Speaker 2: sort of negotiation with Hamas via the Katari government. So
Speaker 2: the Times of Israel actually has some of the details
Speaker 2: if we can move to the next one here, and
Speaker 2: it's pretty significant. So what he says is that following
Speaker 2: Hamas's release now of two hostages, one of the pressure
Speaker 2: points from the US and EU governments is they're trying
Speaker 2: to get Israel to hold off on the ground invasion quote,
Speaker 2: fearing it'll all but scuttle efforts to secure any additional
Speaker 2: hostage releases for the foreseeable future. The Western governments are
Speaker 2: currently pressuring Israel. They all have citizens that are unaccounted
Speaker 2: for and believe that as more time passes, the harder
Speaker 2: it will be to secure those hostages released. The governments
Speaker 2: recognize the ground invasion is very likely and are not
Speaker 2: telling Israel not to launch one, rather to hold off
Speaker 2: and try and see if additional diplomatic efforts can succeed.
Speaker 2: So obviously that was incredibly significant to see the release
Speaker 2: of two hostages. But this is the issue. We don't
Speaker 2: even know what the number is. We genuinely have no
Speaker 2: idea what is the number of Americans that are currently
Speaker 2: being held hostage? It could be twenty. Are they even alive?
Speaker 2: I mean, thank god these two are. But you know,
Speaker 2: if you got these two out, then there's another question,
Speaker 2: But where's everybody else? Why these two just because they relatives? Like,
Speaker 2: I'm just not sure what's going on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: The latest numbers this morning in terms of overall number
Speaker 1: of hostages per the Israeli government is two hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty two. And the other piece of news that came
Speaker 1: out because keep in mind, as we've been discussing, this
Speaker 1: issue of hostages is incredibly emotional for everyone involved, but
Speaker 1: for the Israeli public in particular, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure on netn Yahoo to try to secure their release.
Speaker 1: And also, you know, as this massive bombing campaign is
Speaker 1: going on in Israel, there's a lot of concern that
Speaker 1: some of the hostages could be killed in those strikes.
Speaker 1: So put this up on the screen. This news came
Speaker 1: out that apparently Hamas had offered to return to Israeli hostages.
Speaker 4: Of course, they.
Speaker 1: Should return all hostages. These are by and large innocent civilians.
Speaker 1: It is an atrocity that they're being held right now
Speaker 1: captive against their will. But Israel decided that they would
Speaker 1: not accept those two high hostages back from Hamas, saying
Speaker 1: they will not address what is considered to be mendacious
Speaker 1: propaganda by the group. So their view, this is hard
Speaker 1: for me to understand, frankly, is that they didn't want
Speaker 1: to give Hamas some sort of a pr victory by
Speaker 1: making it appear like they were open to negotiations in
Speaker 1: good faith by accepting these two hostages. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: if you're the family members of those two individuals who
Speaker 1: could have been set free, I'm sure that you feel
Speaker 1: this was outrageous and insane for Israel to deny the
Speaker 1: ability of these two individuals to be let go. Once again,
Speaker 1: just to underscore for you, put a ten up on
Speaker 1: the screen of the way that this hostage situation is
Speaker 1: being handled, and what a political nightmare this is for
Speaker 1: NETANYAHUU Right now, this is an analysis from Haaretz. The
Speaker 1: headline here is Netanyahu was petrified of the hostages families
Speaker 1: it could impact his judgment. Let me just read all
Speaker 1: of this because this is actually insane what he has
Speaker 1: done here. So first he gave a statement to the
Speaker 1: nation on Saturday Eve, This was like a week ago.
Speaker 1: He claimed to have spoken to those who lost their
Speaker 1: loved ones or whose fate is unknown.
Speaker 4: No actual family member.
Speaker 1: Of a hostage was identified as having spoken to him. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's that. The next day he finally meets with
Speaker 1: a group of representatives from the Hostages and Missing Family's Forum,
Speaker 1: when suddenly a man who claimed to also be a
Speaker 1: relative of a hostage entered the meet. It's starting praising
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister, saying he trusted any decision that he makes. Well,
Speaker 1: it emerged after that that that dude is a far
Speaker 1: right activist with ties to members of the Netnyaho family
Speaker 1: zero known ties to hostages. The man's wife, meanwhile, had
Speaker 1: organized a counter protest outside the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv,
Speaker 1: opposite the family's vigil. Some of the protesters screamed abuse
Speaker 1: at the forum members. So let me just let that
Speaker 1: sink in. It looks like Netna, who after delaying speaking
Speaker 1: to any hostage families for quite a while after these
Speaker 1: people had been taken, He then finally meets with this
Speaker 1: group and allows this activist to come in and pretend
Speaker 1: like he's a hostage family member and talk up how
Speaker 1: great Bibi is and how he must be doing everything
Speaker 1: right and of course we should follow his lead, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Thinking that he's going to fool them into
Speaker 1: believing that this is you know, a genuine hostage family member.
Speaker 1: It tells you the links that they are going to
Speaker 1: to try to manipulate this situation because they know how
Speaker 1: politically volatile the question of hostages in Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's something I think tried to flag
Speaker 2: from the very beginning the moment that this happened. Is
Speaker 2: that it hits different in Israel, mostly because as we've
Speaker 2: seen previously, first with Israel, they've traded you know, mass
Speaker 2: numbers of militants for a single IDF soldier in the past,
Speaker 2: natanyahuu quite literally because in many cases everyone has a
Speaker 2: family member who has had to serve in the IDF
Speaker 2: or in the military. Now, some of these hostages are
Speaker 2: just straight up civilians, so the pressure for them to
Speaker 2: trade or to do everything they can to get those
Speaker 2: people out is even more power Pala Also, you know,
Speaker 2: just to bring the weird math you know, everyone's always like, oh,
Speaker 2: you know X amount of nine to elevens. Well, you
Speaker 2: can flip it around on the hostage situation and say, well,
Speaker 2: everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who may know somebody
Speaker 2: who was either killed or taken hostage. So their sympathy,
Speaker 2: their want it were in a small country couple hundred people,
Speaker 2: you know, the same equivalent to thousands of people here
Speaker 2: in the US where somebody would those stare stories and
Speaker 2: all that are going to have a tremendous amount of
Speaker 2: sympathy from the overall public. So how the Israeli government
Speaker 2: is able to how the Israeli government is you know,
Speaker 2: has to navigate this is really difficult. I mean just recall,
Speaker 2: you know, America itself throughout the entire global war on terror,
Speaker 2: our hostage, the way that we handled everything completely changed.
Speaker 2: In the beginning, it was like, oh, we're not going
Speaker 2: to negotiate with terrorists, and it's like we I think
Speaker 2: believe the we lifted the ban on the ability of
Speaker 2: families and private parties to be able to negotiate some
Speaker 2: sort of hostage payments. Then in some cases we said
Speaker 2: that we wouldn't negotiate it all but then in some
Speaker 2: cases we would send you know, the Secretary.
Speaker 3: Of State and others before. So this is the very
Speaker 3: thorny issue.
Speaker 2: Just recall, you know here in America, people like auto
Speaker 2: warm beer with North Korea or I'm trying to think,
Speaker 2: you know, several that happened in Iran. I believe he
Speaker 2: went hiking on the Iran Iraq border, something I still
Speaker 2: don't understand. The people who got captured in Afghanistan bo Bergdal.
Speaker 2: You know, there's still a lot of controversy around many
Speaker 2: of those decisions. So magnify it by like twenty whenever
Speaker 2: you're thinking about the hostag situation Israel.
Speaker 1: Absolutely so we also have some updates from on the ground.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: was really quite shocking justin Mash. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you all remember. He's a former congressman. He just left
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one. He had several relatives who were
Speaker 1: killed in the bombing of an Orthodox church in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Let me read you his statement here. He says, I
Speaker 1: was really worried about this with great sadness, I've now
Speaker 1: confirmed several of my relatives, including Viola and Yara pictured here,
Speaker 1: were killed at this Orthodox church in Gaza, where they
Speaker 1: had been sheltering when part of the complex was destroyed
Speaker 1: as a result of an Israeli airstrike. Give rest, Oh
Speaker 1: Lord to their souls. May their memories be eternal. The
Speaker 1: Palestinian Christian community has endured so much. Our family is
Speaker 1: hurting badly. May God watch over all Christians in Gaza
Speaker 1: and all Israelis and Palestinians who are suffering, whatever their
Speaker 1: religion or creed. He posted another another message on Twitter
Speaker 1: after this one, saying, my family and I would like
Speaker 1: to express our heartfelt appreciation for the many kind and
Speaker 1: gracious messages of condolence for our beloved cousins in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Please remember the thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in
Speaker 1: unbearable circumstances who simply want a life of peace. So
Speaker 1: many of the people suffering are just children. They do
Speaker 1: not deserve violence and death. The details of this strike,
Speaker 1: this Israeli strike on this church, which they don't dispute,
Speaker 1: by the way. They say they were trying to hit
Speaker 1: a building next door, but they hit this church. It
Speaker 1: was sheltering displaced people. On Thursday night. The church compound
Speaker 1: comprising a Chapel seven buildings in a courtyard was full
Speaker 1: of Christian family from.
Speaker 4: The Gaza Strip. They said.
Speaker 1: The airstrike happened around seven thirty pm when dinner was
Speaker 1: being distributed the gaz And Health Ministry, which is controlled
Speaker 1: by Hamasad. At least sixteen people were killed and many
Speaker 1: others were still buried under rubble. The death hole could
Speaker 1: not be independently confirmed. And of course the fact that
Speaker 1: you have relatives of, you know, a very recently serving
Speaker 1: Republican member of Congress just really underscores the devastation in
Speaker 1: Gaza right now. And also saga the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: they thought a church would be safe. They thought this was,
Speaker 1: you know, the best they could do in terms of
Speaker 1: trying to shelter and find a place where they could
Speaker 1: in their families who were displaced, could you know, at
Speaker 1: least survive what's going on? And there really is nowhere
Speaker 1: that is safe in Gaza at this point, let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen in terms of the death hole. Listen, guys,
Speaker 1: these are the best numbers we can get. This is
Speaker 1: according to the AP fourteen hundred in Israel. I think
Speaker 1: we can be fairly confident about that one at this point,
Speaker 1: forty three hundred dead in Gaza. Those are the latest numbers. Again,
Speaker 1: remember journalists are not really loud inside of Gaza to
Speaker 1: be able to verify any of this. There's also a
Speaker 1: fear that I saw reported in the Washington Post that
Speaker 1: more than a thousand individuals could be trapped under the
Speaker 1: rubble in Gaza from these bombings. And as I said before,
Speaker 1: there was a new massive bombing campaign overnight in Gaza,
Speaker 1: several hundred strikes, over three hundred strikes, so we have
Speaker 1: yet to learn what the fallout from that is as well. Saga,
Speaker 1: I'll get you to weigh in on this. We can
Speaker 1: update on the AID as well well.
Speaker 3: I think it's important. Yet I'm glad that you said that.
Speaker 3: It's like we can't listen.
Speaker 2: We are dealing with these relies and the freaking Palestinian
Speaker 2: Health Ministry or whatever.
Speaker 3: Nobody knows what these numbers are. And we would just.
Speaker 2: Say that's why we need to allow foreign journalists inside
Speaker 2: of Gaza. There are American journalists who are chomping at
Speaker 2: the bit who would love to be able to go in, yes,
Speaker 2: even at risk of their own lives, in order to
Speaker 2: give people a better update to be able to see
Speaker 2: things for themselves. Unfortunately, you know, internet access is beginning
Speaker 2: to be decline all over Gaza. Remember they also don't
Speaker 2: have electricity, or they do have it in some parts,
Speaker 2: but it's still very difficult.
Speaker 3: The infrastructure and all that.
Speaker 2: We have to be very very careful well every single
Speaker 2: thing that is coming out of there, which is part
Speaker 2: of what makes it such a nightmare to even try
Speaker 2: to report on what it is. I think that the
Speaker 2: Church incident just highlights what we have flagged from day one.
Speaker 3: That's one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.
Speaker 2: And with the dense population, you can try no air
Speaker 2: force in the world, as we all saw it during
Speaker 2: the US Drone campaign. You can have good intelligence, you
Speaker 2: can have world class you know, air force, you can
Speaker 2: have jadeams that cost tens of thousands of dollars a piece.
Speaker 2: Plus or minus five feet means a hell of a
Speaker 2: lot whenever, you know, think about New York City or
Speaker 2: any other crowded metro area that you've ever been in,
Speaker 2: and just think about what pluster minus five feet would
Speaker 2: mean when you've got buildings that are sometimes together. And
Speaker 2: yes it is true, Hamas uses it to its advantage.
Speaker 2: The Israelis claimed that right across was like a major
Speaker 2: weapons depot, which is part of why it was happening. However,
Speaker 2: and very unfortunately with the church, and just like a
Speaker 2: hospital or any of these other areas where people commune
Speaker 2: because they believe that they're going to be safe, they're
Speaker 2: really not safe at the end of the day. And
Speaker 2: also to me underscores the wisdom of what Jocko said
Speaker 2: in that segment that we did on our last show,
Speaker 2: just about the pluses and the minuses just from a
Speaker 2: pure military perspective around what this bombing campaign is actually achieving,
Speaker 2: especially relative to the future goal. We'll talk about that
Speaker 2: in the Gods of Future block. Because there's still we
Speaker 2: really want to thing. We should all be prepared and
Speaker 2: actually think carefully about what this military campaign is going
Speaker 2: to look like and what the fallout is. We failed
Speaker 2: to do that in Iraq, we failed to do that
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan. We honestly even failed to do it during
Speaker 2: the whole Isis campaign, which is part of the reason
Speaker 2: why this world was so shocked about what was going
Speaker 2: on with that. And on this one, we have some
Speaker 2: time at least for now to think about it and
Speaker 2: we shouldn't fail to actually take advantage of that.
Speaker 1: And we will talk more about it, but let me
Speaker 1: just say this for now. I mean Israel with the
Speaker 1: complete siege situation of all of Gaza and with what
Speaker 1: I would describe as in I know I would dispute this,
Speaker 1: but indiscriminate bombing. You're talking about churches, mosques, marketplaces, schools,
Speaker 1: medical facilities, et cetera.
Speaker 4: With there being really no safe zone.
Speaker 1: Even after they told people go south, and they're still
Speaker 1: bombing southern Gaza as well, there's really no place to
Speaker 1: seek safety. Ultimately, what you're doing I don't know how
Speaker 1: effective they're being at taking out Hamas leadership at this
Speaker 1: point with this sort of like aerial bombing campaign, but
Speaker 1: you're terrorizing the entire population, and I guarantee you're creating
Speaker 1: more terrorists. I mean, just looking at history and the
Speaker 1: way this works out, I mean, how many members of
Speaker 1: the terrorist organization Hamas, how many of them lost family members,
Speaker 1: and that's part of what radicalize them. And analysis is
Speaker 1: not justification. But if your actual goal is peace and
Speaker 1: safety and security, and again we're going to talk more
Speaker 1: about this, this is the wrong direction to go.
Speaker 4: And I do that.
Speaker 1: The fact that Justin Omash's Christian Palestinian relatives were killed
Speaker 1: in this bombing also underscores, like you know, people have,
Speaker 1: especially because there are very few journalists allowed into Gaza,
Speaker 1: they have this very caricaturish view of who actually lives there,
Speaker 1: or they can just not really think about who actually
Speaker 1: lives there. And we try to say things like, you know,
Speaker 1: almost a majority of the population is children, like they're innocent,
Speaker 1: They're the definition of innocence, right. But when you have
Speaker 1: these details of it's a Christian church, these were Christians
Speaker 1: who live there as well who were killed in this bombing,
Speaker 1: whether it was intentional on Israel's part or not, you
Speaker 1: get a sense of how many people are caught up
Speaker 1: in this, and you know what a devastating human toll
Speaker 1: there is here as well.
Speaker 4: There's a little bit of good news.
Speaker 1: I don't want to oversell it here, but let's go
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen. We do have
Speaker 1: some aid trucks that were able to move through Rafah crossing.
Speaker 1: This is from Egypt into Palestine. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. According to UNICEF, they did confirm that the
Speaker 1: first deliveries of humanitarian aid across the border. But it's
Speaker 1: just enough for twenty two thousand people for one day
Speaker 1: that was driven through as part of a twenty truck convoy.
Speaker 1: Water capacity right now at five percent of normal levels
Speaker 1: in Gaza, and by the way, the water situation in
Speaker 1: Gaza is never good, So the fact you're at five
Speaker 1: percent of normal Gaza levels tells you how dire things
Speaker 1: truly are. I had seen a calculation previously, Saga that
Speaker 1: what you would actually need is one hundred trucks every
Speaker 1: single day to try to meet this need. So it's
Speaker 1: good that we got a few trucks few through, but
Speaker 1: it is, you know, not even close to the need
Speaker 1: that you have at this point, given no food coming in,
Speaker 1: no fuel, no electricity, very little water. You know, it's
Speaker 1: quite a dire situation for everyone in the Gaza strip
Speaker 1: right now. The US the very latest this morning is
Speaker 1: because this was unclear, frankly, whether it would just be
Speaker 1: those twenty trucks and that's it. They're saying that they
Speaker 1: got some sort of a guarantee that trucks would continue
Speaker 1: to be able to move through this crossing. So that
Speaker 1: is incredibly vital for just the life of people who
Speaker 1: are living in this area right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, then then that's just the insane difficulty of all
Speaker 2: of this, which is it just seems like every party
Speaker 2: who is involved doesn't seem to have any interest in
Speaker 2: any of these civilian lives, Like the Egyptians are making
Speaker 2: it difficult for like no reason. Hamas of course not
Speaker 2: exactly helping the situation. Israel helping nobody by firing on
Speaker 2: the actual cross crossing where this is all supposed to
Speaker 2: be happening. And then, I don't know if you saw this,
Speaker 2: the Israelis accidentally fired on Egyptian military forces and then
Speaker 2: had to apologize, which demonstrates the fog of war situation,
Speaker 2: how difficult all of this is. And sure you can apologize,
Speaker 2: but you know who's stopping the ground commander or whatever
Speaker 2: from being like, oh my god, we're under attack and
Speaker 2: then launching something again. This is the scary situation of
Speaker 2: all of this. The civilians are absolutely the ones who
Speaker 2: are caught in the crossfire, and they're paying a big price.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're we're still not sure, and this is
Speaker 2: the unfortunate part.
Speaker 3: We do not know. We do not know for sure
Speaker 3: what the hell is going on.
Speaker 2: I wish that we could get people into Gaza at
Speaker 2: the very least, just journalists and cameras, like just let
Speaker 2: people see.
Speaker 3: But that's the immense difficulty of all of this.
Speaker 2: We would be able to report from them, you know,
Speaker 2: instead of having to rely on reports that we're saying
Speaker 2: of a US congressman whose Palestinian, a Christian family was
Speaker 2: killed in an airstrike. Instead, you know, we're trying to
Speaker 2: parse through everything and everyone's looking you know, videos from Twitter,
Speaker 2: Instagram and all that. That is not the proper way
Speaker 2: that you're supposed to actually be able to learn about
Speaker 2: these conflicts. We definitely learned that one the hard way
Speaker 2: in terms of propaganda from everybody all throughout the global
Speaker 2: War on Terror, you know, conflicts that we ended up in.
Speaker 2: So I just see the same mistakes being made again.
Speaker 3: Crysalis. Yeah, it's really difficult.
Speaker 1: And the last piece we can put up here in
Speaker 1: terms of the dire situation on the ground already and
Speaker 1: again this is before any sort of ground invasion has begun.
Speaker 1: According to the UN, in only twelve days, Israel destroyed
Speaker 1: twenty five percent of the private homes in Gaza and
Speaker 1: made more than six hundred thousand Gaza's homeless they put
Speaker 1: on a whole report with their best intel and insights
Speaker 1: into what the situation is like in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: But it just gives you a sense of the level
Speaker 1: of devastation already. And you know, we've seen you've probably
Speaker 1: if you've been on Twitter, seen these images, these drone
Speaker 1: images of the amount of rubble and just how many
Speaker 1: buildings have been destroyed.
Speaker 4: So a quarter of all of.
Speaker 1: The homes they're estimating have already been destroyed in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip is absolutely unimaginable. I mean I can't even
Speaker 1: wrap my head around what that would look like to experience.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, this is the issue is where we rely on
Speaker 2: drone footage and you know, again everyone's like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: this one particular image and it's being I wouldn't say
Speaker 2: it's being manipult but things are spreading either way. They're like, no,
Speaker 2: this is what Gaza looks like. It's like some guy's
Speaker 2: house with a pool and the other ones. That's a
Speaker 2: better way to think about it. Just think about metro area.
Speaker 2: We've described it before. I think Philadelphia is like roughly
Speaker 2: the same size, but with multiple times of population in Gaza,
Speaker 2: and then just think about what it would like to
Speaker 2: have that housing removed. And then also what an immense
Speaker 2: task it is going to be, as you all find
Speaker 2: we all found out in I RACK, when you break it,
Speaker 2: you buy it, and then you're responsible now for building
Speaker 2: that up. I mean, it's going to cost untold billions
Speaker 2: to rebuild at the very least, and that's not even
Speaker 2: factoring in the security situation and everything that I guess
Speaker 2: we'll talk about in the Gaza future.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to the polling.
Speaker 2: As Crystal you know, alluded to some actually very fascinating
Speaker 2: polling just immediately after the conflict, which shows something I
Speaker 2: always have believed. You have to have faith in people,
Speaker 2: because people, normal American citizens in most cases, are far
Speaker 2: more morally clear understanding of nuance and insightful practical understand
Speaker 2: trade offs than people who actually do this for a living,
Speaker 2: and especially our electeds in Washington. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen, and this reflects us directly Israel
Speaker 2: Hamas conflict.
Speaker 3: What should the US do now?
Speaker 2: Seventy six percent say we should send humanitarian aid to Israel,
Speaker 2: Seventy two percent say we should use diplomacy with countries
Speaker 2: in the region. Fifty seven percent say we should send
Speaker 2: humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza. So we have majority
Speaker 2: support for humanitarian to Israel, humanitarian aid to Palestinians, and
Speaker 2: seventy two percent for diplomacy. You know what doesn't have
Speaker 2: majority percent, only forty eight percent send weapons and supplies
Speaker 2: to Israel. And when you start to dig into it
Speaker 2: even more, it's pretty shocking. Let's go to the next one, please, guys,
Speaker 2: because this is on partisan guy on partisan lines. For example,
Speaker 2: should the United States send humanitarian aid.
Speaker 3: To Palestinians in Gaza? This is by party.
Speaker 2: Seventy percent of Democrats say we should Independence, sixty percent
Speaker 2: say yes, forty one percent of Republicans say that we should.
Speaker 2: Now should not only thirty percent of Democrats, forty one
Speaker 2: percent of Independence, and sixty percent of Republicans now should
Speaker 2: the US send weapons and supplies to Israel. Amongst Democrats,
Speaker 2: it's under a majority only forty seven percent so that
Speaker 2: we should send weapons to Israel, forty five percent of Independence,
Speaker 2: fifty seven percent of Republicans on the should side, but
Speaker 2: fifty three percent of Democrats say that we should not.
Speaker 2: Fifty five percent say that we should not, and forty
Speaker 2: three percent of Republicans. I mean, this is not an
Speaker 2: overwhelming issue really at all by far on the side
Speaker 2: of weapons, on the side of all of that, the
Speaker 2: only ones Crystal that really have supermajorities are send humanitarian
Speaker 2: aid to Israel and conduct.
Speaker 4: Diplomas and diplomacy.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting that number two on that one is
Speaker 2: probably the least discussed, because if we were to understand that,
Speaker 2: then Americans should be outraged and horrified at.
Speaker 3: The Biden administration.
Speaker 2: Really Anthony Blincoln two's inept moves in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: getting his own Middle East Summit canceled well in the
Speaker 2: front of his say, it's just humiliating to the United
Speaker 2: States and the American presidency.
Speaker 1: Not only that they should be disgusted as I am
Speaker 1: that from the podium, Koreine Jean Pierre would call talks
Speaker 1: for diplomacy and the ceasefire specifically repugnant and that they
Speaker 1: would instruct State Department officials are nations diplomats not to
Speaker 1: use any language about ceasefire, calm ending the violence, ending
Speaker 1: the bloodshed. Americans overwhelmingly want us to be engaged in talks.
Speaker 1: Support for ceasefire extremely especially among Democrats, which this is
Speaker 1: the Democratic president extremely high. So when you think about
Speaker 1: the media coverage of what Israel is doing right now
Speaker 1: and the horrific attacks on Israel and the direction of
Speaker 1: the media coverage, and how consistly hawkish they are all
Speaker 1: the time. Platform people like Lindsey Graham are calling for
Speaker 1: all out you know, Holy war, world war as a
Speaker 1: basis for World War three. And you see, you don't
Speaker 1: have majority support for sending weapons to Israel. You have
Speaker 1: very clear majority support for caring about the humanity of Palestinians.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just think given the media coverage, especially
Speaker 1: on cable news, that is absolutely extraordinary and does show
Speaker 1: you that you know you have I mean, I think
Speaker 1: in part shows you that this issue is no longer
Speaker 1: among the population, is no longer as just like lockstep,
Speaker 1: we support Israel no matter what as it used to be.
Speaker 1: I think part of that is social media. I think
Speaker 1: part of that is the rise of independent media where
Speaker 1: there isn't just this one uniform view that people see.
Speaker 4: And I also just think, you know, people have hearts.
Speaker 1: They can see these children who are suffering, they can
Speaker 1: see the entire population being like starved out in this siege,
Speaker 1: and their hearts generally go on to them, they're able
Speaker 1: to hold two thoughts in their head that Hamas is evil,
Speaker 1: that they should be held to account, that there is
Speaker 1: no punishment too severe for them for what they did
Speaker 1: to Israel, but also that not all Palestinians are Hamas,
Speaker 1: and that they are just human beings and children in
Speaker 1: many cases trying to live. So you see that coming
Speaker 1: through in the polling, and you know, I'm pleasantly surprised.
Speaker 4: I have to say.
Speaker 1: There's also an interesting pull from the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: about what direction the American people want the country to
Speaker 1: go in. And you know, we talked about the possibility
Speaker 1: of broader conflict and concern over the spreading into some
Speaker 1: sort of a hot war with Iran, which is very
Speaker 1: much on the table right now. Given the comments both
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration and certainly of the net Yahoo administration. Well,
Speaker 1: American people are not excited about that possibility. Let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: from the Wall Street Journal. They say, do you think
Speaker 1: the US does does or doesn't have a responsibility to
Speaker 1: protect Israeli citizens? Okay, you've got a majority that say yes,
Speaker 1: forty two per se say forty two percent say no.
Speaker 1: Protect Palestinian civilians. Forty one percent say yes, fifty four
Speaker 1: percent say no. But you know, you're pretty split on
Speaker 1: even the question of whether you should support Israel in
Speaker 1: the war fifty two to forty four. You've got majority
Speaker 1: support for pushing parties to negotiate, and you have much
Speaker 1: less support and much less interest, though, for working toward
Speaker 1: Palestinian statehood twenty eight sixty six. One of the things
Speaker 1: that came through in this poll, as it did Sager
Speaker 1: in many of the polls, is just how much the
Speaker 1: divide is actually I mean, there is a Democrat Republican divide,
Speaker 1: but perhaps the bigger divide is actually generational, where you
Speaker 1: have young people who view this conflict in very different
Speaker 1: terms than older generations which do have more of that.
Speaker 1: Just whatever Israel does, we support them, We totally take
Speaker 1: their side.
Speaker 4: And that's the end of the story.
Speaker 1: Voters, especially under thirty, but really under forty, taking a
Speaker 1: much different view of this conflict.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is all before it's fifty to fifty,
Speaker 2: before an actual major ground campaign has been launched with
Speaker 2: carnage with death, with the daily video of street to
Speaker 2: street hand to hand combat, before protests, before and even
Speaker 2: an American soldier hopefully has been you know, hopefully has
Speaker 2: not been brought into this. That's where it is right now.
Speaker 2: And that's again why I trust people, because people aren't stupid.
Speaker 2: They can see this. They see the headline about American
Speaker 2: troops getting attacked on a base in Iraq, and they're like, well,
Speaker 2: first of all, I didn't know they were there, and second, well,
Speaker 2: you know, I really wouldn't like to be drawn back
Speaker 2: into this because my cousin or my cousin went Diraq
Speaker 2: and he came back and he was never the same.
Speaker 2: I mean, who hasn't got a story about something like that.
Speaker 2: And that is why the younger generation in particular has
Speaker 2: to be especially worried. They're either the ones with siblings
Speaker 2: or directly know people who are involved in the light
Speaker 2: latest conflict. And they're the ones really who also had
Speaker 2: to pay the price in terms of giving up their
Speaker 2: entire adult life life with no real with no peace,
Speaker 2: you know, in their lives that the boomer generations, as
Speaker 2: you said, they have a very different view in just
Speaker 2: in general about America how it should operate.
Speaker 1: Well, and it's very I think it's really Cold War influenced.
Speaker 1: Problem two of just like the world is black and white,
Speaker 1: there's the ones that are with us and the ones
Speaker 1: that are against us, and the ones that are with
Speaker 1: us we back them no matter what. And I think
Speaker 1: that's part of why you get this massive generational divide.
Speaker 1: I just pulled up cn end at a poll too,
Speaker 1: and they asked, is Israel's military response to Hamas attacks
Speaker 1: fully justified? Okay, so their whole response, the bombing campaign,
Speaker 1: the siege, et cetera, is that fully justified? If you're
Speaker 1: sixty five plus eighty one percent say yes, eighteen to
Speaker 1: thirty four years old, only twenty seven percent say yes.
Speaker 4: So that's why I say the age.
Speaker 1: Divide is really the key driving factor here, beyond partisanship.
Speaker 1: If you're a senior, sixty five plus a eighty one
Speaker 1: percent are like, yes, everything that's Israel's doing totally justified.
Speaker 4: I'm behind them, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Eighteen to thirty four only a quarter twenty seven percent,
Speaker 1: And it goes down like a ladder. It's fifty six
Speaker 1: percent for fifty to sixty four years old, it's forty
Speaker 1: four percent for thirty five to forty nine years old,
Speaker 1: and then it's only twenty seven percent for eighteen to
Speaker 1: thirty four years old, which is why I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's always the youth that tends to be
Speaker 1: at these protests, but it's why you overwhelmingly see young
Speaker 1: people populating these protests calling for a ceasefire in the
Speaker 1: region and critical of Israel for what they're doing here.
Speaker 3: No, that's what I say.
Speaker 1: So a lot of questions about what comes next after
Speaker 1: this bombing campaign. What is this potential ground invasion even
Speaker 1: going to look like? How can they accomplish their stated
Speaker 1: objective of destroying Hamas Sex Share of Defense. Lloyd Austin
Speaker 1: was actually on the Sunday shows yesterday sounding some warnings
Speaker 1: about the difficulty of what Israel has plan. Let's take
Speaker 1: a list to what he.
Speaker 3: Had to say.
Speaker 6: And they're about to launch this ground defensive in Gaza.
Speaker 6: You you were at Sencom. You were the Sencom commander
Speaker 6: when ISIS had control of Mosl and it took nine months,
Speaker 6: but you cleared ISIS out of Mosl with our Iraqi
Speaker 6: and Kurdish partners. What is that? What are the lessons
Speaker 6: you learned there that apply here?
Speaker 5: Well, the first thing that everyone should know, and I
Speaker 5: think everybody does know that urban combat is extremely difficult.
Speaker 5: It's it goes at a slow pace.
Speaker 6: That was nine months, nine months of intense combat.
Speaker 5: Yes, this may be a bit more difficult because of
Speaker 5: the underground network of tunnels that the that Hamas has
Speaker 5: constructed over time, and the fact that they've had a
Speaker 5: long time to prepare for a fight. So I think
Speaker 5: you'll see a fight that's characterized by a lot of
Speaker 5: I D s, a lot of booby traps, and just
Speaker 5: really grinding activity going forward.
Speaker 4: So you hear what he says there.
Speaker 1: So the fight to liberate Mosul from ISIS took nine months.
Speaker 1: It was brutal, it was bloody, it was incredibly difficult.
Speaker 1: American suffered casualties. Now you're talking about Lloyd Austin here
Speaker 1: saying this fight may be even more difficult because of
Speaker 1: the nature of urban warfare, because of how dug in
Speaker 1: Hamas is, because of the tunnel system, and there will
Speaker 1: certainly be significant IDF casualties here as well.
Speaker 2: I have some numbers I can read, so I've been
Speaker 2: doing a lot of research into this. Inside the city
Speaker 2: of Moses, there were eight thousand ISIS fighters compared to Gaza,
Speaker 2: where Hamas has an estimated thirty to forty thousand fighters.
Speaker 2: Palstinian Islamic Jihad has another fifteen thousand men under arms,
Speaker 2: so we're talking about fifty five thousand fighters versus eight thousand.
Speaker 2: In addition, Isis was not from Moses, They just took
Speaker 2: it over. These people actually lived there. So consider that
Speaker 2: Isis did not have the majority support of the people
Speaker 2: in Mosul. They hated him just as much as everybody else.
Speaker 2: They were just militarily occupied Hamas. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: claim they all support Hamas, but you know, they some do.
Speaker 2: They have more of a support than they definitely did
Speaker 2: in Mosol. They're gonna be way more dug in in
Speaker 2: terms of the support from the civilian populace. So honestly,
Speaker 2: the US, the West, we have not engaged in a
Speaker 2: fight like this maybe ever, you know, even in the
Speaker 2: war in Iraq during Fallujah and all that. Actually I'm
Speaker 2: not sure why, but the Jihadis let the civilians leave,
Speaker 2: maybe before they discovered human shields. So we didn't have
Speaker 2: nearly his amount of a densely populated area to contend with.
Speaker 2: And you know, because America did not lose that many
Speaker 2: people in the battle on Mosl, we mostly were in
Speaker 2: a trades advisor and assists. We mostly did not pay attention.
Speaker 2: I encourage people if you're able. Netflix has a movie
Speaker 2: called Mosel, which is an Iraqi movie that was made
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: Wow, you really need to go.
Speaker 2: Open your eyes as to what let conflict look like.
Speaker 2: Block to block, horrific fighting, absolute savagery, as they, as
Speaker 2: he said, IEDs everywhere.
Speaker 3: Can't you know, can't move.
Speaker 2: The other problem with Rebbele is you can just bury
Speaker 2: id and everything and you're picking one thing up and
Speaker 2: you can blow everybody up. And then also the immense
Speaker 2: difficulty of the air campaign. The US was involved definitely
Speaker 2: in the air campaign, but the Iraqi security forces, their
Speaker 2: casualties were insane in retaking Mosel. And again they had
Speaker 2: the support in many cases of the civilian populace who
Speaker 2: wanted them to come back.
Speaker 3: This is a whole other situation. This really is. It's
Speaker 3: unprecedented in modern history, an urban fight like this.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely right, and they're already this was a good
Speaker 1: pickup by Peter Baker.
Speaker 4: Here, let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Susan Glasser was able to report that some senior Israeli
Speaker 1: officials are already telling the Americans that they should expect
Speaker 1: a war that could last as long as ten years
Speaker 1: a decade. That's what they're saying behind the scenes. And
Speaker 1: if we know anything about our experience of misadventures in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, it's that it always goes longer and
Speaker 1: is way more difficult than you expect. And of course,
Speaker 1: you know in basic many of the objectives that we
Speaker 1: set out for our military, both in a Rock and
Speaker 1: certainly in Afghanistan, even you know, over the course of
Speaker 1: the long time period that we were there, we failed.
Speaker 1: I mean in Afghanistan is back in the hands of
Speaker 1: the Taliban. That tells you everything you need to know
Speaker 1: about how well our nation building exercises went there. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: let's put this up on the screen. This is from
Speaker 1: the Times of Israel. They're reporting here on you know
Speaker 1: what this could all look like, So they say, US
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln says, Israel should be devising
Speaker 1: a strategy for who will rule Gaza after it completes
Speaker 1: its mission of toppling Hamas.
Speaker 4: So keep in mind the air strikes right now, for them,
Speaker 4: that's nothing. That's the easy part.
Speaker 1: What are they even accomplishing And we don't even know
Speaker 1: how many Hamas fighters they're actually even taking out, or
Speaker 1: whether it's largely and I expect it is largely civilians
Speaker 1: who are being killed in these air strikes. So that
Speaker 1: part then, okay, let's say you're able to accomplish this
Speaker 1: very difficult feat of the ground invasion and rooting out Hamas,
Speaker 1: which we just laid out for you. How difficult that's
Speaker 1: going to be? Then what let me continue to read here.
Speaker 1: There are different ideas out there about what could follow.
Speaker 1: All of that needs to be worked, and it's something
Speaker 1: that needs to be worked even as Israel is dealing
Speaker 1: with the current threat. That's what Blincoln is telling NBC's
Speaker 1: Meet the Press. This appears to be the first time
Speaker 1: that Washington is publicly urging Israel to think about its
Speaker 1: day after strategy, after privately doing so in order to
Speaker 1: avoid making the same mistakes the US made after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, which led it to being bogged down and
Speaker 1: dragged out in the Middle East. Israeli officials have said
Speaker 1: publicly they are currently focused on eradicating Hamas or not
Speaker 1: thinking about what might come after, though the government's newest
Speaker 1: ministers from the National Unity Party demanded crafting of a
Speaker 1: more holistic strategy upon entering the government. Nat Nyahu's office
Speaker 1: issued a statement on fridaying declaring the Preimer's defined goal
Speaker 1: for the Gaza War is the elimination of Hamas. All
Speaker 1: talk of decisions to hand over the Gaza strip to
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authority or any other party is a lie,
Speaker 1: so insisting no, we really have no plan after this,
Speaker 1: okaynt Nyahu has come under fire since the start of
Speaker 1: the Gaza War from critics who have accused him of
Speaker 1: working to strength in Hamas over the past fifteen years
Speaker 1: in order to divide Palestinian factions and avoid peace talks
Speaker 1: with more moderate pa Ask what israel strategy is for
Speaker 1: who will govern Gaza after the war is over? Blincoln
Speaker 1: tells me the press, we cannot go back to the
Speaker 1: status quo. They can't go back to the status quo
Speaker 1: with Hamas being in a position in terms of its
Speaker 1: governance of Gazo to repeat what it did. At the
Speaker 1: same time, what I've heard from the Israelis is absolutely
Speaker 1: no intent, no desire to be running Gaza themselves. So
Speaker 1: something needs to be found that ensures that Hamas cannot
Speaker 1: do this again, but that also doesn't revert to Israeli
Speaker 1: governance of Gaza. So they've got a lot about what
Speaker 1: they don't want this to look like, not a lot
Speaker 1: of details so far, and in fact, a out and
Speaker 1: out insistence by Yahoo that they have no idea what
Speaker 1: comes after this effect.
Speaker 2: Because they don't want to sign up for it. And
Speaker 2: then that's again the major difficulty of this. Well, then
Speaker 2: who the hell is going to be in charge? Is
Speaker 2: it going to be Israel? Is it going to be
Speaker 2: the United Nations? I mean, yeah, the UN is so
Speaker 2: good at nation building too.
Speaker 3: Ask Rwanda how that's going.
Speaker 2: There are so many examples where Okay, are are we
Speaker 2: going to turn it over to the administration of Egypt
Speaker 2: and of Jordan? I mean, they're just going to do
Speaker 2: what's good for them, not necessarily for the people who
Speaker 2: are in charge here. Are they going to administer elections?
Speaker 2: How did that work out for America? In Iraq and
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan? It turns out this is actually extremely difficult,
Speaker 2: and that's why in general it's usually better to let
Speaker 2: the actual party involved decide it for themselves. Unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 2: in this case and in the past, that usually means
Speaker 2: a scenario which you cannot one control. This really does
Speaker 2: just come back to so many of the lessons in Iraq,
Speaker 2: And even when we consider it a couple of different ways,
Speaker 2: you could say like, oh, we're in this for the
Speaker 2: elimination of Hamas.
Speaker 3: In general.
Speaker 2: Stanley McCrystal, he became very famous, designed this whole Jasak
Speaker 2: counter terrorism unit in two thousand and six. It became
Speaker 2: incredibly efficient at killing al Qaeda terrorists all throughout two
Speaker 2: thousand and I think it was two thousand and six
Speaker 2: and two thousand and seven, and yet in two thousand
Speaker 2: and seven, the US still had to surge troops to
Speaker 2: quash al Qaeda violence and intra civil war between Sunni
Speaker 2: and Shia because there was a core like, there was
Speaker 2: a core problem that just killing terrorist leaders was not
Speaker 2: getting to, which is you had two basically reconcilo groups
Speaker 2: that were pushed to the brink of war that was
Speaker 2: then had.
Speaker 3: The chaos of the invasion backstop.
Speaker 2: So you can kill probably every single member of Hamas leadership,
Speaker 2: will that actually degrade or destroy the entire organization? I
Speaker 2: mean basically no, Now you can take away their military capability.
Speaker 2: That's basically what we did in against ISIS, and that
Speaker 2: of course was effective, and we took away the land
Speaker 2: that they operated in.
Speaker 3: But it's just not the same situation, yeah, that we're
Speaker 3: dealing with.
Speaker 2: It is far more akin to like a true counterinsurgency campaign,
Speaker 2: where you have the population here that dramatically more supports
Speaker 2: the group that is trying we're so pupposedly trying to
Speaker 2: eliminate than ISIS or even al Qaeda in Iraq ever
Speaker 2: had in terms of the civilian support it is going
Speaker 2: to be. It is just going to be absolutely brutal
Speaker 2: and savage. And then my fear is that exactly what
Speaker 2: the IDF did in two thousand and six and twenty
Speaker 2: fourteen will happen. They're going to take a ton of casualties,
Speaker 2: they're gonna withdraw, and they're gonna be like, well, we've
Speaker 2: got airpower, the enemy doesn't, and you're just gonna carpet
Speaker 2: bomb the entire place, which is, as history has also
Speaker 2: shown us, unless you basically commit to total annihilation, you still
Speaker 2: can't win, you know, the conflict.
Speaker 1: I mean what they're doing right now, And I keep
Speaker 1: thinking about the comments we played that you guys should
Speaker 1: go back and listen to if you didn't hear from
Speaker 1: Jocko Willink who's like, again, not a lib not a
Speaker 1: lefty commie pinko, whatever you all think of me. He
Speaker 1: is someone who actually has experience on the ground, and
Speaker 1: he's saying, Okay, if your objective is to root out Hamas,
Speaker 1: let's be serious about what that would take. The first
Speaker 1: thing I would do is to stop bombing Gaza, because
Speaker 1: all you're doing is further radicalizing a population which is
Speaker 1: already under siege and already buying large hate your guts.
Speaker 1: By the way, so you know, given the multi year
Speaker 1: blockade and the long history of trauma and death and
Speaker 1: grievance and injury between these two parties, you're already starting
Speaker 1: out behind the eight ball here, your indiscriminate bombing campaign
Speaker 1: that has killed thousands of civilians and more than a
Speaker 1: thousand kids, and all of this not helping the situation
Speaker 1: in terms of gaining some support on the ground that
Speaker 1: can help you figure out who you need to get at,
Speaker 1: who was involved in these attacks. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, you should be surging humanitarian aid to the
Speaker 1: roader civilian population to try to build out that good will.
Speaker 1: And even with all of that, it is going to
Speaker 1: be insanely difficult to actually achieve the stated objective, which
Speaker 1: is why I don't think they actually really care about
Speaker 1: the state of objective, because it's not just him. There
Speaker 1: was a bunch of military experts who are quoted in
Speaker 1: Box who said the exact same thing, that if you actually,
Speaker 1: if this is your real objective, this is the path
Speaker 1: to get there, not what you're doing right now with
Speaker 1: the complete siege in this massive aerial bombing campaign.
Speaker 4: So there's that.
Speaker 1: The other thing is sager and you kind of alluded
Speaker 1: to this. There's two possibilities here. One is as Netanyah,
Speaker 1: who is very much insisting, we really haven't thought about
Speaker 1: what comes next. We don't know who's going to rule Gazo,
Speaker 1: we don't know what governance is going to look like.
Speaker 4: We don't know.
Speaker 1: We're pushing that off to another day to think about.
Speaker 1: That's terrifying in and of itself. More terrifying is that
Speaker 1: they actually do have some idea of what it's going
Speaker 1: to look like. They just don't want to say it
Speaker 1: because they know it would be so broadly unacceptable, perhaps
Speaker 1: to their own population, certainly to you know, parts of
Speaker 1: the world may not be something the US could sign
Speaker 1: on for.
Speaker 4: And you know, in that regard.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are pointing to a plan that
Speaker 1: was released by some of Netnya who's coalition partners with
Speaker 1: his stamp of approval back in twenty seventeen, for what
Speaker 1: they wanted to do with both the West Bank and
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So the thought leader behind this is this student who
Speaker 1: is a member of the net Nyahu Cabinet, Smotrich. She's
Speaker 1: one of the most extreme members of what is the
Speaker 1: most extreme government in Israeli history. So they say, here
Speaker 1: Israeli Party approves annexation plan to coerce Palestinian departure with
Speaker 1: a stamp of Netnyaho approve. A right wing party conference
Speaker 1: discusses their plan to annex the Palestinian territories and offer
Speaker 1: a surrender or transfer ultimatum. Basically, this plan, which was
Speaker 1: laid out back in twenty seventeen, is will give you
Speaker 1: three options. We're going to take over the land, You're
Speaker 1: no longer going to have you write to it. You
Speaker 1: have to abandon any dream of Palestinian statehood. This idea
Speaker 1: of a two party solution is anathematize. We don't want it,
Speaker 1: we say, And this was the quote from SMO. Churchie says,
Speaker 1: these are the foundations on which Zionism was erected. We
Speaker 1: do not assume there are two narratives here that are equal.
Speaker 1: There's one side that's correct and another that is undermining
Speaker 1: the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
Speaker 1: We have to engrave in the consciousness of the Arabs
Speaker 1: in the entire world. There is no chance of establishing
Speaker 1: an Arab state in the land of Israel. And so
Speaker 1: the plan here was to give three options. One is,
Speaker 1: you can abandon any idea of statehood, basically swear loyalty
Speaker 1: to Israel. You can remain living here, but you will
Speaker 1: have no rights in terms of being a citizen and
Speaker 1: being able to vote, being able to participate in democracy.
Speaker 4: That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, if you won't give up your desire for statehood,
Speaker 1: we're going to force you to move. And number three,
Speaker 1: if you don't, if you're unwilling to move, basically, we're
Speaker 1: going to take care of you in one way or another.
Speaker 1: So that was the plan laid out by his coalition partners.
Speaker 1: Is that somewhat of the direction that they want to
Speaker 1: go in here after Gaza? To me, that's an even
Speaker 1: more terrifying possibility is that they actually have thought through
Speaker 1: what the plan is. They just don't want to actually
Speaker 1: say right now, and that's why they're so insistent that
Speaker 1: we actually haven't thought it through.
Speaker 4: We have no idea what comes after the ground invasion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Defense Minister is being more I guess reticent
Speaker 2: about it. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: They say they have three phases of the war. First
Speaker 2: is the military campaign that will take place with air
Speaker 2: strikes and later a ground maneuver with the purpose of quote,
Speaker 2: destroying operatives and damaging infrastructure in order to defeat and
Speaker 2: destroy Hamas. The second phase, quote will be continued fighting,
Speaker 2: but at a lower intensity as troops work to eliminate
Speaker 2: pockets of resistance. That sounds like military occupation. Good luck,
Speaker 2: because now you're in the administration business, you're in the
Speaker 2: water business, you're in the police business, as we found
Speaker 2: out the hard way in Iraq. The third step, he says, well,
Speaker 2: the creation of a new security regime in the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 2: the removal of Israel's responsibility for day to day life
Speaker 2: in the Gaza Strip, and the creation of a new
Speaker 2: security reality. Before the decisions of Israel and the residents
Speaker 2: of the area surrounding God. So nobody knows what that means,
Speaker 2: what the security regime means. Does it mean full blown occupation?
Speaker 2: Does it mean governmental consent to whichever government is in power?
Speaker 2: Good luck with that, you know, achieving that? It just
Speaker 2: shows the extraordinary difficulty in all of this. And then
Speaker 2: I will just say, also from a military cape point
Speaker 2: of view, it is even if they wanted to achieve
Speaker 2: that thing that you pointed out, do they understand the
Speaker 2: level of capability and commitment that that would require. I mean,
Speaker 2: think about, for example, the worst bombing campaigns against civilians.
Speaker 3: And I don't mean that in moral sense.
Speaker 2: I mean that in terms of their direct purpose, like
Speaker 2: the US final days of the war against Tokyo fire
Speaker 2: bombing and killing one hundred thousand people in a single night,
Speaker 2: and the words of Robert McNamara, even with that, with
Speaker 2: the full might of the US military, the destruction of
Speaker 2: Nazi Germany, the dedication of all of this bomb and
Speaker 2: all of that, we still were not militarily capable of
Speaker 2: compelling the Japanese to surrender. Because from a pure just
Speaker 2: like math point of view, even with all the bombs
Speaker 2: and the napalm and all that. You couldn't just simply
Speaker 2: accomplish that. We tried it in Vietnam and it didn't work.
Speaker 2: In some I forget exactly. It was like there was
Speaker 2: a single mission or something like that, we dropped all
Speaker 2: the bombs and equivalent to something like in World War Two. Yeah,
Speaker 2: guess what, Ho Chi Minh still didn't surrender, and they
Speaker 2: are the ones who ended up winning the war. So
Speaker 2: you cannot bomb your in general, you cannot bomb your
Speaker 2: enemy into submission unless, as we did, you were willing
Speaker 2: to use nuclear weapons and atomic weapons, and that's a
Speaker 2: whole other strategic level of the game. And then before
Speaker 2: you even got to a point where they were doing
Speaker 2: something like that, the US, Egypt, Jordan, all the rest
Speaker 2: of the Arab world will be embroiled in a bigger conflict,
Speaker 2: so it wouldn't even be confined to that. That's the
Speaker 2: thing overlaying all of this is the idea that they
Speaker 2: have total freedom of maneuver. They're not a superpower, they're
Speaker 2: reliant on us. And then the rest of the world
Speaker 2: also is on or at least the rest of the
Speaker 2: Arab world is mostly sympathetic with the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: And then they would get involved. So it's a much.
Speaker 2: Bigger problem than I think that they're laying on. They
Speaker 2: think they can just do what they want and you know,
Speaker 2: whether they should or should not, Like, that's just not
Speaker 2: how it's going to work, period. It's never had been
Speaker 2: how it's worked previously. Especially in a situation we're talking
Speaker 2: about mass civilian death, is impossible for them to accomplish this.
Speaker 1: As you're watching the statements come out from the net
Speaker 1: Yahoo government, also just keep in mind, like their audience
Speaker 1: is the world, their audience is their own domestic populace,
Speaker 1: but one of their most important audiences is US.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the American President, the American.
Speaker 1: People the providing cover for the US to be involved
Speaker 1: in the way that we are right now and continue
Speaker 1: our funding. I mean, they really are very much dependent
Speaker 1: on the massive amount of aid on this new aid
Speaker 1: package that Biden is trying to push through that will
Speaker 1: have you know, Ukrainian aid and Israeli aid and border
Speaker 1: funding and you know, on a side note, a little
Speaker 1: bit of humanitarian aid for.
Speaker 4: Gaza as well.
Speaker 1: And so are they are eyes on the prize saying
Speaker 1: what needs to be said publicly to make sure that
Speaker 1: they can continue be the recipient of that aid and
Speaker 1: keep that lockstep bipartisan consensus around support for whatever it
Speaker 1: is that they're doing in place here in Washington.
Speaker 4: So just keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: We always make little notes about what communications come out
Speaker 1: in English, yeah, versus what comes out in Hebrews, so
Speaker 1: you know, something for you to watch as well as
Speaker 1: this is all unfold.
Speaker 3: Thank God for Google Translate, by the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then we can at least get into the
Speaker 2: gist of what people are saying, because yeah, sometimes Al
Speaker 2: Jazeer is a perfect example. Algazeier Arabic is nothing like
Speaker 2: Al Jazer English, and that's for a reason.
Speaker 3: They have very different Audiits very different. Same in Israel.
Speaker 3: Hebrew TV is very different than English, is really TV.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, so let's talk a little bit of
Speaker 1: domestic politics here, because this was really significant.
Speaker 4: We didn't want it to get lost.
Speaker 1: You had two major figures involved in that Georgia Fulton
Speaker 1: County case against Trump and a whole raft of other
Speaker 1: indicted co conspirators part of the RICO charges. Two significant
Speaker 1: individuals who took plea deals and appear to have flipped
Speaker 1: and are now working with the prosecution.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen. First.
Speaker 1: Sidney Powell former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, known for her
Speaker 1: released the Kraken Antics and general insanity. In terms of
Speaker 1: being the most she was the most willing to offer
Speaker 1: the crazeout stop this deal, analysis venezuel whatever.
Speaker 4: She was willing to go there.
Speaker 1: Okay, she is now pleading guilty in Georgia in that
Speaker 1: election interference case.
Speaker 4: As part of the plea deal.
Speaker 1: She has to testify about any code defendants in the case.
Speaker 1: She is one of eighteen code defendants you'll recall in
Speaker 1: this particular election and interference case in Georgia. So she's
Speaker 1: pleading guilty to six misdemeanor charges. According to the agreement
Speaker 1: that was run in court Thursday, she'll get twelve months
Speaker 1: of probation for each count and a six thousand dollars finest.
Speaker 1: Part of the agreement, pal must testify truthfully about any
Speaker 1: co defendants involved and provide all documents the District Attorney's
Speaker 1: office relevant to their case against the other co defendants
Speaker 1: Corney and Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee. Now, she was
Speaker 1: in some of the key Oval office meetings. She would
Speaker 1: almost like elbow her way in and there were other
Speaker 1: people who were trying to keep her and some of
Speaker 1: the other like Mike Lindell types, out of the oval,
Speaker 1: but she would find her way in. She was also
Speaker 1: involved in some of the craziest press conferences that happened
Speaker 1: during that time. At one time Trump said she was
Speaker 1: his lawyer. At another time they kicked her off the team.
Speaker 4: She also was.
Speaker 1: Implicated and I don't know if you guys remember talking
Speaker 1: about that Coffee County situation in Georgia where Trump team members,
Speaker 1: herself included, came and committed allegedly actual election interference by
Speaker 1: getting into the computer systems there and their attempts to
Speaker 1: prove that there was election fraud. So now Trump has
Speaker 1: come out and he's of course pretending like Sidney Powell,
Speaker 1: who I've never heard of her, she had nothing.
Speaker 4: To do with me, et cetera.
Speaker 1: As I put this up on the screen, he's claiming
Speaker 1: Sidney Palell was never his attorney. In a social media
Speaker 1: post on Sunday, three days after she pleaded guilty, he wrote,
Speaker 1: Sidney Pell's one of millions and millions of people who thought,
Speaker 1: and in ever increasing numbers still think correctly that the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty presidential election was rigged and stolen in our
Speaker 1: country is being absolutely destroyed because of it. Ms Pell
Speaker 1: was not my attorney and never was. In fact, she
Speaker 1: would have been conflicted. That's what he wrote on truth
Speaker 1: Social Okay, So that's what he's trying to say, is like,
Speaker 1: I don't even know who this lady is. She just
Speaker 1: believed the claims, but you know, she really had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with anything. That, of course is total nonsense,
Speaker 1: although I will say, I mean, I think there are
Speaker 1: some questions about how much of on the inner circle
Speaker 1: she really was in terms of formulating the plans and
Speaker 1: like really crafting the behind the scenes concept of the
Speaker 1: fake elector schemes and all of that, which is why,
Speaker 1: in some certain respects this next individual, even though he's
Speaker 1: less well known, may actually be more significant to the case.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Lawyer Kenneth cheesebro Trump aligned lawyer pleads guilty in Georgia
Speaker 1: became the second lawyer after Sidney Polland two days to
Speaker 1: plead guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment that also names
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. He agreed to cooperate with state prosecutors in
Speaker 1: Fulton County have accused him, Trump and seventeen others of
Speaker 1: conspiring to overturn the election. He pleaded guilty to a
Speaker 1: single felony charge of conspiracy and was sentenced.
Speaker 4: To five years probation.
Speaker 1: He was originally in charge with seven felonies, including one
Speaker 1: charge under the state racketeering loss. So it seems like
Speaker 1: he got a pretty good deal here. Emails obtained, they say,
Speaker 1: show that mister cheeseborough was considering not only the legality
Speaker 1: of various maneuvers related to the elector's scheme in the
Speaker 1: weeks after the election, but also their political ramifications, potentially
Speaker 1: undercutting arguments that he was merely offering legal advice. One
Speaker 1: email chain included messages from John Eastman, another conservative lawyer
Speaker 1: who has been charged in the Georgia case. Okay, so
Speaker 1: a couple things. Why this is significant. So he is
Speaker 1: the first person with real inside knowledge of this alleged
Speaker 1: fake elector's scheme. I was not elected, really alleged at
Speaker 1: this point, we all say, saw playing out to plead guilty.
Speaker 4: And agree to cooperate.
Speaker 1: So in theory, he may know some of the nitty
Speaker 1: gritty details, how involved Trump was, what Trump really thought
Speaker 1: about these things, It's also significant because, as they were
Speaker 1: pointing out here, one of Trump's potential defenses is like
Speaker 1: I was just acting on the advice of my attorneys,
Speaker 1: Like my lawyers told.
Speaker 4: Me this was legal. I was gone with what they
Speaker 4: were saying.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that you have one of those
Speaker 1: attorneys talking about not only the legal implications, the political
Speaker 1: implications and cooperating with prosecutors not good in terms of
Speaker 1: that potential Trump defense. The other thing here that they
Speaker 1: point out in this article, Sager, which I hadn't really
Speaker 1: thought through, is cheesebro and Sidney Powell had both exercised
Speaker 1: their right to speedy trial, which is why their thing
Speaker 1: is on a faster track than everybody else. Jury selection
Speaker 1: was set to begin like imminently when these deals were struck,
Speaker 1: and if they had moved forward with these cases, then
Speaker 1: because they're all caught up in these racketeering charges, the
Speaker 1: prosecution would have had to reveal a lot of what
Speaker 1: their case was, and it would have been a huge
Speaker 1: advantage for Trump and the others to be able to see, Okay,
Speaker 1: what evidence are do they have, what case are they
Speaker 1: really making here?
Speaker 4: How are they approaching this in court?
Speaker 1: So the fact that this has short circuited those trials,
Speaker 1: really undercuts the ability of the Trump team to see
Speaker 1: what they're going to throw at them when that case
Speaker 1: ultimately comes.
Speaker 2: To So a big problem for Trump is that he
Speaker 2: tweeted in November of twenty twenty that she was one
Speaker 2: of his quote wonderful lawyers.
Speaker 3: So he can't say that she wasn't his lawyer. I
Speaker 3: mean they did, but as he does say it, but.
Speaker 2: Like unless you formally, if you signed like a letter
Speaker 2: of engagement or whatever, then that's definitely one of your lawyers.
Speaker 2: So I think you're right, which is that from the
Speaker 2: point of view of who was the most involved in
Speaker 2: some of the schemes that he could find himself in
Speaker 2: the most trouble, it's definitely Kenneth Cheeseboro. It also bears
Speaker 2: big questions about Rudy Giuliani, would he ever turn as
Speaker 2: a prosecutor. The level of people who are flipping quote
Speaker 2: unquote against Trump, and you know, in terms of Trump's defense,
Speaker 2: like it's going to be a lot more difficult in
Speaker 2: Georgia because we're dealing with state election law. This is
Speaker 2: something we've always tried to highlight here the federal charges
Speaker 2: on Trump regarding January sixth and all that. Personally, I
Speaker 2: just don't think it passes even close to the First
Speaker 2: Amendment tests in terms of like what free speech is,
Speaker 2: how you would have to prove incitement all of that,
Speaker 2: that's going to be extraordinarily difficult. I'm not saying it
Speaker 2: won't pass about DC jury, but in terms of whether
Speaker 2: it makes it a Supreme court or not, and how
Speaker 2: it'll pass there, we'll see. But remember that the state
Speaker 2: of Georgia, and in our federalist system, states themselves are
Speaker 2: the ones who administer their own election. So for Trump,
Speaker 2: when he's being charged with trying to disrupt official proceedings
Speaker 2: in the state, they actually have the ironclad jurisdiction over
Speaker 2: their secretary of state manipulation schemes. On all of that,
Speaker 2: I think the best case for Trump is just, you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know, try and make it as political as possible.
Speaker 2: And of course, you know on that front, like why
Speaker 2: did it takes out three years or whatever to charging me? Oh,
Speaker 2: you happen in charge him like right before the year
Speaker 2: before or the election? Yeah, who can deny that? Doesn't
Speaker 2: it doesn't look ridiculous. But after it's been charged, now
Speaker 2: it's a legal fight that you're embroiled in. You're not
Speaker 2: in a political fight anymore. You know, it remains to
Speaker 2: be seen yet how will turn out? I don't I
Speaker 2: genuinely don't know what political defense can they mount on
Speaker 2: the Georgia, or sorry, a legal defense defense.
Speaker 3: Can they mount.
Speaker 2: We talked with Brad Moss. He's like, he's just got
Speaker 2: to blame his lawyers. But if your lawyers are not
Speaker 2: cooperating and guess you's can he extraordinarily difficult?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why the cheesebroo one in particular is very difficult.
Speaker 1: Now they say, actually they did not officially sign an
Speaker 1: engagement leader with Sidney Palell. But if you're out on
Speaker 1: Twitter or True Social or whatever announcing like she's my
Speaker 1: great lawyer, then you know, obviously there was a connection there.
Speaker 1: It's not this like, oh, she was just one of
Speaker 1: millions who also agreed with me that the election was stolen.
Speaker 4: So put that aside.
Speaker 1: I mean, if I had to rank the cases in
Speaker 1: terms of their sort of legal strength, the.
Speaker 4: Document's case, I mean it's pretty open enough.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't see any defense that they have there,
Speaker 1: because it's not only that you kept all this documents,
Speaker 1: but they asked over and over again, you're moving boxes around,
Speaker 1: You're caught hiding them, all of that.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just that one.
Speaker 1: I don't see how you're getting out of that one. Okay, Next,
Speaker 1: I would put this one because, as you said, state
Speaker 1: election law, it's a much more clear cut case against him.
Speaker 1: And now that you have these relatively high level, high
Speaker 1: profile individuals who are flipping and are cooperating and they're
Speaker 1: undercutting your defense about like I was just doing what
Speaker 1: my lawyers told me, that one seems very difficult. And
Speaker 1: then but you know, I view the Jacksmith one here
Speaker 1: in DC very differently because he wasn't arguing in that
Speaker 1: indictment that Trump was inciting January sixth riders.
Speaker 4: It really was also about these fake electric.
Speaker 1: Scheme, which you know, so that kind of gets around
Speaker 1: the free speech issues, and he crafted the indictment specifically
Speaker 1: to try to avoid those questions. The other thing with
Speaker 1: the jack Smith case, of course, is that you've got
Speaker 1: a DC jury, which DC being not exactly super friendly
Speaker 1: Trump territory, so the jury pool matters there as well.
Speaker 1: But I do think that this makes things much more
Speaker 1: difficult for him in the state of Georgia. It's hard
Speaker 1: for me to see how he gets out of this.
Speaker 1: To me, it's a question of timing. And I will
Speaker 1: say it's just always important. Yes, the indictments haven't really changed,
Speaker 1: you know, if anything strengthened him in the Republican primary
Speaker 1: ant really changed his approval rating with the American public.
Speaker 1: It is still possible that when you have an actual
Speaker 1: trial and you're facing actual prison time and you've got,
Speaker 1: you know, this courtroom drama playing out, that it does
Speaker 1: sit differently with.
Speaker 4: The American people. And the last thing that I'll say.
Speaker 1: On the saga is, you know, I do think that
Speaker 1: there's It has been instructive to me to watch the
Speaker 1: way the civil case in New York for business fraud
Speaker 1: has been playing out, because I feel like we're all
Speaker 1: working with a little bit of an outdated analytical framework
Speaker 1: when it comes to Trump and his ability to wriggle
Speaker 1: out of things. Because he's not wriggling out of the
Speaker 1: civil case in New York.
Speaker 4: Now he's not going to go to.
Speaker 1: Jail for it, but he's already lost his business licenses
Speaker 1: in the state, could be in very significant financial trouble.
Speaker 1: You know, they're really not debating at this point whether
Speaker 1: there was fraud, the debating how severe it was, what
Speaker 1: the penalty is ultimately going to be. And so for me,
Speaker 1: it has been instructive to see the difference between how
Speaker 1: things play for him in the political realm versus how
Speaker 1: they actually play for him in a courtroom when you've
Speaker 1: actually got to like back up what you're.
Speaker 4: Saying with some evidence.
Speaker 1: In some facts, and you can't just you know, post
Speaker 1: untrue social that you didn't actually know Sidney Powell, and
Speaker 1: that's somehow going to fly.
Speaker 2: The big questions, The big thing is the wildcard factor
Speaker 2: of what happens should a conviction occur. How does that
Speaker 2: affect the political system? Nobody knows. It's completely unprecedented. What
Speaker 2: if Trump strikes a deal and he's like, okay, I
Speaker 2: won't run, and that leads to some sort of you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, what does that mean, Like, well, you have
Speaker 2: a last minute effort to plug somebody in. And if
Speaker 2: you think these types of things can happen, try telling
Speaker 2: us all a month ago that the United States would
Speaker 2: have no Speaker of the House for two weeks and
Speaker 2: no seeable path to actually fulfilling the number three slot
Speaker 2: in the government.
Speaker 3: That cannot do anything.
Speaker 2: These things do happen, and when they happen, it's first
Speaker 2: it's a little bit crazy, then the frenzy dies down,
Speaker 2: and now it's just a matter of routine.
Speaker 3: Who knows, you know, what does it?
Speaker 2: And each specific case is a major problem that faces Trump. Sure,
Speaker 2: he certainly could wriggle his way out of it. He
Speaker 2: could become the president. And then we have to go
Speaker 2: through all kinds of novel interpretations of what that means.
Speaker 2: It could mean a major political backfire. As we said,
Speaker 2: the RNC could replace him, he himself could drop out.
Speaker 2: There's simply no way of knowing like what will actually
Speaker 2: happen in this entire scenario. And that's why, you know,
Speaker 2: as I think, as tedious as some of the legal
Speaker 2: coverage on this can be, you have no choice but
Speaker 2: to look for it because you just know what the
Speaker 2: stakes could be in the future. The details of this
Speaker 2: singular case could decide the American presidency in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: That's not an exaggeration.
Speaker 1: It absolutely could, absolutely And so you know, when there
Speaker 1: are major developments like we would be we would really
Speaker 1: be failing if we didn't pay attention to them, because
Speaker 1: it is an extraordinary set of circumstances. It is a
Speaker 1: place we in the country have never been before. And
Speaker 1: so you know, these were certainly some major developments in
Speaker 1: the Georgia case that are not good for Trump whatever.
Speaker 1: For me, a lot of the question of all of
Speaker 1: this and how it plays out is timing. I think
Speaker 1: this one is this trial for Trump is set to
Speaker 1: start like the beginning of next year.
Speaker 4: How long does it take for that to play on?
Speaker 1: You're talking about all these other co conspirators in terms
Speaker 1: of a recoach case. Then there could be an appeal.
Speaker 1: So none of this is going to happen in short order.
Speaker 1: And for me, that's the real wild card is just
Speaker 1: what is the timing on this when if he is
Speaker 1: actually found guilty, when does that hit What does that
Speaker 1: look like? Where are we in the political cycle? And
Speaker 1: there's just no way to know right now?
Speaker 3: Absolutely correct.
Speaker 2: Last part here, I guess we're trying to bring back
Speaker 2: a little bit of fun to the show, although even
Speaker 2: on this one there's.
Speaker 3: Not a lot of fun.
Speaker 4: It's lighter than the rest.
Speaker 2: Of the sile to say, let's go with that, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Dave Chappelle it appears,
Speaker 2: has drawn the ire of a Boston crowd after criticizing Israel.
Speaker 2: This was a kind of a very sparse Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal report, and what they say is that it appears
Speaker 2: based upon multiple reports that Dave Chappelle, at a comedy
Speaker 2: show in Boston on Thursday, criticized Israel's bombing of Gaza.
Speaker 2: At a performance in which the comedian said that the
Speaker 2: US was aiding the slaughter of innocent civilians that was
Speaker 2: at the TD Garden, Chappelle condemned the October seven attack
Speaker 2: on Israel by Hamas militants, but then criticized what he
Speaker 2: said were war crimes in Gaza. According to people in
Speaker 2: attendance quote, the comments came up when Chappelle said that
Speaker 2: he didn't think students should lose a job, offers for
Speaker 2: supporting Palestinians, and audience members command for the comedian to
Speaker 2: quote shut up drew an emotional response from Chappelle, who
Speaker 2: then criticized the Israeli government for cutting off water and
Speaker 2: other essentials to Gaza and accused of killing innocent peoples.
Speaker 2: Some audience members cheered Chappelle and shouted free palsign. Others
Speaker 2: yelled what about Hamas? Some in the crowd got up
Speaker 2: and left. Quote Towards the conclusion of his show, he said,
Speaker 2: of Israeli policies and Hamas attacks that two wrongs don't
Speaker 2: make a right. Now, we have one report from an
Speaker 2: individual who apparently did attend this show and described it
Speaker 2: for all of us. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. They say, quote, I saw Dave Chappell last
Speaker 2: night at the Boston ted Garden. It was sold out,
Speaker 2: so I would say twenty two thousand people were there.
Speaker 2: Three fourths into the show, he said, I wanted to
Speaker 2: address what's going on in Israel palsign. He specifically said
Speaker 2: Palestine and said it before Israel. He said what happened
Speaker 2: on October seven wasn't right, But what I'm going on
Speaker 2: isn't right, and not just. You can't kill innocent civilians
Speaker 2: like that, And the whole world said silently and watches.
Speaker 2: Someone shouted at him from the crowd, shut the f up, Dave.
Speaker 2: He went nuts and yelled back, No, you shut the
Speaker 2: f up. You don't take tens of billions of dollars
Speaker 2: from my country to go kill innocent women and children
Speaker 2: and then come and tell me to shut the f up.
Speaker 2: He said, don't come begging for my money for my
Speaker 2: country and then go drop bombs on kids and cut
Speaker 2: off into people, water and electricity.
Speaker 3: You have the audacity to pay to come see me
Speaker 3: and then tell me to shut the f up. No,
Speaker 3: you shut the f up.
Speaker 2: The crowd started clapping and cheering for him and saying yes, Dave,
Speaker 2: chance of free Pali side and said, damn right, free Palestine.
Speaker 2: He went on a fifteen minute rant about being Muslim
Speaker 2: and the Israelis are projecting what's wrong with them on Muslims,
Speaker 2: and the crowd kept on cheering.
Speaker 3: It was surreal.
Speaker 2: Crowd was a typical Boston demographic eighty percent white, five
Speaker 2: percent black, quote the rest Latin and others.
Speaker 3: So that's a eyewitness.
Speaker 4: Uh yeah, we can't confirm this report.
Speaker 1: This is just floating around on social but I will
Speaker 1: say that does sound like Dave Chappellee.
Speaker 3: It's absolutely yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean for though, for the inevitable of like why
Speaker 2: are you report? Listen Dave, And this is always a difficulty.
Speaker 2: He often veers in the direction of social commentary interspersed
Speaker 2: with his comedy. So what he does, that's what he
Speaker 2: and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what he's always done.
Speaker 2: I mean, he remember he did that entire special after
Speaker 2: George Floyd that he put out like was that comedy?
Speaker 3: Like not really? You know, he's and that's fine. I
Speaker 3: have no problem with that.
Speaker 2: My point though, is that it's clear that this will
Speaker 2: become a major lightning rod, not just for audiences, but
Speaker 2: how comedians and others are going to handle it, because
Speaker 2: it just highlights like we're all trying to process something
Speaker 2: together as a culture at the same time, and it invites,
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of controversy. This is where I'm
Speaker 2: sure Dave is happy for the fact that nobody was
Speaker 2: recording or watching.
Speaker 3: The show while it was happening. Good for him.
Speaker 2: Honestly, I support that policy, but yeah, I do think
Speaker 2: it shows the difficulty and also Dave is not a
Speaker 2: person to keep his mouth shug.
Speaker 3: He's going to say what he thinks, which I support.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's a free I mean, yeah, he's.
Speaker 3: A free man.
Speaker 1: He's going to do and say what he thinks, whether
Speaker 1: you agree or disagree. That's certainly been his his style
Speaker 1: from the beginning. I mean, if you go back and
Speaker 1: watch the very first Chappelle show and some of the
Speaker 1: stuff that he put on Eric. Oh god, this was
Speaker 1: our first episode.
Speaker 4: So even when he.
Speaker 1: Was under the like corporate brand, Dave Chappelle always very
Speaker 1: much a man for me. The reporting is that, you know,
Speaker 1: this one individual says that there were chances of free
Speaker 1: Palestine in the audience was mostly backing him up. We
Speaker 1: have no way of knowing without being in the room.
Speaker 1: There are also reports that there were people who were
Speaker 1: really angered and left because of the commentary and his
Speaker 1: response to the audience, and obviously somebody reportedly said, you know.
Speaker 4: Shut the f up, Dave, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of how hot and how
Speaker 1: incredibly emotional this issue is and how dangerous, I mean,
Speaker 1: talk about third rails in American politics getting on, you know,
Speaker 1: saying the quote unquote wrong thing, or as the ADL
Speaker 1: dude said, not getting the story right on what's happening
Speaker 1: with Israel and what they're doing at Gaza right now.
Speaker 1: There is there is no cancel culture like this kind
Speaker 1: of cancel culture, and we've seen it in you know,
Speaker 1: there have been multiple Palestinian conferences canceled now, one here
Speaker 1: in Virginia very close to DC, one down in Texas.
Speaker 1: I believe in Houston, you've got Starbucks actually suing their union,
Speaker 1: Starbucks Workers United, because they put out some pro Palestinian thing.
Speaker 4: You got people getting fired.
Speaker 1: You got some high level, like very well known, powerful
Speaker 1: agent in Hollywood who posted some pretty innocuous reposted actually
Speaker 1: some pretty innocuous stuff on Instagram, and she apologized and
Speaker 1: still got fired. So yeah, this is, you know, a
Speaker 1: little bit of a glimpse. Dave Chappelle is wealthy and
Speaker 1: famous and whatever. He's going to say whatever the Holly wants,
Speaker 1: and no one is going to tell him to shut up,
Speaker 1: and he's going.
Speaker 4: To be just fine.
Speaker 1: But I do think it is a visceral illustration of
Speaker 1: how intense, how fraught, how emotional this issue is, and
Speaker 1: how for people who aren't Dave Chappelle, even someone who
Speaker 1: was a high level agent in Hollywood, a CIA, how
Speaker 1: much saying the quote unquote wrong thing on this issue
Speaker 1: can have massive implications for you your personal life, your career, etc.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, said Crystal.
Speaker 2: Also just for people who are wondering, if you even
Speaker 2: try and mention Israel to me in a DM on
Speaker 2: it Instagram, I'm not going to see it.
Speaker 3: I've already had it filtered out, so I just wanted
Speaker 3: to put that out.
Speaker 4: Boy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I highly recommend a Crystal either are certain you
Speaker 2: can block like any certain words or any of that.
Speaker 3: So I just have a list of things Israel and
Speaker 3: sign out. I'm in blissful ignorance. So I'm living my life, folks.
Speaker 2: I'm posting stories about the Museum of the American Revolution
Speaker 2: and George Washington's warten and that's the world that I've
Speaker 2: decided to live in. Anyways, we just want to say
Speaker 2: thank you for all your support over the last two weeks.
Speaker 3: Has been very difficult to report on the story.
Speaker 2: We're still keeping our eye on as you saw with
Speaker 2: the Sydney Powell and the Trump news, not taking your
Speaker 2: eye off that. We're working very hard on the focus group,
Speaker 2: working to bring you guys the best possible news. We're
Speaker 2: you know, on call waiting, making sure that we keep
Speaker 2: you everybody as up to date as possible, and we
Speaker 2: support wait. Thank you all again for your support, and
Speaker 2: we're going to see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 4: Actually Ryan will be in for me.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's right.
Speaker 1: Our first We'll see you and Ryan will see you,
Speaker 1: and I'll see you guys on Thursday.
Speaker 5: At ACTU,