Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, Let's get to the show.
Speaker 4: Good morning, we have a girls show. Welcome to Breaking
Speaker 4: Points at Crystal. How are you doing this morning?
Speaker 5: Doing good?
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure to be here with you, Emily. I
Speaker 1: love your vibe. The way you start is so different
Speaker 1: from Sager.
Speaker 6: Because I don't scream. Is it because it's good for
Speaker 6: your ears? You feel like it.
Speaker 1: Just feels like a vibe just sort of ease into
Speaker 1: the show.
Speaker 6: I like it.
Speaker 4: I also like, I'm just not realizing that producer Mac
Speaker 4: gave us specific mugs for each show. I have the
Speaker 4: counterpoints mug, but he gave you the break mug.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the indeed we do.
Speaker 5: One's just perfect.
Speaker 4: We're just absolutely going full steam ahead this morning.
Speaker 6: Big show.
Speaker 4: Yes, great guess coming up in the A. By the way,
Speaker 4: to break down this huge news about the Trump trial.
Speaker 4: The jury is quite literally out right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: So this is the one Trump trial that actually is
Speaker 1: likely to happen for election day, and the jury is deliberating.
Speaker 1: So we've got Bradley Moss coming back on the show
Speaker 1: to tell us what he made of the cases that
Speaker 1: were made on both sides and what he reads into
Speaker 1: the jury. Tod come back and ask for a few things,
Speaker 1: So we'll get all of that for you as we
Speaker 1: await a verdict. We also have a bunch of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four news on both sides of the aisle. So
Speaker 1: Trump just like shamelessly courting billionaires and promising them whatever
Speaker 1: they want to give him money for his campaign, sort
Speaker 1: of pushing the boundaries of campaign finance laws. At the
Speaker 1: same time, Democrats have just bailed on doing a live
Speaker 1: actual nomination process. They have announced they're going to do
Speaker 1: it online, So get into that and why that is
Speaker 1: no surprise. They're afraid of protesters, et cetera. Got a
Speaker 1: bunch of big news coming out of Israel. They're basically
Speaker 1: announcing forever war. They've also announced they've taken control of
Speaker 1: that Rafa area border crossing with Egypt, so a lot
Speaker 1: that significant there. You also have Hollywood coming out against
Speaker 1: the war in a way that they haven't yet, so
Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting to get into. And even Simone Sanders,
Speaker 1: former White House person operative, is turning on the White
Speaker 1: House in certain specific ways. We've got some really fascinating
Speaker 1: pulling about how young people feel about the country. Basically
Speaker 1: they believe that they are living in a dying empire
Speaker 1: run by bad people and who could really disagree with
Speaker 1: them at this point, And some breaking news with regards
Speaker 1: to It's a lot of legal stuff in the show today.
Speaker 1: Ditty's legal trouble appears to be escalating, their preparing for
Speaker 1: some witnesses to go in front of grand jury.
Speaker 5: We asked Bradley Moss if.
Speaker 1: He would speak to that as well, and he said, quote,
Speaker 1: hard pass, hard past.
Speaker 4: You know, and the one point, well, I know, we'll
Speaker 4: talk about it in the block, but this is a
Speaker 4: billion dollar empire really, I mean, Ditty is a business.
Speaker 6: It's not just about Ditty.
Speaker 4: It's about how powerful businesses were involved in this PEPs
Speaker 4: of years.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean it's it is about this culture
Speaker 1: of complicity. I mean, how many people knew what was
Speaker 1: going on. Because we're now up to potentially a dozen
Speaker 1: different victims. It really is far reaching, and you have
Speaker 1: to imagine that there were many people who knew and
Speaker 1: just turn to blind eyes. So once again the powerful
Speaker 1: protected at least for some significant period of time before
Speaker 1: we jump.
Speaker 6: Into the show.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much for hanging with us as
Speaker 1: we switched to locals.
Speaker 5: I think it has been.
Speaker 1: Overall very smooth, but there have been a few bumps
Speaker 1: as these things go. So if you are still having
Speaker 1: any issue whatsoever, email support at locals dot com and
Speaker 1: CC breaking Points Premium at gmail dot com.
Speaker 5: Producer Griffin is all over it.
Speaker 1: He's spending a lot of time trying to make sure
Speaker 1: everybody has a smooth transition. So again, support at locals
Speaker 1: dot com, breaking Points Premium at gmail dot com. Email
Speaker 1: both of those addresses and we will figure out whatever
Speaker 1: is going for you, I promise. In addition, for those
Speaker 1: of you who still want to watch the show on
Speaker 1: Spotify and YouTube, remember is still going to be on
Speaker 1: all the platforms where it has always been the easiest
Speaker 1: place to find those links. Right now, because we're having
Speaker 1: this little issue with Spotify legal to get worked out.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, look in your email premium subscribers,
Speaker 1: you will have the Spotify link and also the YouTube
Speaker 1: premium link as well. So those, I think are all
Speaker 1: of the things that we need to talk about this morning.
Speaker 4: I wanted to give out producer Griffin's phone number, but
Speaker 4: I was told that was a bridge too far.
Speaker 1: I was ready to give out the address so you
Speaker 1: could go protest downside his house if you want, if
Speaker 1: you're not happy with the experience, but we'll keep it
Speaker 1: at the email for now. All right, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and turn to the Trump trial and what is going
Speaker 1: on there. So we are very fortunate to be joined
Speaker 1: by legal expert Bradley MOSSI is here to break down
Speaker 1: what we know of the Trump hush money trial.
Speaker 5: Great to see is always.
Speaker 3: Bradley, absolutely always having to join.
Speaker 5: So let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: I got a tear sheet here talking about what could
Speaker 1: happen if Trump is in fact convicted found guilty here,
Speaker 1: he would go and be reviewed by York City's Department
Speaker 1: of Probation. He of course could appeal, so unlikely that
Speaker 1: he would be sent to prison in the near term,
Speaker 1: but Bradley really wanted to get your assessment to start
Speaker 1: with here of the case that the prosecution made, how
Speaker 1: strong you thought it was, and how good of a
Speaker 1: job you felt the defense did in poking holes and
Speaker 1: creating that reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case here.
Speaker 7: Sure, so, the prosecution I think did more or less
Speaker 7: the best they could with what is ultimately a circumstantial case.
Speaker 7: They built sort of a wall, a foundation of various
Speaker 7: pieces of evidence and testimony to surround the only key
Speaker 7: eyewitness who can talk about the connection of Donald Trump
Speaker 7: to these falsification of the records and the underlying intent,
Speaker 7: and that person, of course, is Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen
Speaker 7: has his own issues when it comes to credibility and ethics.
Speaker 7: We saw some of that in the civil trial with
Speaker 7: Lee na Haba cross examining them, and saw it during
Speaker 7: the criminal trial when he was cross examined over the
Speaker 7: course about a day and a half.
Speaker 3: He's not the greatest witness on the planet.
Speaker 7: Which is why the entirety of the prosecution's case came
Speaker 7: first to surround him, to reinforce them so that if
Speaker 7: for any reason there were concerns in the jury regarding
Speaker 7: some of the credibility of his testimony, they had corroboration
Speaker 7: that could reassure them.
Speaker 3: That was the prosecution's burden. That was their job to do.
Speaker 7: I think they did a pretty decent job at it,
Speaker 7: certainly enough to likely convict when it came to the
Speaker 7: defense's case, and I have to assume some of this
Speaker 7: was client driven as opposed to what the lawyers truly wanted. Remember,
Speaker 7: one of the lawyers left before the trial even began,
Speaker 7: most likely because of the client's prefer strategy. But it
Speaker 7: was all based on idea that this was all live,
Speaker 7: not that yes it happened, but here's why it's not
Speaker 7: a crime, or yes it happened, but here's why. It
Speaker 7: was all about personal embarrassment. It was the affair never happened.
Speaker 7: This was all just extortion and Trump knew nothing about anything.
Speaker 7: That was their approach. I don't think that was necessarily
Speaker 7: the strongest approach to take. I thought there was a
Speaker 7: lot of holes they could have punched in the government's
Speaker 7: case in terms of the idea of whether or not
Speaker 7: Trump truly had any knowledge here. Especially, could have brought
Speaker 7: in some more witnesses, But that was the approach they took.
Speaker 3: I don't think they expected a quittl. They might be
Speaker 3: looking for jury though.
Speaker 4: Oh interesting, And yeah, there was I saw you actually
Speaker 4: tweeting about this yesterday. There was all kinds of controversy
Speaker 4: about the jury notes that were requested, about the jury instructions.
Speaker 4: The jury is continuously deliberating today. What did you make
Speaker 4: of the You know, it was sort of like skirmishes
Speaker 4: on Twitter over what was true and what was false
Speaker 4: about what was happening with the jury yesterday. But what
Speaker 4: did you make of everything that transpired after the jury
Speaker 4: was sent out for deliberations and we kept getting some
Speaker 4: indications about what they might be thinking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so so far, you know, we're just trying to
Speaker 3: read tea leaves here.
Speaker 7: We're trying to get into the minds of jurors, and
Speaker 7: none of us truly know what's happening in that room.
Speaker 7: But from what we saw from the notes, the information
Speaker 7: they were questing, it was largely focused on the testimony
Speaker 7: of David Pecker from the National Inquirer and his conversations
Speaker 7: both with Trump and with Cohen.
Speaker 3: Dating back of twenty fifteen.
Speaker 7: That speaks more to that intent element, that secondary part
Speaker 7: that bumps it up to a felony. That speaks to
Speaker 7: the idea of whether or not this was done with
Speaker 7: the intent to commit another crime, potentially a campaign finance issue.
Speaker 3: That doesn't speak to the falsification.
Speaker 7: So if you are trying to infer where the jury's
Speaker 7: looking at this right now, they might buy that there
Speaker 7: was falsification of the business records, at least the misdemeanor.
Speaker 7: What they're not certain yet on is whether or not
Speaker 7: they there was enough evidence to bump it up to
Speaker 7: the felony if they can reach decision that there was
Speaker 7: a unanimym sorry, a unanimous decision that there was an
Speaker 7: intent to commit another crime, and then they can decide
Speaker 7: which of those other crimes they're allowed to select from
Speaker 7: they believe was the intended crime to commit. That's where
Speaker 7: we're looking right now. We still got to see you
Speaker 7: get a whole day to day of deliberations. We'll see
Speaker 7: if they have a verdict today or if it goes into.
Speaker 1: A yeah, what is your set? I mean, obviously none
Speaker 1: of us can really know, but do you have a
Speaker 1: guess of how long it may take for them to deliberate,
Speaker 1: especially given the fact that already yesterday we're getting these
Speaker 1: notes and requests and they're clearly dealing with some of
Speaker 1: the core substance of the case.
Speaker 7: So it'd be interesting to see one well, you know,
Speaker 7: as the jury comes back in this morning and they
Speaker 7: have this read back and this extra information that we're
Speaker 7: requesting from the judge, just to see how long that
Speaker 7: takes to go through. But if you're Donald Trump right now,
Speaker 7: you want lengthy, lengthy deliberations. The longer this takes, the
Speaker 7: more this gets into Friday, the more this gets into
Speaker 7: Monday of next week, the more likely it is that
Speaker 7: there is one or two holdouts that are preventing a
Speaker 7: verdict more or less likely a guilty verdict, and that's
Speaker 7: good for Donald Trump. We hear about a verdict today,
Speaker 7: my expectation is that's a guilty verdict.
Speaker 4: Interesting, and I want to ask about this analysis that
Speaker 4: conservative attorney, although fairly anti Trump, attorney Andy McCarthy wrote
Speaker 4: a National Review. He said, listening to the presentation of
Speaker 4: evidence in the prosecutor's marathon summation, the jurors were undoubtedly
Speaker 4: convinced that prosecutors do not have to prove the FIKA
Speaker 4: violation to find Trump guilty. Rather, the judge and prosecutors
Speaker 4: have led jurors to believe that the violation of FIICA
Speaker 4: is an established fact in the case. Almost says if
Speaker 4: Marshon has taken judicial notice of it, it says if
Speaker 4: the jury need not concern itself with FIICA. Bragg prosecutors,
Speaker 4: aided and abetted by Marshan, pulled this off by telling
Speaker 4: the jury again and again and again that Coen pled
Speaker 4: guilty to two FIKA felonies and that Pecker entered David
Speaker 4: Pecker entered a non prosecution agreement with the Justice Department
Speaker 4: because he feared prosecution.
Speaker 6: Not to beat a dead horse.
Speaker 4: Yet again, McCarthy continues, but this evidence is utterly inadmissible
Speaker 4: against Trump. Yet Mershan has allowed prosecutors to tell the
Speaker 4: jury about the police and non prosecution agreement dozens of times.
Speaker 4: So if Donald Trump is convicted, that argument is going
Speaker 4: to be amplified, obviously on the right and by a
Speaker 4: lot of Trump voters. What do you make of it?
Speaker 4: I mean, I know that's sort of a can of worms.
Speaker 4: But this question of how Mrshon, who you know, Republicans
Speaker 4: have pointed out his daughter is a fairly high profile
Speaker 4: Democratic consultant, and there are all kinds of issues that
Speaker 4: people have raised with him. Is there something Is there
Speaker 4: there there to what Andy McCarthy is saying, in the
Speaker 4: sense that this could really inflame a lot of Trump
Speaker 4: supporters if a conviction comes down, I mean it will
Speaker 4: either way, but will there be sort of substance to
Speaker 4: those complaints.
Speaker 7: Yeah, So let's be honest here, They're going to be
Speaker 7: inflame no matter what if there's a conviction. It didn't
Speaker 7: matter how clean or perfect the case was put on.
Speaker 3: What Andy has gotten into here is an issue.
Speaker 7: Of legal nuance that is part of the realities of
Speaker 7: a lot of the pre trial fights that were done
Speaker 7: by between the parties before and Judge Mshan and how
Speaker 7: it was outlined that the case would proceed.
Speaker 3: You know, when it comes to trial litigation.
Speaker 7: I kind of view it as the way people always say,
Speaker 7: don't watch how the sausage is made, because you'll gross
Speaker 7: you out, You'll never want to consider eating it. Don't
Speaker 7: watch how trial litigation happens, the nitty gritty details if
Speaker 7: you ever want to have faith in the criminal justice system,
Speaker 7: because it's not pretty. But what has to be done
Speaker 7: here for the prosecution to get a guilty verdict, and
Speaker 7: this needs to be very clear because there was a
Speaker 7: lot of confusion yesterday with the jury instructions.
Speaker 3: There needs to be a unanimous.
Speaker 7: Verdict by the jury that Trump falsified or caused the
Speaker 7: falsification of the business records. There needs to be a
Speaker 7: unanimous verdict that he did it with the intent to
Speaker 7: commit another crime. Those parts have to be unanimous. Where
Speaker 7: there is room for some discretion with the jury is
Speaker 7: what the other crime was. They don't have to decide
Speaker 7: as a unanimous group. They can, but they don't have
Speaker 7: to side as a unanimous group that it was the
Speaker 7: feat of violation, that it was state tax law or
Speaker 7: state campaign finance issue. That is a sort of a
Speaker 7: unique but viable feature of this New York law that's
Speaker 7: in place. The law has been on the book since
Speaker 7: the eighties. It's been upheld in the appellate courts in
Speaker 7: New York multiple times.
Speaker 3: Supreme courts never ruled on.
Speaker 7: Obviously, that may be an issue for appeal that would
Speaker 7: be fascinating.
Speaker 3: But Donald Trump here.
Speaker 7: Is ultimately a victim of the very kind of laws
Speaker 7: he always trumpeted in New York, as you know, combating crime.
Speaker 7: He just doesn't like it because it's being used against him.
Speaker 1: So if I'm hearing you correctly, you basically think an
Speaker 1: acquittal is likely off the table because of the defense
Speaker 1: that the Trump team chose to present.
Speaker 6: Is that correct? Which is what McCarthy thinks too, by
Speaker 6: the way, correct?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean anything's possible. Jury's are completely unpredictable. We
Speaker 7: never truly know. That's the beauty of the jury system.
Speaker 7: But I don't think anybody realistically believes at this point
Speaker 7: that you're going to see unanimous verdict of acquittal. It's
Speaker 7: all about can they get a unanimous verdict for for
Speaker 7: guilty or will there be one or two people who
Speaker 7: just can't put enough faith in Michael Cohen because of
Speaker 7: his credibility issues that they just can't get there on
Speaker 7: the idea that Trump was actually involved in the discussions
Speaker 7: or had reason to believe this was going to be
Speaker 7: transpiring in terms of the falsification, and they just won't
Speaker 7: go along with it. It's entirely possible. That's why we
Speaker 7: put our faith in these twelve jurors. They're ordinary citizens.
Speaker 7: That's their obligation and duty today.
Speaker 1: And so can you walk us through Since you think
Speaker 1: an acquittal is more or less off the table, barring
Speaker 1: some you never know kind of a circumstance can you
Speaker 1: walk us through, Okay, if he's found guilty, here's what
Speaker 1: happens next, and what that process looks like. And if
Speaker 1: there's a hung jury and a mistrial declared, what does
Speaker 1: that process look like.
Speaker 7: Sure, So, if there's a hung jury, there's two issues.
Speaker 7: One there's the political ramifications, which is he'll declare victory
Speaker 7: anything short of conviction.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump will declare victory.
Speaker 7: Say, look, they couldn't even get a jury of twelve
Speaker 7: Trump hating evil liberal communists to convict me. Clearly, these
Speaker 7: pep to charges are garbage. If he is convicted, to
Speaker 7: be very clear, he is not going to get hauled
Speaker 7: off and sent off to rikers that day. It's not happening.
Speaker 7: There will be a hearing set for a sentencing. There'll
Speaker 7: be a pre sentencing, there will be any number of
Speaker 7: documentations and briefs submitted by both parties to the judge
Speaker 7: based off of New York state law in terms of
Speaker 7: what the sentence, if any, should be. Almost certainly the
Speaker 7: prosecution is going to request some jail time. He's not
Speaker 7: going to get the maximum.
Speaker 3: He's not going to get.
Speaker 7: I think it's four years is what he could get
Speaker 7: under the law. He's not getting that. If he gets something,
Speaker 7: it'll be three to six months at most. That is
Speaker 7: where the issue of this past criminal contempt, what we
Speaker 7: saw with the gag order violations, that's where that may
Speaker 7: come into play. Is whether or not Judgemarshon considers that
Speaker 7: as an aggravating factor, saying I was considering probation, but
Speaker 7: forget it. Now, I'm putting you on three to six
Speaker 7: months in prison. And now we've got a whole logistical
Speaker 7: problem of where do you put a former president?
Speaker 4: Well, and that was just going to be my last
Speaker 4: question is you know, based on what we've seen from
Speaker 4: Judge Murshawn, what can we expect about how he'll handle
Speaker 4: that question.
Speaker 7: I think from what we've seen in his past analysis,
Speaker 7: it's going to be a very thorough discussion.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 7: I understand it's the thing right now amongst conservative pundits
Speaker 7: to trash him left and right because of what his
Speaker 7: daughter does or because of how he's ruled on some
Speaker 7: of these pre trial issues.
Speaker 3: And that's fine. It's for some memento who can say
Speaker 3: what they want. I think he's been a pretty decent jurist.
Speaker 7: He's cut back a lot on what I thought the
Speaker 7: prosecution wanted to do in their presentation that they ultimately
Speaker 7: ended up favoring Trump a little bit and narrow the
Speaker 7: scope of the government's presentation. I don't expect anything draconian,
Speaker 7: even with the aggravating factor. Again, I don't see anything
Speaker 7: more than a few months if he sends him to
Speaker 7: prison time at all. There's no chance that it happens
Speaker 7: in the sense of Trump being sent to prison before
Speaker 7: the election.
Speaker 1: And if he is convicted, if he has found guilty,
Speaker 1: I presume he can avail himself of an appeals process.
Speaker 5: What does that look like? How does that play on?
Speaker 7: Yeah, he can almost certainly, and of course will immediately
Speaker 7: file and appeal that will wind his way through the
Speaker 7: New York Capel courts. That doesn't necessarily put a hold
Speaker 7: on his sentence. His lawyers certainly could ask for a
Speaker 7: stay of the sentence pending resolution of the appeals.
Speaker 3: That would be up to New York appellate courts.
Speaker 7: But a lot of this becomes ultimately irrelevant post November
Speaker 7: because if Trump wins, there's no chances going to jail
Speaker 7: anyways at that point as a sitting president. If he
Speaker 7: loses he's got those other three criminal cases that are.
Speaker 3: Still on tap to come to trial one day.
Speaker 7: Eventually, maybe in twenty twenty nine, he'll almost certainly start
Speaker 7: cutting deals to minimize jail time so he doesn't spend
Speaker 7: the rest of his life in jail at that point.
Speaker 1: All right, last question, so I know you're not going
Speaker 1: to want to answer, but what do you think are
Speaker 1: the odds of conviction versus hunguri People.
Speaker 7: Keep asking me this if I'm sitting at the table
Speaker 7: in Vegas, and I absolutely have to place a bet
Speaker 7: right now, I'm leaning towards conviction. Everything indicates the jury's
Speaker 7: questions are leaning along those lines. But you know what,
Speaker 7: juris are unpredictable, and we won't know until we know.
Speaker 1: Bradley, So great for you taking the time with us
Speaker 1: this morning. Thank you so much for your analysis.
Speaker 3: Absolutely have a good one.
Speaker 1: So great to hear Bradley Moss's assessment there. I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: watching it, Emily, I've had no clue which way things
Speaker 1: are going to go, and I'm.
Speaker 5: Not the legal expert.
Speaker 1: So good to hear his analysis there. And even you know,
Speaker 1: just to he's like, you know, resistance pro Joe Biden
Speaker 1: guy but we've found his analysis to be pretty even
Speaker 1: handed when it comes down to it. The other thing
Speaker 1: we wanted to get into is, you know, the big
Speaker 1: question is does this matter politically. CNN's Harry Enton actually
Speaker 1: did a whole analysis that found in terms of the trial,
Speaker 1: there has been basically no movement from in the polls
Speaker 1: from the beginning of the trial to now like literally none.
Speaker 1: So it hasn't mattered from that perspective. The number of
Speaker 1: people who think he's guilty you're not guilty. According to
Speaker 1: CNN their polling has found that hasn't really shifted either.
Speaker 1: But I will say, put a five up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You do have a majority of Americans fifty six percent
Speaker 1: who say he's definitely or probably guilty of a crime
Speaker 1: in the case, and this is of course false flying
Speaker 1: business records to hide a quote unquote hush money payments.
Speaker 1: You've got thirty seven percent who say he's definitely guilty,
Speaker 1: nineteen percent who says probably guilty, twenty one percents who
Speaker 1: say probably not guilty, in twenty three percent who say
Speaker 1: definitely not guilty. It was interesting to hear from Bradley
Speaker 1: that the defense didn't really present a definitely not guilty
Speaker 1: case they presented, well, actually, sorry the converse.
Speaker 5: They did present a like he did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: It was a perfect phone call kind of a defense
Speaker 1: which he felt that the jurors and I think most
Speaker 1: people would find kind of unbelievable the idea he did
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. There were probably stronger avenues for them to
Speaker 1: pursue in terms of just like you know, casting doubt
Speaker 1: on whether it was solely for campaign reasons, and casting
Speaker 1: down on Michael Cohen, etcetera.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And it's funny that CBS question because MPR tested
Speaker 4: this as well. But like the question of is somebody guilt,
Speaker 4: there is Trump specifically guilty of a crime. If I
Speaker 4: were taking that poll and not listening closely, I might
Speaker 4: be like, oh, he's probably guilty, because in my mind,
Speaker 4: I'm thinking probably guilty, yes, of baying of a hush
Speaker 4: paying the hush money to Stormy and having an affair
Speaker 4: with Stormy Daniels well Millennia Trump was pregnant. Do I
Speaker 4: think he's definitely a probably guilty of that, Yes, of
Speaker 4: the crime. That's such an interesting question because even whether
Speaker 4: what he did is a crime is part of what's
Speaker 4: being contested. And Andy McCarthy I was glad to get
Speaker 4: Braley to respond to that, because what any McCarthy is
Speaker 4: saying is that Mershawn hasn't has allowed brag to get
Speaker 4: away with trumping this up to a felony charge as
Speaker 4: an election thing, because you it's only a felony to
Speaker 4: commit this crime of falsifying records if it's in the
Speaker 4: service of a federal violation, so election law in this case,
Speaker 4: and the Trump prosecution just wanted to do the Trump
Speaker 4: campaign strategy without conceding an inch. And that's at least
Speaker 4: mccarthyen It sounds like Bradley I think was their sort
Speaker 4: of fatal mistake here.
Speaker 6: But they're in the defense of the Trump prosecution.
Speaker 4: They would probably say he's probably going to be convicted
Speaker 4: anyway either way. I mean, this Manhattan Jerry is probably
Speaker 4: gonna convict Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Hard to say, like, I still have no idea what's
Speaker 1: going to ultimately happen here, you know. On the political front,
Speaker 1: I think that most normally type voters aren't really getting
Speaker 1: into the nitty gritty of like some of the legal
Speaker 1: arguments you're raising, and like the specifics of how this
Speaker 1: was this novel legal interpreted and required this other crime
Speaker 1: to make this one a felony, et cetera. It's a
Speaker 1: totally Most of it is viewed through the typical lens
Speaker 1: of ed do you feel about Donald Trump?
Speaker 5: Like do you think he's a criminal or not?
Speaker 1: And most of that is going to come down to
Speaker 1: partisan affiliation. Now, I do think that there is on
Speaker 1: the margin some like you know, people feel, and I
Speaker 1: think rightly feel that.
Speaker 5: Like the document's case, it's.
Speaker 1: Kind of open and shut, like it's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to deny that there were some real problems the way
Speaker 1: he handled that whole situation, obstructing justice and whatever. Even
Speaker 1: if the original keeping of the documents was an innocent mistake,
Speaker 1: the fact that you went to these great lengths to
Speaker 1: cover it up, I think most people look at that like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's something wrong there, and also they know the way
Speaker 1: that other people who have mishandled classified documents have been treated.
Speaker 1: But in general, when you look at the polling, there
Speaker 1: actually isn't all that much difference between how people view
Speaker 1: these different cases. It's mostly just filtered through the lens
Speaker 1: of do you think Donald Trump is a criminal? Do
Speaker 1: you not think he's a criminal. And that's why there
Speaker 1: hasn't been a lot of polling shift over the course
Speaker 1: of this child this case. First of all, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of other things going in the world. I don't
Speaker 1: think people have dug into this that much. I just
Speaker 1: don't think that they're paying that much attention.
Speaker 5: They already know.
Speaker 1: How they feel about Donald Trump. So the only question
Speaker 1: that remains is like, Okay, if he's actually convicted of
Speaker 1: a felony, does that hit in a different way than
Speaker 1: just thinking that he's guilty of a felony.
Speaker 5: And I don't really think so.
Speaker 1: I don't really think this is going to move the
Speaker 1: needle really one way or another. Probably, but I can't
Speaker 1: say what with one hundred percent certainty.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's the right take.
Speaker 4: I mean, when a former president is actually sentenced, I mean,
Speaker 4: this is not something that we've seen, like Nixon was
Speaker 4: pardoned and people were upset about it at the time,
Speaker 4: although people look back on it now as like a
Speaker 4: noble decision by Gerald Ford. It's we haven't seen a
Speaker 4: former president gets sentenced to four years potentially, as Bradley
Speaker 4: was just talking to us about.
Speaker 6: And I don't think we know how we're going to
Speaker 6: react to that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree, with you that if I had to
Speaker 4: put money down, I would say probably, this doesn't move
Speaker 4: the needle a lot. If anything, the NPR point mentioned
Speaker 4: earlier found like fifteen percent of Republicans said that this
Speaker 4: makes them more likely to.
Speaker 6: Support Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: And to the extent that the Bragg case has mattered
Speaker 4: at all in the election. People forget that the Ron
Speaker 4: DeSantis bump that he had going into the primary disappeared
Speaker 4: when Alvin Bragg, Like that's when his numbers started going down.
Speaker 4: Is when brought this case or the news that Brag
Speaker 4: was going to bring this case. As that happened, Trump's
Speaker 4: numbers went up to Santus's numbers went down. So I
Speaker 4: think it did really have an effect in that sense.
Speaker 4: But I agree, I think it's probably people are hard
Speaker 4: in their positions and like the general election, at this point,
Speaker 4: it's not, if anything, it makes Donald Trump getting sentenced
Speaker 4: to four years in prison, I think it could hurt
Speaker 4: undecided independent support for him, but I think it could
Speaker 4: help his turnout, and that's going to be pretty critical.
Speaker 1: I think it's very unlikely he's a sentenced to a
Speaker 1: significant person term, but even if it's three months, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's person you know, you're thinking about when we did
Speaker 1: the Republican focus group, and you know, you had a
Speaker 1: room full of people who were real Republicans, not Rhinos,
Speaker 1: and even some of the people who were Trump first
Speaker 1: in the Republican primary context, when it was like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: what if he's facing prison time, they're like, I.
Speaker 5: Just that's too much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But I think you made the most important point,
Speaker 1: which is, like, I think people are very bad at
Speaker 1: anticipating how they're going to react to certain things until
Speaker 1: they happen, and so I've been really skeptical of all
Speaker 1: these polls that have said like, oh, well, if he's
Speaker 1: convicted and if he's facing prison time, then you know,
Speaker 1: fifty percent of voters say that they're out and they're
Speaker 1: not going to vote for him. I just I don't
Speaker 1: think people know before they see it for themselves. So
Speaker 1: again I don't put out of the realm of possibility
Speaker 1: that it could have some sort of significant electoral impact.
Speaker 1: But if Democrats are butting the farm on this one,
Speaker 1: I think they better find a different farm or whatever,
Speaker 1: which they.
Speaker 4: Ended up bringing to all of the other cases, and
Speaker 4: now all of the other cases are just not going
Speaker 4: to I mean, probably the right One of the most
Speaker 4: important things to say here is that a lot of
Speaker 4: these other cases are not going to be tried before
Speaker 4: the election, and that was Democrats really intentionally. Basically, we're
Speaker 4: throwing everything at the wall to see what would stick legally,
Speaker 4: and it's not hard to find, you know, questionable legal
Speaker 4: decisions by Donald Trump, who as we're going to talk about.
Speaker 4: We even have video from twenty six in twenty fifteen
Speaker 4: in the next block off donald Trump being like, I
Speaker 4: know the system. I alone can fix it because I
Speaker 4: am part of the corrupt system of American business and politics.
Speaker 6: You know. It's just it's not that hard to see
Speaker 6: what sticks.
Speaker 4: And that was their strategy and this is the only
Speaker 4: one they're probably going to have before November.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 1: All right, so we'll see how it all plays out.
Speaker 1: And let's go ahead and get to that news about
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 4: It was a really interesting New Washington Post report out
Speaker 4: by Josh Dassie. We can put this headline up on
Speaker 4: the screen about the campaign strategy that Donald Trump is
Speaker 4: using behind closed doors in fundraisers.
Speaker 6: I think one key part.
Speaker 4: Of this report, Crystal is Trump is allegedly telling a
Speaker 4: lot of these billionaire donors.
Speaker 6: Basically, I'm not happy with two to three million.
Speaker 4: I think he says he's quote not very happy if
Speaker 4: they only give.
Speaker 6: Two to three million.
Speaker 4: He wants more like twenty five million dollars from some
Speaker 4: of his top donors. And as he's making those asks,
Speaker 4: he's also unsurprisingly mentioning that his tax cuts will expire
Speaker 4: seven months and that Joe Biden won't renew them. The
Speaker 4: Post makes an interesting point, Crystal that because of the
Speaker 4: Bob McDonald case, you're a Virginian, so you probably remember
Speaker 4: this question of the quid pro quo that unless Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is explicit and saying if you give me twenty
Speaker 4: five million dollars, I will cut your taxes, it's legally permissible,
Speaker 4: which is somewhat amusing as a reality because we all
Speaker 4: know what.
Speaker 6: He means when he says that.
Speaker 4: In fact, he has been pretty open about making that
Speaker 4: pitch to wealthy individuals. I think Kyle did Kyle flag
Speaker 4: this next sot We're going to roll into it in
Speaker 4: just one second. Just that's a little teaser. Stay with us,
Speaker 4: because it goes back to twenty sixteen, actually goes back
Speaker 4: to twenty fifteen. This is another report from Washington post,
Speaker 4: we can go ahead put B two up on the screen.
Speaker 4: He's also telling people that he is telling donors he's
Speaker 4: going to crush pro Palestinian protests. He's going to deport demonstrators.
Speaker 4: We know that that's actually a big priority of some
Speaker 4: new big donors that have flocked to the Republican Party
Speaker 4: since October seventh. We've seen, you know, people sort of
Speaker 4: in the mold of Bill Ackman become curious about giving
Speaker 4: more money to Republicans than they had in the past,
Speaker 4: some of them very openly because of what they saw
Speaker 4: in college campuses after October seventh. And you know, if
Speaker 4: you're looking for someone to give money to, Donald Trump
Speaker 4: might be your guy, because, as he's going to explain
Speaker 4: in this hilarious mashup flag by Kyle, people know exactly
Speaker 4: what they're going to get from him.
Speaker 6: Take a look.
Speaker 8: I just remember it's very important. All of this money
Speaker 8: that I was talking about a little while ago, all
Speaker 8: of that money comes from my friends, guys that I know.
Speaker 8: I used to be one of them. I know the
Speaker 8: system better than anybody. All of that money that's going
Speaker 8: to Hillary and Jeb and Scott and Marco and all
Speaker 8: of them, the people that are putting up that money
Speaker 8: are It's like puppets being being You saw that they
Speaker 8: had it on Jimmy Fallon. I better not do it anymore,
Speaker 8: the bing bing bang bang boom. I was imitating puppets,
Speaker 8: and I said, maybe I shouldn't do that anymore. But
Speaker 8: it's true. They're totally controlled, totally controlled by special interests,
Speaker 8: lobbyists and donors. They're totally.
Speaker 6: When a guy gives.
Speaker 8: A million dollars and much more than that, you know
Speaker 8: some give much more. But do you think they're talking
Speaker 8: about like nothing, they're talking turkey, They're talking lots of
Speaker 8: different things. And with me, I don't need anybody's money.
Speaker 8: I don't want anybody's money.
Speaker 9: So a lot of times, a lot of times, that's
Speaker 9: all of his donors and special interests out there.
Speaker 3: So that's what it is.
Speaker 9: That's what And by the way, let me just tell
Speaker 9: you we needed tickets.
Speaker 3: You can't get them.
Speaker 9: You know who has the tickets for the I'm talking
Speaker 9: about to the television audience, donors, special interests, the people
Speaker 9: that are putting up the money for it is the
Speaker 9: RNC told us we have all donors in the audience,
Speaker 9: and the reason they're not loving me. The reason they're
Speaker 9: not excuse me, the reason they're not loving me is
Speaker 9: I don't want their money.
Speaker 3: I'm going to do the right thing for the American public.
Speaker 9: I don't want their money.
Speaker 7: I don't need their money.
Speaker 9: And I'm the only one up here that can say that.
Speaker 4: So that was obviously a mashup from the twenty sixteen
Speaker 4: Republican primary. You heard Donald Trump in a debate, you
Speaker 4: heard him also on a campaign stop in New Hampshire
Speaker 4: and Crystal. It's actually a pretty interesting about face for
Speaker 4: Donald Trump with these two reports from the Washington Post. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and I say about face, but it's you know, it's
Speaker 4: always been his point that I alone can fix it.
Speaker 4: I know the system, and I alone can fix it.
Speaker 4: The quote that was just played there, I know the
Speaker 4: system better than anybody, because Donald Trump said I've played
Speaker 4: this system for years. At the same time as he
Speaker 4: was saying that, he said in that video, I don't
Speaker 4: need anybody's money. And the cool thing about that clip,
Speaker 4: it just reminded me of how huge a part of
Speaker 4: that pitch, right it was about his attraction for voters,
Speaker 4: Like if you talked to voters back in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 4: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6: They loved that Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: They felt like he was not beholden to any special interests.
Speaker 4: Now that he's been in this position of power, he
Speaker 4: defeated whatever you think about him, defeated the establishment in
Speaker 4: these presidential primaries in twenty sixteen, defeated Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 4: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6: He is now begging for donor cash because he does
Speaker 6: need their money.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he's just dropped the pretense. And it
Speaker 1: was always a pretense. But I think people forget what
Speaker 1: a powerful part of his pitch in twenty sixteen, this
Speaker 1: was historying the swamp right. Listen, I've been there. I
Speaker 1: know these people. I know what they think they're getting
Speaker 1: with that money, and I'm not part of that. I
Speaker 1: can fund myself now. He never actually did that to
Speaker 1: any significant extent, So it was always a lie.
Speaker 4: Although he had way less money, he spent less than
Speaker 4: Hillary Clinton did.
Speaker 1: But one of the things, there's a few things that
Speaker 1: are different now. Number one, at that point he actually
Speaker 1: had to try to appeal to people. Now, it's sort
Speaker 1: of like locked in his supporters on the Republican side,
Speaker 1: they are one hundred percent locked in, and in a
Speaker 1: sort of reverse effect, of what the Democrats are doing.
Speaker 1: In a certain sense, he's running against how bad Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is. In the same way Joe Biden is running
Speaker 1: against how bad Donald Trump is. So the pretense of
Speaker 1: being any sort of anti establishment populist figure is gone.
Speaker 1: It's also very difficult to sustain when your primary accomplishment
Speaker 1: as president was giving tax cuts to a bunch of
Speaker 1: rich people. So the brazen nature with which he's going
Speaker 1: out and courting these billionaires is I mean, it's really something.
Speaker 1: And listen, Joe Biden is out courting billionaires too. Both
Speaker 1: parties definitely out there courting billionaires, especially these two candidates,
Speaker 1: because Joe Biden has never had a grassroots fundraising base
Speaker 1: to tap. Donald Trump used to, but his is also
Speaker 1: greatly greatly diminished to the extent that he has been
Speaker 1: really dramatically out fundraised by Joe Biden. Plus a bunch
Speaker 1: of his money is going to legal bills. So there
Speaker 1: are a few ways in which this pushes the limits
Speaker 1: of campaign finance law. One is, like Emily was saying,
Speaker 1: I mean, he goes in a room full of rich
Speaker 1: people and he's like, give me money, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to make sure you get your tax cuts. He goes
Speaker 1: in a room full of oil industry executives and says, literally,
Speaker 1: raise me a billion dollars and I'll cut all the
Speaker 1: regulations that you want. Trust me, your money will be
Speaker 1: more than made up for under my administration. Goes in
Speaker 1: a room full of New York donors who're very interested
Speaker 1: in crushing these pro Palestinian protests and say, hey, I'm
Speaker 1: going to set that movement back thirty years if you
Speaker 1: give money to me. So these very direct promises, but
Speaker 1: also you're actually not allowed to ask directly for those
Speaker 1: sums of money because listen, the system is very byzantine
Speaker 1: and you know, bizarre. But the candidate into the direct
Speaker 1: candidate campaign, you can't raise millions of dollars. So you
Speaker 1: can do a fundraising event for your pack that can
Speaker 1: raise millions of dollars, but you can't directly make the ask.
Speaker 1: So that's how these pushing the Do I expect there
Speaker 1: to be any consequences for that, No, because, as you
Speaker 1: were pointing out, Emily, the Supreme Court is just basically
Speaker 1: decided like there is no such thing as corruption. Bob
Speaker 1: Menandez is testing that out right now. If you literally
Speaker 1: are getting gold bars in exchange for like business deals.
Speaker 1: Does that, you know, does that meet the bar of
Speaker 1: corruption that the standard that's been said by the Supreme Court?
Speaker 5: Possibly yes on that one.
Speaker 4: The trail blazer, he's blazing that trail for other olive arcs.
Speaker 1: To make sure that they can get those gold bars
Speaker 1: when and how they want to.
Speaker 6: God bless Bob Mann does.
Speaker 5: That's really the bottom line.
Speaker 6: They're doing the lord's work, Awes.
Speaker 1: But I also think, you know, there's something to the
Speaker 1: fact that now he's just letting it all hang out.
Speaker 1: He needs the money. There's a level of desperation to it.
Speaker 1: So it is it is something to behold the as
Speaker 1: you put it about face, because he just he doesn't
Speaker 1: talk at all like he used to in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Twenty sixteen, there's something's rhetorically that you know, you could say, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's a populist position rhetorically, and people that was a
Speaker 1: big part of his appeal that at this point is
Speaker 1: all gone.
Speaker 4: But he said something so interesting too, which is that
Speaker 4: people's positions on Trump and Biden are so polarized that
Speaker 4: they're basically locked in. Even that Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 4: is talking in a way so different from how he
Speaker 4: campaigned in twenty sixteen on an issue exactly like this,
Speaker 4: which I do think just thinking back to then, it's
Speaker 4: very interesting to remember how average voters were attracted to
Speaker 4: Trump because in so many cases people would say, listen,
Speaker 4: he's not beholden to the special interest He's talking in
Speaker 4: the debate video about the special interests, and it's just
Speaker 4: a I mean, it's a billionaire arms race. We forget
Speaker 4: how kind of unique twenty sixteen was, and that Donald
Speaker 4: Trump spent a good chunk of change less than Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 4: which is extremely rare in a big presidential race. It's
Speaker 4: basically always tied, even if they there's you know, some
Speaker 4: marginal differences. But he really was outspent by Hillary Clinton
Speaker 4: in part because people like the billionaires, a lot of
Speaker 4: billionaires were just not comfortable with him. They didn't know
Speaker 4: what to expect from him. Yeah, now he's like, I
Speaker 4: got you the tax cut.
Speaker 1: Well that's the other piece is the billionaire class is
Speaker 1: more comfortable with him now. Now he always had a
Speaker 1: certain number of billionaires supporting him, but now we've even
Speaker 1: seen people like Jamie Diamond signals like, yeah, I'd be
Speaker 1: okay with another Trump administration. I think a few things happened.
Speaker 1: Number one, those tax cuts. Number two, that set really
Speaker 1: hates the Biden administration's position on anti trust. And I
Speaker 1: mean you just only have to look at the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. How many editorials mans Dollar Keeps count have
Speaker 1: they run against Lena con Or, like a whole project
Speaker 1: one hundred. It is insane the number of editorials that
Speaker 1: they've written about Lenikon specifically, because they hate that there
Speaker 1: is any obstacle to this, you know, giant proliferation of
Speaker 1: monopolies that has taken over our higher economy and so on.
Speaker 5: That and also on labor.
Speaker 1: These are major, major rubs with the billionaire class, and
Speaker 1: Trump was incredibly friendly to them. And you know, oil
Speaker 1: industry executives know they're going to get what they want
Speaker 1: from a Donald Trump administration. Your average runn of the
Speaker 1: middle billionaire knows they're going to get.
Speaker 5: Their tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Whatever oligarchs want to see their monopolies continue to grow
Speaker 1: and flourish, they're going to get that under a Trump
Speaker 1: administration versus Biden administration. So you know, I think that's
Speaker 1: part of why there's such a just overt comfort with
Speaker 1: him this time around, where last time they just weren't sure, right,
Speaker 1: there was at least enough of a populis pitch that
Speaker 1: they're like, I don't know, and uncertainty and chaos, it's
Speaker 1: bad for business. Now it's like, no, we know what
Speaker 1: we got last time, and it was great for us.
Speaker 5: It worked out perfectly well for us.
Speaker 6: Yeah, No, I mean I think that's right.
Speaker 4: I'm sure there's a pretty obvious argument from Trump's behalf
Speaker 4: that he ideologically agrees with tax cuts and he ideologically
Speaker 4: agrees with oil executive, so he'd be interested in, you know,
Speaker 4: giving them their leases and all that stuff anyway. But
Speaker 4: it's another thing to make that clear at the donor meetings, like, yeah,
Speaker 4: you know you know where I am on oil, right,
Speaker 4: mister oile executive. Well you know where Joe Biden is
Speaker 4: on oil, right? I mean it's it does get into
Speaker 4: Bob McDonald's territory.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but they all do it.
Speaker 1: They really do all do it, absolutely no thought about it.
Speaker 10: All.
Speaker 6: Right, So let's move on to another Washington Post story.
Speaker 4: Just reading lots of the Washington Post yesterday, Crystal, this
Speaker 4: is about Joe Biden the DNC. Just actually look at
Speaker 4: this headline. It's kind of funny. It made me laugh.
Speaker 6: DNC prepares to nominate Biden via quote virtual role call
Speaker 6: before convention. This is the lead of the story.
Speaker 4: The DNC is preparing to nominate President Biden as the
Speaker 4: party's presidential nominee through a virtual role call ahead of
Speaker 4: its August convention in Chicago, an unusual step to ensure
Speaker 4: that Biden can meet a deadline to appear on the
Speaker 4: ballot in Ohio. The move comes despite a special legislative
Speaker 4: session in Ohio this week that Governor Mike Dewin, who
Speaker 4: is a Republican, said would resolve the issue. Democrats are
Speaker 4: not optimistic about the special session, given that Dewaine has
Speaker 4: added an unrelated proposal on campaign finance to the agenda
Speaker 4: that Republicans want considered alongside legislation that will allow Biden
Speaker 4: on the ballot. The Washington Post notes it's not the
Speaker 4: first time Democrats finalize their presidential not many virtually pointing
Speaker 4: back to twenty twenty. But of course it's not twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: It's twenty twenty four. We're not in the middle of
Speaker 4: a pandemic. And this speaks to perhaps what we can
Speaker 4: take a look at in this next tear street. This
Speaker 4: is pulling results from Rasmuten res Mutant Rasmussen pulling results
Speaker 4: from Rasmussen that has fifty four percent of Democrats now
Speaker 4: approving of taking Biden off the ticket. They think it's
Speaker 4: okay for the Democratic Party to replace Joe Biden before
Speaker 4: the election in November. Including by the way, twenty four
Speaker 4: percent of those voters who quote strongly approve with that
Speaker 4: and only I think this is also interesting, Crystal, only
Speaker 4: thirty seven percent who disapprove, only twenty three percent who
Speaker 4: strongly disapprove. Those are those are dark numbers for Joe
Speaker 4: Biden that kind of match what he's seeing on the
Speaker 4: campaign trail. As Stephen Nelson of The New York Post
Speaker 4: tweeted yesterday, these are images from a Biden campaign stop
Speaker 4: in Philadelphia.
Speaker 6: Philadelphia rally. Stephen puts it, it's about half full. Look
Speaker 6: at all of that empty space.
Speaker 4: If you're listening to this, it's a gymnasium, and half
Speaker 4: full I think is actually yeah, half full, this is
Speaker 4: That's one way to put it. And finally, even in
Speaker 4: the state of Virginia, a lot of Washington Posts in
Speaker 4: Virginia coverage this or day. A Roanoke College poll found
Speaker 4: that Biden and Trump are tied in Virginia, and that's.
Speaker 6: At forty two. Forty two. These numbers are atrocious.
Speaker 4: So that's a state that I think Biden went by
Speaker 4: close to ton points.
Speaker 1: I think that's right close to time point.
Speaker 6: I mean right now.
Speaker 1: The conversation after last election in Virginia was like, oh,
Speaker 1: Virginia's is a blue state now, like it's over and
Speaker 1: then you get Glenn youngin that wins and that starts
Speaker 1: to like, oh, maybe it's more of a purple state still.
Speaker 1: But if Joe Biden is tied in Virginia, if this
Speaker 1: is any we're close to accurate.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's just it's.
Speaker 1: A rough and Virginia, you know, being a native Virginian
Speaker 1: and having a good sense of the politics there. As
Speaker 1: the northern Virginia suburbs have grown, they have really become
Speaker 1: the dominant political force in the state.
Speaker 5: And those are exactly the like suburban, mostly.
Speaker 1: White, affluent, college educated voters that Democrats are supposed to
Speaker 1: be flourishing with at this time. So if you're tied
Speaker 1: in Virginia, I don't know what the rest of the
Speaker 1: landscape is. Dire Now this is all the caveats, it's early.
Speaker 1: It could be wrong, et cetera, et cetera. We'll see,
Speaker 1: but it is yet another warning sign and yet another
Speaker 1: reason why now a majority of Democrats are like, maybe
Speaker 1: I wish it'd switch the candidates.
Speaker 5: Still, that's not happening. Don't get your hopes up.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's astonishing sign of weakness that within
Speaker 1: this is an incumbent president, Like it should be a
Speaker 1: no brainer that this is your guy going forward, but
Speaker 1: it is actually a no brainer that he is incredibly
Speaker 1: weak when you compare him to literally every Democratic Senate
Speaker 1: candidate is outperforming him in the states where they're running.
Speaker 5: You know, the online convention situation.
Speaker 1: Their excuse is this Ohio situation that gave them a
Speaker 1: good excuse to do this online. But we had already
Speaker 1: seen these rumblings of maybe we're going to move a
Speaker 1: bunch of the convention online because we're nervous about what
Speaker 1: the protests are are going to do, Like we don't
Speaker 1: want those disruptions, you know, we're concerned about that. They're
Speaker 1: terrified of going out and even doing campaign rallies. They're
Speaker 1: terrified of speaking on college campuses because of the protest movement,
Speaker 1: and so Ohio gave them a convenient excuse the Ohio
Speaker 1: governors like, we're doing a special section session. We're going
Speaker 1: to fix the problem so that you can be on
Speaker 1: the ballot. Right, But they're pretending like there's some sort
Speaker 1: of a poison pill and this is a trick and
Speaker 1: they're not going to leave it up to the Ohio Republicans.
Speaker 1: The thing, by the way, Emily, that they're considering this
Speaker 1: campaign finance change that they're considering to be a quote
Speaker 1: unquote poison pill in the Ohio Special Legislative Session is
Speaker 1: like to ban foreign funding of elections, which I think
Speaker 1: you might be on board with. But anyway, you know,
Speaker 1: the party that's been all concerned about Russian collusion and
Speaker 1: interference whatever, might be on.
Speaker 5: Board with that and democracy, Yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so that's what that's the direction they're going.
Speaker 1: And they're so terrified of their own voters that they're
Speaker 1: doing their nominating convention online.
Speaker 5: It's really it's really something.
Speaker 6: They're afraid of.
Speaker 4: And maybe we can add this in post one of
Speaker 4: my favorite things from the DNC back in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6: They're afraid of Susan Sarandon. The pictures of Susans random
Speaker 6: in the crowd.
Speaker 4: Looking furious as the Bernie protesters like actually stormed the DNC,
Speaker 4: And they know that there's more of that coming, especially
Speaker 4: with the way that Biden and other Biden sergets Kamala Harris,
Speaker 4: have been greeted on college campuses recently. They know that
Speaker 4: that's what awaits them over the course of the summer
Speaker 4: when Biden's out campaigning, especially at major events like a
Speaker 4: nomination thing.
Speaker 1: So, you know, and you've got a number of uncommitted delegates,
Speaker 1: you know, and the uncommitted vote did well enough that
Speaker 1: there is a camera, I think dozens of uncommitted delegates
Speaker 1: who are going to be there on the floor.
Speaker 5: So they want to be able to tightly control that.
Speaker 1: The mayor of Chicago, who's relatively new, and that the
Speaker 1: DNC is going to be held in Chicago. The mayor
Speaker 1: has been very you know, comparatively compared to Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: quite friendly towards the protest movement. He is himself came
Speaker 1: from you know, labor background and the sort of like
Speaker 1: activist background, So they feel very comfy with the Governor
Speaker 1: of Illinois.
Speaker 5: Jabe Pritzker.
Speaker 1: They feel like he'll do, you know, call in the
Speaker 1: riot cops and do whatever it takes to crush the protests.
Speaker 1: But they're less confident that the Chicago mayor will just like,
Speaker 1: you know, put the boot down the way that they
Speaker 1: want him to.
Speaker 5: So I think that's part also of the calculation.
Speaker 1: Year of why they're moving the nominating portion online. Now.
Speaker 1: They say, there's still going to be like a symbolic
Speaker 1: role call in there, and there's still gonna be stuff
Speaker 1: that's in person at least at this point. But it's
Speaker 1: a measure of how scared they are of their own
Speaker 1: people that you know they're going in this direction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely, And then the polling results bear that out when
Speaker 4: you have likely voters. That ron out College poll was
Speaker 4: of likely voters, So that's not just all adults. These
Speaker 4: are people who are actually likely to vote. You know,
Speaker 4: turnout's going to be a huge problem for them in
Speaker 4: a place like Virginia if you have affluent voters who
Speaker 4: are just less motivated to go out there and pull
Speaker 4: the lever for Biden, maybe because they're on one side of.
Speaker 6: The Israel war or another.
Speaker 4: You know, Biden hasn't really made either side happy throughout
Speaker 4: the course of the last half year or so on
Speaker 4: that so it's got a real problem.
Speaker 5: I think the key thing.
Speaker 1: Looking in that Virginia polling, they ask people whether they
Speaker 1: saw the Trump years as mostly good for the country
Speaker 1: or mostly bad, and he got much better numbers on
Speaker 1: that question than Biden did. Forty four percent said they
Speaker 1: view the Trump years as mostly good and thirty three
Speaker 1: percent said mostly bad. The Biden years only twenty five
Speaker 1: percent said mostly good and forty seven percent said mostly bad.
Speaker 1: So listen, I think there's you know, some rose colored glasses.
Speaker 5: In fact, I've.
Speaker 1: Been questioning whether our typical view historic view of incumbency
Speaker 1: has sort of flipped on its head where now because
Speaker 1: people are just so dissatisfied with where the country is.
Speaker 1: In general, being an incumbent is a disadvantage in a
Speaker 1: sense because people feel what they feel right now and
Speaker 1: they directly blame the present for it, just like you
Speaker 1: know with Trump, and that was blamed to be had
Speaker 1: for his handling of COVID. But I think part of
Speaker 1: the reason why he was defeated last time was because
Speaker 1: the power of incumbency was sort of flipped on its
Speaker 1: head where it was like, actually, it's a.
Speaker 5: Downside that you're in office right now.
Speaker 1: And I do think that's part of what's going on
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden and Donald Trump right now.
Speaker 5: But I also think that there's a reality.
Speaker 1: We've showed a lot of the charts on this show,
Speaker 1: people's net worth, you know, not declining, the social safety
Speaker 1: net from COVID being completely dismantled in the Trump in
Speaker 1: the Biden era, the child tax credit, things that really
Speaker 1: bolster people, all of that going away. At the same time,
Speaker 1: you have inflation spiking, and you know that's getting involved
Speaker 1: in foreign wars, and people, however they feel about those wars,
Speaker 1: feeling like you're more focused on that than you are
Speaker 1: on me. Those things are are legitimate, So there's there
Speaker 1: are legitimate reasons why people feel like, you know what,
Speaker 1: it was better for me back then, however they feel
Speaker 1: about the personality or the capabilities of either of these men.
Speaker 4: Trump promising billionaires tax cuts and oil leases. Biden hobbling
Speaker 4: from campaign stop to campaign stop.
Speaker 6: We are so lucky, We're.
Speaker 1: Just the glories of democracy. Incredible, such a choice we've
Speaker 1: got here.
Speaker 6: What a wonderful year, What a time to be alive.
Speaker 4: Well inspiring, speaking of those were in conflicts crystals, move
Speaker 4: on to Israel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we've got a lot to update you on here.
Speaker 1: Let's put this for a first piece up on the screen,
Speaker 1: which is probably the most significant. Israel's National security advisor
Speaker 1: just announced he expects Israel's military operations in Gaza to
Speaker 1: continue through at least the end of the year, pearing
Speaker 1: to dismiss The New York Times writes the idea that
Speaker 1: the war could come to an end after the military
Speaker 1: offensive against Hmas in Rafa. Quote, we expect another seven
Speaker 1: months of combat in order to shore up our achievement
Speaker 1: and realize what we define as the destruction of Hamas
Speaker 1: and Islami Chiahad's military and governing capabilities. Emily, there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion about how Netnahu has every incentive
Speaker 1: to keep this war going, zero incentive to end the war.
Speaker 1: He himself has benefited politically. His numbers are still not great,
Speaker 1: but they're actually sort of coming back up, ticking back
Speaker 1: up post October seventh because some of the outrage and
Speaker 1: the horror at the fact that October seventh happened on
Speaker 1: his watch in spite of him being mister Secure, some
Speaker 1: of that has faded away, and there's been a bit
Speaker 1: of a rally around the flag effect, so his numbers
Speaker 1: have started to tick back up, and he also has
Speaker 1: continued corruption charges hanging over his head that he's going
Speaker 1: to have to reckon with too whenever this war ends.
Speaker 1: So a lot has justifiably been made of how he
Speaker 1: has every incentive to keep this thing going, but many
Speaker 1: others do as well. Anyone who was in any position
Speaker 1: of power on October seventh has an incentive to, you know,
Speaker 1: keep it going. So there's no reckoning with the failures
Speaker 1: that occurred in the security and intelligence establishment in Israel
Speaker 1: on that day, And anyone who's had a hand in
Speaker 1: the horrific prosecution of this war has an incentive to
Speaker 1: keep it going. Because in spite of them talking here
Speaker 1: emily about you know, we need to shore up our achievement,
Speaker 1: our victory whatever, there has been really no achievement. There
Speaker 1: has been no victory unless you just define that as
Speaker 1: total and complete annihilation. Hamas is being able to reconstitute,
Speaker 1: They're being able to recruit thousands of new fighters. There's
Speaker 1: still something like sixty percent of the tunnel network that
Speaker 1: is still operable. These you have hostages who are still
Speaker 1: being held, who are being killed by the way by
Speaker 1: the IDF the longer that this goes on. So in
Speaker 1: terms of providing security for Israelis, in terms of the
Speaker 1: purported goal of quote unquote destroying Hamas, which was always impossible,
Speaker 1: they've basically gotten nowhere over these many months. And so
Speaker 1: everyone who's been involved in this war has every incentive
Speaker 1: in the world to keep it going, to avoid a
Speaker 1: reckoning with what an incredible failure this has been, even
Speaker 1: from an Israeli point.
Speaker 4: Of view, Yeah, I mean talk about the potential for
Speaker 4: a quagmire. I mean what's happening right now, just bulldozing,
Speaker 4: turning into a parking lot, the swath of land, creating
Speaker 4: so many refugees, the humanitarian crisis as a response from
Speaker 4: a kind of realist foreign policy perspective, and I know,
Speaker 4: n Sozacker, I've talked about this. I mean, it doesn't
Speaker 4: even Ryan and I talked about this yesterday. Does it
Speaker 4: make the Israeli people safer?
Speaker 6: No? In the long term, No.
Speaker 4: Because if this goal is the unattainable ambition of quote
Speaker 4: annihilating Hamas, and the way the war has been prosecuted
Speaker 4: so far, if you take those two things and have
Speaker 4: your primary benefactor of the United States of America say
Speaker 4: they support a two state solution, and your own Prime
Speaker 4: Minister net Yaho's saying absolutely not, we support a one
Speaker 4: state solution because you're not compatible partners for a war,
Speaker 4: even though the United States continues to be a partner
Speaker 4: or try to be a partner. To Netanyaho, none of
Speaker 4: it makes sense, None of it makes sense for any
Speaker 4: like peace resolution imminently that would stop death and destruction,
Speaker 4: that would make the people of Israel safer. And you know,
Speaker 4: I guess I feel like it's kind of a luxury
Speaker 4: personally to be over here and not over there, and
Speaker 4: you know, get to sort of analyze it. I understand
Speaker 4: where Israelis are coming from. It's a it's a horrible situation.
Speaker 4: But this is not making anybody safer in the long term.
Speaker 4: It's just obviously not making anybody safer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anyone who I think is looking at this subjectively
Speaker 1: has to say that from the beginning. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not to justify any sort of extremism, but your mother,
Speaker 1: brother's sister, cousin, on a goal, whoever that you love
Speaker 1: and close to murdered in a horrific way, babies incinerated
Speaker 1: and intense. How do you think that's gonna you know,
Speaker 1: stoke your heart for peace and love towards the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Of course not, of course not, and so that's why
Speaker 1: we even have US intelligence officials saying, hey, Hamas has
Speaker 1: been able to recruit thousands of people just in the
Speaker 1: past several months, even under conditions of war. So, you know,
Speaker 1: just a dramatic failure, even from an Israeli perspective. Putting
Speaker 1: aside obviously the you know, horror and the immorality, and
Speaker 1: the fact too that Israel at this point is almost
Speaker 1: completely isolated in the world. The US is increasingly isolated
Speaker 1: in the world. Now we're better able to withstand it
Speaker 1: because we are still a superpower. Although you know, multipolarity
Speaker 1: is increasingly the reality in the world. We're accelerating that
Speaker 1: shift to multipolarity with the you know, obvious hypocrisy that
Speaker 1: we've displayed in disregard for our purported concern for humanitarianism
Speaker 1: and international law, et cetera. But you know, for Israel,
Speaker 1: there there will be some sort of reckoning, and for
Speaker 1: this government there will be some sort of reckoning at
Speaker 1: some point, we just don't know when. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it's becoming more and more difficult to defend things like
Speaker 1: again babies being incinerated inside of tents where they've been displaced,
Speaker 1: to when a purported in a place that they thought
Speaker 1: was a safe zone.
Speaker 5: But Joe Scarborough is.
Speaker 1: Doing his best, he's having to go back and rewrite history,
Speaker 1: and you claim that actually we won the Vietnam and
Speaker 1: the Iraq wars in order to somehow defend the Israeli
Speaker 1: actions here. Let's take a listen to what he had
Speaker 1: to say recently.
Speaker 3: What is Israel to do?
Speaker 11: Are they supposed to just sit there while conditions in
Speaker 11: Rawa get worse while the possibility of famine spreads and
Speaker 11: while Hamas regrouped. I mean, let's just state the obvious.
Speaker 11: The United States would never do this. We didn't do
Speaker 11: this in Mosul. We didn't do this in Afghanistan. We
Speaker 11: didn't do this in Iraq. We didn't do this in Vietnam.
Speaker 11: We didn't do this in World War Two. If we
Speaker 11: were struck, we struck back until we won the war.
Speaker 11: So I guess what confuses me is what is it
Speaker 11: in the United States or Israel's best interest that Israel
Speaker 11: just sits outside of Rafa and this suffering continues indefinitely,
Speaker 11: Or do they go in.
Speaker 3: And kill hamas terrorists.
Speaker 1: There is so much about that that drives me insane.
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, he oh, they just sit
Speaker 1: back and let people suffer. Now they are causing the suffering.
Speaker 1: The starvation isn't just happening. They're blocking the aid, and
Speaker 1: aid has dropped something like sixty percent since they invaded Rapa,
Speaker 1: by the way, and you already had people who were
Speaker 1: starving to this. That's number one. Obviously, the claim that
Speaker 1: we won in a ra in Vietnam, or that our
Speaker 1: approach there was great for us are great for the
Speaker 1: world is utterly preposterous. But you know, that's where we
Speaker 1: are now that they have to try to rewrite history.
Speaker 1: And also there's been this weird thing and I'm sure
Speaker 1: you've probably tracked this as well, of people who are saying, like, well, actually,
Speaker 1: compared to our the horrors and war crimes we did
Speaker 1: Israel is great. It's like, first of all, is that
Speaker 1: really your standard? And second of all, compare Listen, I
Speaker 1: was a huge and am a huge a rock war critic.
Speaker 1: The number of civilians that we slaughtered in Iraq and
Speaker 1: Afghanistan horrific, unacceptable. No one should be using that as
Speaker 1: their standard. However, compared to the civilian death rate in Gaza,
Speaker 1: right now, we look like angels. We look like the
Speaker 1: most moral army on the planet compared to what's going
Speaker 1: on there.
Speaker 5: And even in Mossel, which he brings up. I looked
Speaker 5: at it.
Speaker 1: Again, massive indefensible slaughter. In most ten thousand civilians killed
Speaker 1: for to get roughly four thousand ISIS fighters. That is
Speaker 1: a ratio of seventy percent killed worse civilians. Again, I
Speaker 1: think that is wholly unacceptable. The ratio in Gaza is worse.
Speaker 1: Now we don't know the exact figures, but even with
Speaker 1: a generous reading, it's roughly eighty percent civilians who've been killed,
Speaker 1: and many more thirty five thirty six thousand, forty six
Speaker 1: thousand when you count those buried under the rubble, probably
Speaker 1: many more when you count starvation, illness, disease, et cetera,
Speaker 1: who've been killed in a very short time period. So
Speaker 1: it's just layers of outrageous absurdity, rewriting history, et cetera.
Speaker 6: Well, rewriting history.
Speaker 4: And I'm chuckling while we're talking about this horrible, tragic
Speaker 4: situation because Mika Berziski's father is obviously one of the
Speaker 4: most famous key Cold warriors. So when you have Joe
Speaker 4: Scarborough mentioning Mosil, mentioning Vietnam, he's sitting next to the
Speaker 4: daughter of again like one of the most notorious Cold
Speaker 4: War and I would say not in a good way.
Speaker 4: I mean, he bragged about being the sort of brains
Speaker 4: behind the idea in the Carter administration to start funding
Speaker 4: the muja Hadeen in Afghanistan.
Speaker 6: I mean, this goes back back decades and I.
Speaker 4: Think it speaks to how entrenched the foreign policy establishment
Speaker 4: is in defending fifty years of field policy.
Speaker 1: Have you seen any of the clips though of as
Speaker 1: a big New Brazinski Mika's dad lecturing Joe on Israel.
Speaker 1: I have not, Oh should, I'm gonna send you some things,
Speaker 1: because there there are. There's at least one interview where
Speaker 1: he just goes in on Joe. He's like, honestly, your
Speaker 1: understanding of this conflict is embarrassing. And because Joe has
Speaker 1: all the basically like the Hillary Clinton version of events
Speaker 1: in terms of the peace negotiations, that it was like
Speaker 1: all you know in Oslo that it was all one side,
Speaker 1: it was all the Palestinians walking away and anyway, Mika's
Speaker 1: dad really puts some of his place in a way
Speaker 1: that is quite remarkable.
Speaker 5: So I highly recommend.
Speaker 1: You check out those clips because they are quite quite enjoyable.
Speaker 5: I just reference something that's this worth digging into more.
Speaker 1: Again, we really don't know exactly what the death toll
Speaker 1: is in Gaza, but there's a lot of talk about,
Speaker 1: because it's the health Ministry, which is Hamas controlled, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: that perhaps the death toll is being overstated. There are
Speaker 1: a lot increasing numbers of experts who are saying it's
Speaker 1: much more likely that it's actually being understated. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This is from Haretz, again,
Speaker 1: Israeli newspaper. This is an opinion piece from a number
Speaker 1: of experts that we have three different experts that we
Speaker 1: are two different experts that we have here. They say
Speaker 1: why Gaza's death toll is probably higher than reported, the
Speaker 1: scope of the killing as well as the incidents of
Speaker 1: illness and deaths due to lack of basic sanitary conditions, food,
Speaker 1: medical care demand and urgent public debate in Israel. They
Speaker 1: go on to write here, the fatality numbers in the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip for the past five months are appalling. According
Speaker 1: to the UN, over thirty four thousand people have been killed,
Speaker 1: over seventy seven thousand wounded, another eleven thousand trapped under
Speaker 1: the rubble considered missing. This is just part of the picture.
Speaker 1: We believe the morbidity and fatality numbers in Gaza are
Speaker 1: actually higher. Our conclusion is based on comparisons with the
Speaker 1: public health challenges in refugee camps immediately after the nineteen
Speaker 1: forty eight war and familiarity with epidemiological data in general.
Speaker 1: We believe that the scope of the killing, as well
Speaker 1: as the incidents of illness and deaths due to a
Speaker 1: lack of basic sanitary conditions, food and medical care demand,
Speaker 1: and urgent public debate in Israel. Some of the things
Speaker 1: that they note here is that, according again to the UN,
Speaker 1: around thirty one percent of kids under two in northern
Speaker 1: Gaza and around ten percent in Rafa suffering from severe malnourishment.
Speaker 1: And we've had yet another massive aid cut with the
Speaker 1: failure of the fricking Peer but also more significantly with
Speaker 1: the closure of the Rafa Crossing. Numbers of dead due
Speaker 1: to starvation, they say, are not yet known clear. Many
Speaker 1: people are suffering irreversible damage. People who subsist on weeds
Speaker 1: and livestock feed for months will not survive long and
Speaker 1: only they compare it to the response to the Nakba
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty eight and the provisions that provided for
Speaker 1: refugees at that time, the huge concern about the spread
Speaker 1: of disease, the provisioning of you know, significant amounts of
Speaker 1: food and water and aid in that way as well.
Speaker 1: And they're saying they're not doing anything close to what
Speaker 1: was being done even in nineteen forty eight, which was
Speaker 1: also a whore And we know that there were huge
Speaker 1: numbers of deaths that resulted from those unsanitary conditions at
Speaker 1: the time. So one can only imagine what is happening
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that's I think an important point in of
Speaker 4: itself that we actually really don't know, we really like
Speaker 4: the full extent the scope of what's happening. Yeah, someone
Speaker 4: mentioned this the other day. We actually didn't have a
Speaker 4: death count out of Dresden, like an official death count
Speaker 4: out of Dresden until I don't know, like thirty years ago,
Speaker 4: twenty years ago, something crazy like that.
Speaker 6: It took years to put the.
Speaker 4: To get like a final figure that people were comfortable
Speaker 4: with and so that can go in both directions. And
Speaker 4: so because we don't know, you are a lot of
Speaker 4: people who are supportive of the occursion into Offa saying, well,
Speaker 4: we just we don't know the death toll has been
Speaker 4: so far. You know, the IDEAF says it's doing everything
Speaker 4: to minimize civilian.
Speaker 6: Casualties, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But actually there's a lot of I think significant reason
Speaker 4: to believe that we are missing deaths, that people are
Speaker 4: under the rubble, that you know, there's just there's so
Speaker 4: much destruction that.
Speaker 6: We're missing the full extent of it.
Speaker 4: So for all the the for all the conversations about
Speaker 4: potentially overcounting, really, even as again someone who has generally
Speaker 4: been you know, not necessarily since October seventh, but before that,
Speaker 4: generally pro Israel, I look at this and I think
Speaker 4: people are really missing a big part of the picture.
Speaker 1: Because you asked the question too. I mean, even people
Speaker 1: who have chronic illnesses and they you know, can't get
Speaker 1: their insulin or you know, early on in the conflict,
Speaker 1: we had numbers coming out about huge spike. I think
Speaker 1: it was like by one hundred times the number of
Speaker 1: kids who were suffering from severe diarrhea, which is one
Speaker 1: of the leading causes of death for children around the world.
Speaker 5: So that's not some little thing.
Speaker 1: You have a hospital and healthcare system that is just decimated.
Speaker 1: I mean it is really doesn't even hardly function at
Speaker 1: this point. It's unbelievable what these doctors and nurses are
Speaker 1: able to do.
Speaker 6: There's one hospital in Rafa right now.
Speaker 4: They've closed other hospitals as one remaining hospital functioning right now.
Speaker 1: So in that context, how would you even have any
Speaker 1: idea who is sick, who is dying, what it's a
Speaker 1: result from. And are people who are say dying from
Speaker 1: starvation or dying from a lack of you know, the
Speaker 1: medicine they need for chronic long term conditions, or there
Speaker 1: are no cancer hospitals operative in Gaza anymore.
Speaker 6: Who's maimed for life? Right like who's who's that's right?
Speaker 4: Will never be the same because they lost the leg,
Speaker 4: they less an arm, they lesson I.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think anyone in Gaza will ever be the same, certainly,
Speaker 1: you know, in a certain sense, I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: will ever be the same. So in any case, this
Speaker 1: will be you know, one of the long term reckonings
Speaker 1: of this war is exactly what was the death told,
Speaker 1: because I don't think we have any idea right now.
Speaker 1: There's one other significant piece of military news. This is
Speaker 1: something to track really closely. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: The IDF is announced that they've taken control of that
Speaker 1: border with Egypt, the Gaza Egypt border, right there near Rafa.
Speaker 1: You know, this is very fraught situation. We brought you
Speaker 1: earlier this week, Saga and I covered that at least
Speaker 1: one Egyptian soldier had been killed in an exchange of.
Speaker 5: Fire with the IDF.
Speaker 1: You have the Egyptian government, which you know, in spite
Speaker 1: of whatever rhetoric they might use, is you know, very
Speaker 1: pro Israel. They get tons of money from us and
Speaker 1: they do what we want. That's basically the bottom line
Speaker 1: ever since Camp David. With regards to egypt population, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, feels a very different way, very sympathetic
Speaker 1: to the Palestmine cause. And so you have these Egyptian
Speaker 1: soldiers right there on the border. We're seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: the horrors that are being inflicted in Rafa right now.
Speaker 1: And also interesting Emily that the according Ken Klippenstein, the
Speaker 1: Israeli government won't talk at all about what happened in
Speaker 1: that exchange of fire that led to one Egyptian soldier
Speaker 1: being killed. So this is part of why the dealings
Speaker 1: with Egypt are incredibly fraud and really significant to track.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no, absolutely, absolutely the death of the Egyptian. I mean,
Speaker 6: this week has been.
Speaker 4: A rolling disaster for the Biden administration and their position
Speaker 4: on the conflict, their attempt to publicly walk a fine
Speaker 4: line for the politics of the conflict. It almost defies believability.
Speaker 4: But how bad this last week has been specifically, Well.
Speaker 1: That's a good transition to the next piece here, because
Speaker 1: you've had a real sort of breaking of the dam
Speaker 1: in terms of a mention before. It's becoming increasingly difficult
Speaker 1: to defend Israeli actions, even from people who have been
Speaker 1: very sympathetic. Peers Morgan for example, really coming out strongly
Speaker 1: condemning the attack on Rafa and the you know, dozens
Speaker 1: of Palestinians who were murdered inside of tents. This one
Speaker 1: I didn't see comings So put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Simone Sanders, who you know, was on the Biden campaign
Speaker 1: and then she was in the Biden White House as
Speaker 1: an aid to Kamala Harris. Now at MSNBC and typically
Speaker 1: very much towing still the administration line as if she
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, basically like a Biden administration mouth
Speaker 1: piece over at MSNBC. So for her to tweet out
Speaker 1: any criticism is really noteworthy, and I give her credit
Speaker 1: a huge credit for that. She says the statements from
Speaker 1: some administration officials about not being able to verify what's
Speaker 1: happening in Gaza are absurd. We can all see the pictures.
Speaker 1: It's horrific. And she was referring, I think specifically to
Speaker 1: Matt Miller playing dumb of like, oh, well, we don't
Speaker 1: know what really is going on in Rafa to really
Speaker 1: say whether this is crossed our red line? Who can
Speaker 1: really even know when you've got every major outline, the
Speaker 1: outlet saying they've moved tanks into Rafa. There, there's huge
Speaker 1: strikes here, this is a major invasion, but they're still
Speaker 1: pretending like they have no idea. But similarly, you had
Speaker 1: Tony Blinken once again pretending like, oh, we really don't
Speaker 1: know what's happening here. We're going to talk to the
Speaker 1: Israelis and try to figure it out. Because as you
Speaker 1: and Ryan covered, we now know that the bomb that
Speaker 1: was responsible for considerating all of those displaced Palestines in
Speaker 1: their tents was an American bomb.
Speaker 5: It was made by Boeing.
Speaker 1: You again have multiple outlets who are reporting this, and
Speaker 1: yet Tony Blinken, he doesn't really know. Who can really say,
Speaker 1: let's take a listen what.
Speaker 3: Weapons were used or how they were used. All of
Speaker 3: that needs to be.
Speaker 11: The product of a deliberate but also fast investigation.
Speaker 1: And this is what they do every time, Emily, that
Speaker 1: something happens that they can't really defend. Well, we don't know,
Speaker 1: there's going to be an investigation. We're going to look
Speaker 1: into it. These reallies are going to look into it.
Speaker 1: We'll get back to you, and they, of course never do.
Speaker 4: You're right, that has actually been the direct playbook every
Speaker 4: time that this has happened, you know, or I mean,
Speaker 4: they've been dealing with it all week. With the red
Speaker 4: lined thing, it actually reminds me of that almost exactly,
Speaker 4: and how they changed, like they move the goalposts every time.
Speaker 4: It's like, well, if you consider it this way, or
Speaker 4: if you consider it that way, if you look at
Speaker 4: it from this direction, we don't really know or it
Speaker 4: doesn't really count.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's just it's a joke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's very obvious at this point. You also have
Speaker 1: another State Department official who has resigned. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This was a career State Department
Speaker 1: official who was specifically involved in the Biden administration's debates
Speaker 1: over Israel's conduct in Gaza, citing disagreements with a recently
Speaker 1: published US government report that claimed Israel was not impeding
Speaker 1: humanitarian assistance to Gaza. That outgoing officials named Stacy Gilbert
Speaker 1: served in the State Department's Bureau Population Refugees and Migration.
Speaker 1: Gilbert sent an email to staff Tuesday explaining her view
Speaker 1: the State Department was wrong to conclude Israel had not
Speaker 1: obstructed humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Speaker 5: Officials who read the letter.
Speaker 1: Said, you've had a number of other Biden administration officials
Speaker 1: who have resigned for very similar reasons. This letter in particular.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you guys probably remember this. We covered this
Speaker 1: in the build up to this. The US has laws
Speaker 1: in place that say you can't legally the lay He Act,
Speaker 1: you can't ship weapons to a country that is committed
Speaker 1: using them to commit war crimes or that is blocking
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid. And so Congress with pressure on the administration,
Speaker 1: we need you to produce a report looking into whether
Speaker 1: you can legally ship these weapons to Israel. So State
Speaker 1: Department direct their feet for a while, they postponed the report.
Speaker 1: Ultimately they dropped the report it like you know, in
Speaker 1: the evening on Friday, typical like trying to bury the news.
Speaker 5: And they said, well, there's.
Speaker 1: Some problems here and we're concerned, but ultimately no, we
Speaker 1: think it's all finding good. Now, every independent organization that
Speaker 1: has looked at the AID situation specifically has said Israel
Speaker 1: is blocking AID. You know, people starving to death, like
Speaker 1: it's You've got trucks lined up for miles and miles
Speaker 1: and miles at the border. It's very clear what's going
Speaker 1: on here. But still they you know, weaseled their way
Speaker 1: into some sort of you know, uh finding that, oh
Speaker 1: we trust the Israelis when they say that they're they're
Speaker 1: doing the best that they can. And so she left
Speaker 1: specifically overspeed with this report thing effectively like this is outrageous.
Speaker 1: Of course they're blocking AID. I can't stay in this
Speaker 1: position if you're going to pretend otherwise.
Speaker 4: Well, and this is yeah, I think this is a huge,
Speaker 4: a huge, like ongoing theme is all the ICC conversation,
Speaker 4: for example, is that Israel and.
Speaker 6: The United States.
Speaker 4: This is not a new thing, but when humanitarian aid
Speaker 4: or international law is something that is beneficial to their
Speaker 4: foreign policy for public relations or political purposes, it becomes
Speaker 4: very important.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: And on the other hand, you have people in the
Speaker 4: Israeli government or you know, and their supporters.
Speaker 6: Around the world saying like, this is a war.
Speaker 4: What do you think war is? This is what war
Speaker 4: looks like. And those are inconsistent positions. Now, it's true,
Speaker 4: you can wage war, and you know, necessarily, even if
Speaker 4: you it's the most just war in the history of mankind,
Speaker 4: there will still likely be civilian casualties.
Speaker 6: That's the tragedy of war, even of just war. But
Speaker 6: these two.
Speaker 4: Positions are not compatible. To say, on the one hand,
Speaker 4: international law is extremely important in Ukraine and in Russia,
Speaker 4: and when it comes to Israel, well, they're not a
Speaker 4: partney to the ICC, like you know, doing the best
Speaker 4: that they can.
Speaker 6: It's one or the other for broad purposes.
Speaker 4: And that's a really really frustrating thing. Again, like I
Speaker 4: said earlier, generally before October seventh have been pro is rule.
Speaker 6: I think they had to.
Speaker 4: Respond to October some I think we agree on that
Speaker 4: they had to respond to October seventh in someway or another.
Speaker 4: But since then all of this in the service of
Speaker 4: a cause that's impossible, which is annihilating Hamas, like the
Speaker 4: actual ambition impossible, technically impossible at this point in time
Speaker 4: unless you are okay with mass civilian casualties. And I
Speaker 4: think that's what a lot of people don't want to
Speaker 4: say aloud.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing is, I think they always knew
Speaker 1: that that goal was impossible. I don't think that, you know,
Speaker 1: we're telling them anything they didn't realize from the beginning.
Speaker 1: There were comments made from our own defense officials, you know,
Speaker 1: at the beginning of this war, saying this is basically
Speaker 1: impossible if you were going to even try to do
Speaker 1: it the way they went to dib out. It was
Speaker 1: the total polar opposite of what you would do if
Speaker 1: you actually were going to strategically go in and directly
Speaker 1: target Hamas.
Speaker 5: You need to work with.
Speaker 1: The population, You need to give them some other path
Speaker 1: that is more appealing than what Hamas has to offer.
Speaker 1: And so the goal has always been annihilation. I think
Speaker 1: Professor Meersheimer is correct when he says, you know, the
Speaker 1: long term goal and certainly the accelerated goal here was
Speaker 1: originally ethnic cleansing. They basically failed in being able to
Speaker 1: push everybody out of the Gods strip, so it just
Speaker 1: turned to annihilation and genocide, and you know that's where
Speaker 1: that's effectively where we are, which is why it's increasingly,
Speaker 1: you know, difficult for their defenders to you know, see
Speaker 1: the images that are coming out and stick with this
Speaker 1: line that oh, they're doing everything they can to product
Speaker 1: civilian life, like we can all see what is happening.
Speaker 1: And so there was a bit of a damn breaking.
Speaker 1: As I said in Hollywood too this week, this was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting. You put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We've got a bunch of different Hollywood figures. This is
Speaker 1: Aaron paul Is Breaking Bad actor played Jesse Pinkman. Here
Speaker 1: you have Dualpa pop star. You also have Ariana Grande
Speaker 1: obviously another top top pop star, and Billy Eichner as well.
Speaker 1: And that first image put the next one up on
Speaker 1: the screen, the next element we have. So for some reason,
Speaker 1: this particular image really went viral, says all Eyes on Rafa,
Speaker 1: and it has what appears to be an AI generated
Speaker 1: image of can't really tell what I think people are
Speaker 1: assuming they're tense, but I don't think they're actually tense.
Speaker 1: This also doesn't appear to be rafa at all. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 5: I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 1: For some reason, this is the image that went viral,
Speaker 1: which was kind of strange, but here we are. But
Speaker 1: more interesting to me is the fact that you now
Speaker 1: are at a point where Hollywood, which was very reluctant.
Speaker 1: You remember in the early days, there were huge recriminations
Speaker 1: over anyone in Hollywood we said anything that was remotely
Speaker 1: pro palace in your remotely critical of Israel, massive career consequences,
Speaker 1: et cetera. You're now at a point where people apparently
Speaker 1: feel safe enough to post these sorts of things. And
Speaker 1: also I think where just you know, the images that
Speaker 1: came out this week were so indefensible that there was
Speaker 1: a sense of like, all right, we got to say something,
Speaker 1: even if it's you know, doing the minimum of like
Speaker 1: posting this AI generated image.
Speaker 4: Now I'm not in Generation Z, but I will say
Speaker 4: the all eyes on RAFA meme. That a picture that
Speaker 4: we just showed on the screen, And if you're listening,
Speaker 4: it's probably what you all saw on your Instagram. So
Speaker 4: that was the most viral at least political thing, but
Speaker 4: probably a cultural thing period that I've seen on Instagram
Speaker 4: since the BLM squares the Black Squares. Oh really, Yeah,
Speaker 4: I haven't seen anything go that viral since then. So
Speaker 4: it speaks to we're going to talk about this later.
Speaker 4: How I think, especially young people feel about the conflict,
Speaker 4: which is diametrically opposed how a lot of people in
Speaker 4: other generations just on average feel about the conflict. So
Speaker 4: my take on it as it went viral because it's
Speaker 4: there was a simplicity to it. It felt like it
Speaker 4: wasn't you know, it felt like it wasn't taking a side,
Speaker 4: you know what I mean? Like that all eyes on
Speaker 4: Rafa is so simple and general.
Speaker 6: It's easy for people.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's an easy, I guess slogan for people to
Speaker 4: get behind. And I'm not begrudging people who posted it,
Speaker 4: but I think that's probably explains why it was more.
Speaker 4: It was used more than other propoustine means have been.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was just yeah, I mean, who knows why
Speaker 1: things go viral, why a particular thing takes off, you know,
Speaker 1: was it because of the size of the account, that
Speaker 1: initially posted it. I have no idea, but is it
Speaker 1: was weird because there were so many actual horrifying images
Speaker 1: coming out Rafa that the one that went viral was
Speaker 1: this ai ai not even looking like.
Speaker 4: Rafa, shipping container, boat car whatever it was, but it looks.
Speaker 6: Used car lot. I don't.
Speaker 1: I saw someone say this is like shipping containers and Argentinas.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it was. It wasn't Rafa. I
Speaker 1: don't think it was real at all. But in any case,
Speaker 1: I think some of these pop stars who rely for
Speaker 1: their stardom too on young people are feeling more and
Speaker 1: more pressure. You also see Maclamore, who kind of you know,
Speaker 1: was like relatively irrelevant to the cultural scene, came out
Speaker 1: with his Propalace, I mean a hit and has had
Speaker 1: huge you know, it was like had a career high
Speaker 1: in terms of a number of the Billboard charts. And
Speaker 1: so I think there was a sense of with the
Speaker 1: kids and the tents and the horror of those burned
Speaker 1: bodies and actual happitate to be I mean, just horrible things.
Speaker 1: I think there was a build up of pressure like
Speaker 1: all right, well we got to say something. And to
Speaker 1: your point, this was maybe kind of like this the
Speaker 1: safest thing that they felt like they felt comfortable putting
Speaker 1: their name too.
Speaker 4: I agree, And of course, yeah, I should say it
Speaker 4: wasn't just because it was simple that it went viral,
Speaker 4: was because it was something simple that happened, or that
Speaker 4: went viral after the mistake.
Speaker 6: What did now? Who call it a tragic magic?
Speaker 4: So even when you have Israel conceding that those images
Speaker 4: were real and a quote tragic mistake, that's actually different
Speaker 4: than some of the other tragedies that we've seen unfolded
Speaker 4: World Central Kitchen, et cetera.
Speaker 1: That they actually did ultimately use similar language with World
Speaker 1: Central Kitchen. But after a while race, after they've exhausted
Speaker 1: every other and it was the same here. You know,
Speaker 1: first the IDF was crowing about they, oh, we got
Speaker 1: these two Hamas bad guys, which maybe they did, maybe
Speaker 1: they didn't. We don't actually have proof, but that was
Speaker 1: their original was like, yay, we're awesome, look at how
Speaker 1: great we did. And then once there was massive international condemnation,
Speaker 1: including some weak concerns express the US, that's when you
Speaker 1: get the oh, it's a tragic mistake, and you know,
Speaker 1: we're very sorry for the civilian loss of life, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 6: But it seems to mething that happened, that turnaround was
Speaker 6: faster this time.
Speaker 4: But it was, yeah, because it was the pressure was
Speaker 4: really really high from the US and well from people
Speaker 4: in the US and pressuring their own politicians and.
Speaker 6: All of that.
Speaker 1: But you know, ironically, I saw Ryan sharing this, so
Speaker 1: Bbe describes it as a tragic mistake, which seems to
Speaker 1: indicate some regret for the loss of Palestinian civilian life.
Speaker 1: There was a Palestinian Israeli who posted similar concern for
Speaker 1: the loss of Palestinian civilian life in Rafa, who was
Speaker 1: arrested for posting that on social media. And Israel fantastic democracy,
Speaker 1: only democracy in the Middle East the bold bag. Yes,
Speaker 1: all right, So we move on to our own country
Speaker 1: and how people are feeling about things over here.
Speaker 4: In other news, the American Empire is dying according to
Speaker 4: an entire generation of people. Yeah, it's really what we
Speaker 4: have in front of us. We can put this first
Speaker 4: tear sheet up on the screen. A dying empire led
Speaker 4: by bad people. That's just the headline. Poll finds young
Speaker 4: voters despairing over US politics. Actually a very accurate encapsulation
Speaker 4: of this poll, which is from Blueprint, young voters overwhelmingly
Speaker 4: believe that almost all politicians are corrupt amen and that
Speaker 4: the country will end up worse off than when they
Speaker 4: were born. Blueprint is a democratic firm. We should note
Speaker 4: Semaphore got this polling exclusively, so it was an online
Speaker 4: poll of eighteen to thirty year old registered voters, which
Speaker 4: is actually interesting, Crystal, because a lot of people who
Speaker 4: probably have even more cynical impressions of the country and
Speaker 4: the country's future, are simply not registered to vote. So
Speaker 4: if anything, this is probably undercounting the way people feel
Speaker 4: about the country, because if you're not registered to vote,
Speaker 4: you probably already lack I think hope. In a lot
Speaker 4: of cases, not everyone who's not registered to vote. Some
Speaker 4: people just aren't like really into politics and don't want
Speaker 4: to vote, which is perfectly understandable. But for a lot
Speaker 4: of people who are just like, well, I'm not going
Speaker 4: to vote, Why am I going to vote? You know what,
Speaker 4: do you want me to choose from this corrupt politician
Speaker 4: or the other corrupt politician, which was what we were
Speaker 4: talking about in.
Speaker 6: Fact earlier in the show.
Speaker 4: So of nine hundred and forty three eighteen to thirty
Speaker 4: year old registered voters blueprint. This dem firm asked them
Speaker 4: to respond to a series of questions about the American
Speaker 4: political system. Forty nine percent agreed to some extent that
Speaker 4: elections in the country don't represent people like them, Fifty
Speaker 4: one percent agreed to some extent that the political system
Speaker 4: in the US quote doesn't work for people like me,
Speaker 4: and sixty four percent back to the statement that quote
Speaker 4: America is in decline. A whopping sixty five percent agreed
Speaker 4: either strongly or somewhat that quote nearly all politicians are
Speaker 4: corrupt and make money from their political power. Now, I
Speaker 4: will say also, only seven percent disagreed.
Speaker 6: There are notes.
Speaker 1: I want to know who.
Speaker 4: It's really Those are the seven percent of voters of
Speaker 4: the people that will actually go for Biden, like the
Speaker 4: youth for Biden. Like it's just all that, it's just Harry, yes, yes.
Speaker 4: But it's also worth noting that that wording is so
Speaker 4: funny to me because it says you're either somewhat agreeing
Speaker 4: that nearly all politicians are corrupt, Like it's so like
Speaker 4: the way that it's it's worded is so like hedging.
Speaker 6: You know what I mean, You somewhat agree that nearly
Speaker 6: all politicians are corrupt. That's just.
Speaker 4: I mean, how could anyone disagree with that? Who are
Speaker 4: the seven.
Speaker 6: Percent of these people?
Speaker 4: Well, the sea before continues, well, forty five percent of
Speaker 4: people pulled to their own lives would be either a
Speaker 4: lot or a little bit better than their parents. The
Speaker 4: same wasn't true for how they felt America as a
Speaker 4: whole is doing. Fifty four percent believed the country is
Speaker 4: going down hill. I feel like Crystal, maybe there are
Speaker 4: a lot of breaking points viewers, and here we can
Speaker 4: start to put some of these numbers up on the screen.
Speaker 6: This is D two.
Speaker 4: D two is America's jaded youth vote. This doesn't matter
Speaker 4: who wins elections, nothing changes. Strongly agree, twenty percent somewhat agree,
Speaker 4: twenty eight percent somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. Those are
Speaker 4: only at thirteen percent, respectively. So that's only twenty six
Speaker 4: percent of eighteen to thirty year olds who disagree.
Speaker 1: Who say that elections may somewhat matter exactly.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's just.
Speaker 1: And then I only think about the pitch that Biden
Speaker 1: is making two young voters, that is, your life is
Speaker 1: literally on the line in this election. That's how much
Speaker 1: it matters. And then you look at these numbers. They
Speaker 1: just don't agree with you. They just don't agree with you.
Speaker 4: And he needs I mean, he desperately needs young voters,
Speaker 4: desperately needs young voters, because we've seen not just young
Speaker 4: voters falling away from Joe Biden, but some pulling five
Speaker 4: on the margins where it's really gonna matter for Joe
Speaker 4: bart for Joe Biden in a state like Wisconsin where
Speaker 4: those college towns are super influential, and that's you know,
Speaker 4: swing states all over, Like those college towns are very
Speaker 4: influential in the swing states, people actually moving to Trump
Speaker 4: from Biden, and Trump is making a similarly existential pitch.
Speaker 4: So it's not as though Trump is out here being like, eh,
Speaker 4: you know, every you know, make America or like keep
Speaker 4: America great, which was his pitch in twenty twenty oh
Speaker 4: that was rough as an incumbent.
Speaker 1: But even he didn't like that one, never really leaned
Speaker 1: into it. No, Yeah, I mean I love a dying
Speaker 1: empire led by bad people. I feel like that should
Speaker 1: be the name of our election coverage.
Speaker 5: Nailed it pretty well. I would say we should put
Speaker 5: that on a mug.
Speaker 6: Very dying led.
Speaker 1: By bad people again who could disagree. I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: I know they only focus on eighteen to thirty year olds,
Speaker 1: but I think you would find a lot of some sentiments,
Speaker 1: especially in the next age group up like millennial slash
Speaker 1: gen X. I think you would see a lot of
Speaker 1: similar sentiments, and then you'd as you got older, you
Speaker 1: would find people who were a little bit more positive,
Speaker 1: a little more hopeful about the electoral system, and felt
Speaker 1: like Moore was on the line with regard to this selection.
Speaker 1: That's why older voters have stuck with Joe Biden, people
Speaker 1: who voted for Joe Biden last time around. The one
Speaker 1: cohort that is really sticking with him very strongly is
Speaker 1: older voters. And so you know, again it speaks to
Speaker 1: how not compelling their pitches to this demographic that they
Speaker 1: desperately need, and why all of the voter shaming that
Speaker 1: you see around, especially the you know, unconditional support for
Speaker 1: Israel is also not effective. It's just like, oh, how
Speaker 1: dare you say anything critical of Joe Biden. Don't you
Speaker 1: know you're helping Trump?
Speaker 5: And you know, for.
Speaker 1: Young people who like me see this as a genocide
Speaker 1: and see it as a stark moral line. That's just
Speaker 1: not going to be a compelling pitch. You have to
Speaker 1: change the policy, and there is no sign that they
Speaker 1: have any intention of changing the policy. So yeah, it's
Speaker 1: pretty dire numbers. It's huge trouble for Joe Biden. The
Speaker 1: fact it's a democratic pulling firm actually is significant because
Speaker 1: it means they would kind of be inclined towards showing
Speaker 1: some more favorable numbers.
Speaker 5: Towards Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: But it's also just a dire statement about how decrepit
Speaker 1: and how in decline the state of our democracy is.
Speaker 1: When you have this many people in younger generations, which
Speaker 1: are supposed to be the most idealistic, the most hopeful
Speaker 1: about the future, saying no, I don't have that hope.
Speaker 1: I don't think things are getting better. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's an inevitability of progress. I think we're backsliding and
Speaker 1: going the wrong direction. I mean that those are dire
Speaker 1: warning signs for the country as a whole.
Speaker 4: Imagine trying to do those old school rock the vote
Speaker 4: campaigns with this generation seriously.
Speaker 6: And that brings me to the next thing we wanted
Speaker 6: to talk about.
Speaker 4: We're super fascinating data hear from the Washington Post when
Speaker 4: America was great according to data, we can start to
Speaker 4: put some of these next charts up on the screen.
Speaker 4: But just reading from the Post's analysis, Okay, so for haters,
Speaker 4: there's no time like the present. That's what the Post found.
Speaker 4: That's how they and that's how they phrased what they found.
Speaker 4: And if you're listening to this, what you're seeing on
Speaker 4: your screen is huge spikes starting around the late twenty
Speaker 4: tens on questions of this is the time with the
Speaker 4: most political division, the least reliable news reporting, the least
Speaker 4: close knit communities, and the least moral society. You have
Speaker 4: a pretty consistent number in all cases on those questions
Speaker 4: from the nineteen thirties until about I would say it's
Speaker 4: most of those start to slightly glow up around the
Speaker 4: around like two thousand, Yeah, if you're looking at it,
Speaker 4: But then after twenty fifteen, twenty ten, just an insane spike.
Speaker 6: I can't give a.
Speaker 5: Little bit of recency bias here, I'd.
Speaker 4: Say, yeah, and I look a little bit. It looks
Speaker 4: exactly like a backwards L. I guess, I mean it's
Speaker 4: not quite a j because that line is so for
Speaker 4: all of them and then goes up so starkly. It
Speaker 4: really does look like a backwards L here. Yeah, And
Speaker 4: as we keep going through these charts, because there's more
Speaker 4: interesting stuff here most crime least happy families think.
Speaker 1: That is a funny one because that's actually like measurable.
Speaker 6: Yes, and then eighties and nineties, like.
Speaker 1: Other things, are an opinion, you know, the least happy fail.
Speaker 1: Even the worst economy, the only one, even the worst
Speaker 1: economy people have now rated worse than the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 6: That one looks more like a U.
Speaker 5: Yeah, only one where thirties.
Speaker 4: Yes, because it's also very high in the nineteen thirties
Speaker 4: and then pretty consistent throughout the mid century, well throughout
Speaker 4: the whole century, actually between nineteen thirty and again like
Speaker 4: twenty ten roughly, So that's an interesting one. And but
Speaker 4: again the rest of these look like backwards l's. We
Speaker 4: keep moving through the deity here the worst three.
Speaker 6: This is good worst music.
Speaker 4: It's not quite as severe as spike as the political ones,
Speaker 4: but you still see a decent spike around twenty ten.
Speaker 4: Worst tell vision looks similar to worst music. Worst radio
Speaker 4: programming goes up around I don't know twenty ten as.
Speaker 6: Well, and worst movies.
Speaker 4: Also goes up around maybe like two thousand on that one.
Speaker 4: So basically, across the board, what you're seeing is an
Speaker 4: increase in let's say this is the best way to
Speaker 4: put it. Across the board, you're seeing steep increases in.
Speaker 6: Let's say I like dissatisfaction. Yeah, with American culture.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny though, is they also asked the
Speaker 1: opposite question. They asked like when was the best radio
Speaker 1: programming and the best sporting events and the best television.
Speaker 1: And there was a lot of recency bias there too,
Speaker 1: where there were a lot of people who were picking
Speaker 1: now in terms of the best now. It wasn't as
Speaker 1: like clear cut as those just you know, backwards Dell
Speaker 1: shaped graphs that Emily was describing, But like for the
Speaker 1: best television, you have very clearly, you know, the current
Speaker 1: moment winning out the best boarding events, the current moment,
Speaker 1: the best cuisine. It was like off the charts, the
Speaker 1: current moment, best work life balance was the current moment
Speaker 1: one out over other decades. So you just have you know,
Speaker 1: people who are feeling like, you know, whether it's the
Speaker 1: best or the worst, they feel very strongly about the present.
Speaker 1: I guess it is recency bias.
Speaker 5: I think the worst one.
Speaker 1: I think it just speaks to this deep sense similar
Speaker 1: to the semaphore polling about the sense that it's, you know,
Speaker 1: a dying empire led by bad people of decline, you know,
Speaker 1: of things are degrading and things are chaotic, and things
Speaker 1: are going off the rails, and you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm like expressing that in all of these different venues,
Speaker 1: even in things like the best radio programming or the
Speaker 1: worst radio programming, the worst news reporting, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Well, and starting in nineteen thirty year between the two
Speaker 4: World Wars, and so the twentieth century, despite two horrific
Speaker 4: world wars, was a there was just.
Speaker 6: A lot of hope in the West.
Speaker 4: The West was a very hope full place after sort
Speaker 4: of enduring those two incredibly incredible tribulations, and people came
Speaker 4: out of them with a lot of hope. And it's
Speaker 4: just very interesting that the hope is what's I think
Speaker 4: being sucked out.
Speaker 6: And you see that in some of these numbers. I
Speaker 6: think we have a couple more.
Speaker 4: Numbers, we have more elements in this block just to
Speaker 4: run through. Yeah, worst fashion, most war, shortest life expectancy,
Speaker 4: Oh my, goodness, we're sporting events. Actually, the shortest life
Speaker 4: expectancy one is interesting because it did start to decrease.
Speaker 4: American life expensive did start to decrease right around where
Speaker 4: people start picking up on that in the graph.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true. Yeah, and obviously a lot of war too.
Speaker 4: Yes, And you see that spike in the roughly looks
Speaker 4: like the nineteen forties, which makes sense.
Speaker 6: But then during the Cold.
Speaker 4: War period where there were wars all over the place,
Speaker 4: it wasn't really that cold of a war because we
Speaker 4: were fighting or aiding people in hot wars all around
Speaker 4: the country or all around the around the world. That
Speaker 4: was different in we have one more element here, few
Speaker 4: ast scientific breakthroughs.
Speaker 6: That's a loss of hope too. It feels like you see.
Speaker 4: An increase there that's rushed Outlet's book on decadence.
Speaker 6: I highly recommend reading that one.
Speaker 4: Least racially equality starts to spike. It was higher in
Speaker 4: the nineteen thirties, least gender equality higher in the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 4: but starts to spike again around the twenty tens.
Speaker 6: A lot of this crystal.
Speaker 4: I also see some fascinating studies on how media influences
Speaker 4: the way we see race relations that when media coverage,
Speaker 4: for example, if you ask people how many shootings of
Speaker 4: unarmed black men there are, or.
Speaker 6: Actually just black Americans there.
Speaker 4: Are, people will wildly overestimate it in times of media covers.
Speaker 4: That's really heavy and it also reminds me of some
Speaker 4: of these other things too. Just you can see how
Speaker 4: when the media is telling us one thing, we were
Speaker 4: really perceptive to the media narrative, despite how much we
Speaker 4: hate the media.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of interesting too. Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think we have this sort of innate to the human experience.
Speaker 1: We always overestimate something either that we experience or that
Speaker 1: we're like seeing on the news, how prevalent it is,
Speaker 1: whatever that thing is in society. So, like, you know,
Speaker 1: the life expectancy thing makes sense because we just covered
Speaker 1: on this show how our life expectancy is here in
Speaker 1: the US is declining a pretty rapid clip, and that
Speaker 1: it's unique to the US. The other developing nation we
Speaker 1: have the lowest life expectancy of any G seven developed
Speaker 1: nation and they aren't trending in the same direction we are.
Speaker 1: So it is a very specific US trend. So there's
Speaker 1: been I would say, actually not nearly enough coverage, but
Speaker 1: there has been some coverage of it, and so that
Speaker 1: contributes to a sense of not only is it declining,
Speaker 1: but actually it's the worst that it's ever been. That's
Speaker 1: obviously not the case, but you know, as humans have
Speaker 1: a funny way of processing things.
Speaker 5: This next put up a.
Speaker 1: D four because this is interesting too in terms of
Speaker 1: how interesting our partisan valance impacts the way that we
Speaker 1: see things. Now, this has been the case for quite
Speaker 1: a while. When you have a Republican president in office,
Speaker 1: Republicans are much more likely to say the economy is great,
Speaker 1: and Democrats are much likely more likely to say the
Speaker 1: economy's trash. And you can see how things totally reverse
Speaker 1: course the instant that Joe Biden is elected in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Suddenly Democrats feel pretty good about the economy and Republicans
Speaker 1: take a dive off a cliff. Now, I will say,
Speaker 1: if we look overall here, you can see that Democrats,
Speaker 1: even under Joe Biden, do not reach the levels of
Speaker 1: positive economic sentiment that Republicans did under Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: so you know, if you look overall, the economic sentiment
Speaker 1: was overall on average much higher under Donald Trump than
Speaker 1: it is under Joe Biden and you can see independence
Speaker 1: and also had a much higher opinion of the economy
Speaker 1: under Donald Trump than they do under Joe Biden. So
Speaker 1: you know, to take those overall numbers is in some
Speaker 1: ways more important. But the partisan split is nevertheless interesting
Speaker 1: that people on a dive when it's Trump and off
Speaker 1: is the very next day when Joe Biden is inaugurated,
Speaker 1: suddenly you're like, oh, actually, I think the economy is
Speaker 1: getting better.
Speaker 7: I like it.
Speaker 4: And you know another thing is Democrats now tend to
Speaker 4: be more affluent and so they're more invested in the
Speaker 4: stock market, which is a change. Obviously it wasn't always
Speaker 4: like that, but it's been a flip and a small
Speaker 4: one for now. But I think that's still relevant here
Speaker 4: that you know, when the stock market is doing well,
Speaker 4: it doesn't mean the economy is great, although that's what
Speaker 4: they tell you constantly and CNBC and you know, sometimes
Speaker 4: they add nuance to it, but it's not the same thing.
Speaker 4: Like a great stock market isn't the same thing as.
Speaker 6: A great economy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and those that tried actually reminded me two of
Speaker 4: the crime numbers we showed, because it's again, you know,
Speaker 4: when the media like you were pointing out crime in
Speaker 4: the eighties and nineties. I mean, we're going to get
Speaker 4: to this in just a second. Let's PUTD five up
Speaker 4: on the screen. Which decade would you most want to
Speaker 4: live in? The Republicans really into the eighties, Democrats lesson
Speaker 4: to the eighties.
Speaker 5: It's also into the eighties.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Independence into the eighties.
Speaker 5: I's love in the now.
Speaker 4: But just in terms of crime, as we were talking
Speaker 4: about again, like people forget how bad it was in
Speaker 4: cities in the eighties and nineties, and.
Speaker 6: DC is a good example of that.
Speaker 4: Media coverage about crime is reasonably tough, and what's happening
Speaker 4: here in DC, but even here in DC is not
Speaker 4: We're not at the levels that we were in DC
Speaker 4: in the nineties. Yeah, it's actually ninety n close.
Speaker 1: And also this is another one you were talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, shootings of black men. This is another one
Speaker 1: where the media narrative really fuels a misperception because there
Speaker 1: has been a crime spike, but actually the violent crimes
Speaker 1: have abated almost across the board in the country in
Speaker 1: the past year, but there is very little public awareness
Speaker 1: of that because of you know, when crime is covered,
Speaker 1: you feel like, oh, there's crime everywhere, and since there
Speaker 1: is a large amount of a more significant amount of
Speaker 1: coverage of crime, that can lead to misperceptions about what
Speaker 1: the overall numbers are. So you feel like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is the worst crime we've ever seen in American history,
Speaker 1: but just by the numbers, that's like clearly not the case.
Speaker 6: And this is super interesting.
Speaker 4: Let's end on D six here because it sort of
Speaker 4: speaks to the psychology that's going on.
Speaker 6: The Washington Post writes, So we.
Speaker 4: Looked at the data another way, measuring the gap between
Speaker 4: each person's birth year and their ideal decades. So that's
Speaker 4: what we're breaking down here. The consistency of the resulting
Speaker 4: pattern delighted us. It shows that Americans feel nostalgia not
Speaker 4: for a specific era, but for specific age. The good
Speaker 4: old days when America was quote great. Aren't the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 4: They're whatever decade you were eleven, your parents knew the
Speaker 4: correct answer to any question and you never heard of
Speaker 4: war crimes, tribunals, microplastics or improvised explosive devices, or when
Speaker 4: you were fifteen and athletes and musicians still played hard
Speaker 4: and hadn't sold out. Not every flavor of nostalgia peaks
Speaker 4: as sharply as music does. But by distilling them to
Speaker 4: the most popular age for each question, we can chart
Speaker 4: a simple life of nostalgia. Now, Chrystal, I actually think
Speaker 4: what is incredibly sad to me when I read this
Speaker 4: is I don't think gen Z and what Jen Alpha,
Speaker 4: the generation behind gen Z, is this is a pattern
Speaker 4: that is consistent across like the last roughly one hundred years,
Speaker 4: like every generational live right now. If you look at
Speaker 4: these Washington Post numbers, I don't know that this is
Speaker 4: going to be true. I'm actually very doubtful that this
Speaker 4: will be as true for those generations because if you
Speaker 4: look at have you seen how viral it is? Just
Speaker 4: so depressing and how viral The videos that are just
Speaker 4: people's old camcorder recordings of a day in the life
Speaker 4: of a high schooler and like nineteen ninety nine have.
Speaker 6: Gone on YouTube.
Speaker 5: No, not aware of it.
Speaker 4: It's all it's not people like you and me watching it.
Speaker 6: It's gen Z.
Speaker 4: They're watching these these time caps with these windows into
Speaker 4: what life looked like before so and that's how they
Speaker 4: react to the videos that like, everyone seems so happy,
Speaker 4: it seems so simple. And in the Washington Post description,
Speaker 4: here they say, you know, your parents are the correct
Speaker 4: answer to any question. You never heard of war crimes, trip,
Speaker 4: you knows microplastics or IED's. Well, if you are young
Speaker 4: right now, if you're eleven, right now, the decade that
Speaker 4: you're eleven, right now, you're on social media, and whether
Speaker 4: you want to see this stuff or not, you are.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: My son is literally about to turn eleven, so he's
Speaker 1: right in there. Yeah. I mean, it's funny with this
Speaker 1: stuff because on the one hand, I feel like there
Speaker 1: were a lot of things that were superior about like
Speaker 1: the pre smartphone. Agree, I mean, the smartphone is really
Speaker 1: the tipping point, right.
Speaker 4: I think so, And I think that's why you see
Speaker 4: a lot of those numbers spik around twenty ten.
Speaker 1: There was more like human connection, we're seeing each other
Speaker 1: in person, more ability to disconnect from the news, and
Speaker 1: less like you know, social media bullying and all of
Speaker 1: that sort of stuff. On the other hand, would I
Speaker 1: want to get rid of my smartphone? No, you know,
Speaker 1: because like obviously there's positive of me. I mean to me,
Speaker 1: when I think back about when I started driving, when
Speaker 1: I was sixteen and I didn't have Google Maps, I
Speaker 1: was printing out I mean, I was like printing out map. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: back before that when you had a real ass map
Speaker 1: trying to get places mine.
Speaker 5: Did anyone get that? Is crazy to me.
Speaker 4: The amount of like soccer games that it was like,
Speaker 4: I'm going to be five minutes late, not for the
Speaker 4: warm up before the game because my mind was like
Speaker 4: missing a street and I used to be like, well,
Speaker 4: what are you doing, just like get to the soccer game,
Speaker 4: And now I'm like I couldn't do that. It's like,
Speaker 4: what do you mean turn on this road and then
Speaker 4: turn on that road?
Speaker 6: You want me to remember the direction?
Speaker 1: And even with the map quest like you miss a turn,
Speaker 1: it's not updating automatically where you now have new directions.
Speaker 5: Okay, we'll take this other route.
Speaker 1: No, you missed a turn, Like what are you gonna do?
Speaker 6: Yeah, you're done. You can't readjusts. You have to like
Speaker 6: get unfold the map and the box. Yeah we route.
Speaker 4: So I stop at a gas station and ask for directions.
Speaker 1: I had to do that. I was trying to get
Speaker 1: to the University of Maryland. I was terrifying. I missed
Speaker 1: exits because you were going to be there because there
Speaker 1: were like you know, it's where four ninety five and
Speaker 1: I don't want something in two seventy or something splits
Speaker 1: off and I missed whatever I was supposed to do,
Speaker 1: and I was like, I'm just not going to find it.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to find it. This is never going
Speaker 1: to happen. So there are some things that are more
Speaker 1: positive about.
Speaker 4: Definitely, and we've just like stumbled into the biggest conversation
Speaker 4: of our generations about like the benefits of some of this,
Speaker 4: like hyper modern social media based technology like the smartphone
Speaker 4: and everything. So, yeah, we could go on for we
Speaker 4: could do a whole episode on this alone. Yeah, I
Speaker 4: would give up my smartphone though, I would would I
Speaker 4: would brave the maps. No, I can't do it because
Speaker 4: I'll miss the text from Sager memes.
Speaker 5: We need you to fill in.
Speaker 6: Uh Snager sending like Andrew Schultz clip. I dn't miss that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: You can't. You can't give it up. I did think
Speaker 1: it was super interesting the tracks with what probably we
Speaker 1: all experience, especially as some of us get older, but
Speaker 1: that it's so consistent whatever your whenever you were fifteen
Speaker 1: basically is when you.
Speaker 5: Thought the music was the best, it's snl phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, whenever you were eleven is when you say families
Speaker 1: were the closest. Yeah, whenever you were like nineteen is
Speaker 1: when you think that music, events and fashion like things
Speaker 1: that you're starting to get into once you get older,
Speaker 1: you're starting to get a job and have money to
Speaker 1: do these things. That's when you think that was the peak.
Speaker 1: And across generations it's super super consistent. Those things I
Speaker 1: think will be the same for gen Z and general like.
Speaker 1: I think they'll feel like the music of their you know,
Speaker 1: youth was the pinnacle of music. The Drake Kendrick Beef
Speaker 1: was the pinnacle of artistic creation.
Speaker 4: Or that's what Matt I'll think when producer Mac is
Speaker 4: interviewed by Upholster thirty years from now, he'll be like, oh,
Speaker 4: oh yeah, I remember that Drake.
Speaker 1: That was the golden era.
Speaker 6: We've never had a better, never had it better.
Speaker 1: Although being a music of my era, I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: don't date yourself.
Speaker 5: Christ too late for that, guys.
Speaker 4: On a much more serious note, these allegations and the
Speaker 4: investigation into Ditty is getting really serious. We can put
Speaker 4: the first hairsheet up on the screen. This is CNN reporting.
Speaker 4: Oh I'm sorry, we have a slot, but CNN actually
Speaker 4: had an exclusive report showing that the dj is prepping
Speaker 4: to put Ditty in front of a grand jury, and
Speaker 4: that's going to be probably in relation as CNN is
Speaker 4: reporting from sources to sexual assault. But also now it's
Speaker 4: getting more serious because they're also investigating him from for
Speaker 4: sex trafficking, for drugging.
Speaker 6: For money laundering.
Speaker 4: All of these new charges getting added. So after the
Speaker 4: CNN article ran, they did a quick announcement about what
Speaker 4: their reporters have found on the area yesterday.
Speaker 6: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: Since November, you'll probably remember that Combs has been named
Speaker 4: in eight civil lawsuits, seven directly accusing him of sexual assault.
Speaker 12: The biggest escalation since those March raids on Ditty's homes
Speaker 12: in Los Angeles and Miami. We are now hearing that
Speaker 12: federal investigators are preparing to possibly bring witnesses in front
Speaker 12: of a federal grand jury in New York City. What
Speaker 12: we have heard is that possible witnesses have been notified
Speaker 12: that they could be called to testify. Now, sources do
Speaker 12: caution that investigators are still in the process of gathering information.
Speaker 12: In fact, they are still calling in new witnesses and
Speaker 12: they have called in some witnesses multiple times.
Speaker 6: We also hear that the.
Speaker 12: Majority of the accusers who have filed these civil lawsuits
Speaker 12: against Sean Ditty Combs have been brought in for questioning
Speaker 12: and again some of them being called in newnumerous times.
Speaker 12: We hear that many are cooperating and even handing over
Speaker 12: evidence that they feel could be relevant into this federal probe. Now,
Speaker 12: a spokesperson for Homeland Security did not respond to our
Speaker 12: request for comment about the presence of a grand jury,
Speaker 12: but they did confirm that this investigation is presently ongoing. So,
Speaker 12: as I mentioned those federal raids that were conducted on
Speaker 12: his homes back in March, obviously a lot of people
Speaker 12: wondering what was seized. While we are learning now that
Speaker 12: federal investigators are in possession a video footage that was
Speaker 12: taken inside of Combs's residence, we hear that these investigators
Speaker 12: have been contacting individuals that they have seen on this footage.
Speaker 12: One person, in addition to the accusers who have filed
Speaker 12: these civil suits, is a male sex worker, that is
Speaker 12: what a source tells me, and that they have been
Speaker 12: brought in for questioning through these federal investigators. Now, when
Speaker 12: the raids first happened. We had a law enforcement tell
Speaker 12: us at CNN that the investigation was largely based in
Speaker 12: sex trafficking, which is what HSI specializes in. Now we
Speaker 12: are hearing that that scope has been widened and that
Speaker 12: investigators are really looking into all of these claims put
Speaker 12: forth in these civil lawsuits that would include not just
Speaker 12: sex traffic, but also money laundering and illegal drugs.
Speaker 6: I have a source who tells.
Speaker 12: Me, quote, this is much bigger than just these lawsuits.
Speaker 4: And it's actually much bigger than just Ditty. I think
Speaker 4: that's a really important point that we alluded to at
Speaker 4: the beginning of the episode. We're talking about a billion
Speaker 4: dollar empire, and so in a lot of ways that
Speaker 4: the early iteration of the me too movement brought in
Speaker 4: complicit corporations. Basically, in all of these suits, it's not
Speaker 4: just Ditty that's named, it's relevant companies, it's affiliated companies. Obviously,
Speaker 4: he's known for being not just a successful musician, but
Speaker 4: for turning that into a successful business career, and so
Speaker 4: it's looking very possible that a lot of people were
Speaker 4: complicit that were knowledgeable. I know a lot of people
Speaker 4: have made great points about the warnings that other celebrities
Speaker 4: who had seen the victimization themselves were making over the
Speaker 4: years that were ignored by culture and by other people
Speaker 4: in Hollywood and in the entertainment industry. And I think
Speaker 4: there's more to come on that, but it's pretty worth
Speaker 4: our time to think about the do O Jane.
Speaker 6: Now, after those searches on his homes.
Speaker 4: Both in LA and Miami back in late March, it
Speaker 4: was they are now looking into, as the CNN reporter said,
Speaker 4: sex trafficking, money laundering, drugs. There are, as I think
Speaker 4: we heard from the CNN reporter, video investigators are looking
Speaker 4: at video tapes that were recovered from Ditty's house, and
Speaker 4: as the again they talk about the male prostitute, they
Speaker 4: talk about what actually is related in the investigation to
Speaker 4: being on the tape, that people from the tape have
Speaker 4: been questioned in relationship to what's on the tape, and
Speaker 4: that they're creating or they're trying to create a quote,
Speaker 4: bullet proof indictment, according to the CNN report, So a
Speaker 4: bulletproof indictment is much easier to have when you have
Speaker 4: actual video evidence and you're able to talk to the
Speaker 4: people that are involved in it. Now, Diddy has not commented,
Speaker 4: like CNN, the CNN reporter you just saw. She's been
Speaker 4: kind of a scoop machine on this beat for months,
Speaker 4: and Diddy has not commented to CNN on any of
Speaker 4: this new stuff.
Speaker 6: People obviously will.
Speaker 4: Remember that he vehemently denied the allegations as they've come out,
Speaker 4: said eight civil suits filed against him, since that one
Speaker 4: was settled with Cassie Ventura right away.
Speaker 6: I mean he settled that suit what twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and after she filed it, it was instantaneous.
Speaker 4: Speaking of which, speaking of video, we now know that
Speaker 4: a hotel was allegedly paid fifty grand for that horrific
Speaker 4: video we covered here on the show of Diddy beating
Speaker 4: the heck out of Cassie, and that has been that
Speaker 4: was from twenty sixteen, and it just came out what
Speaker 4: earlier this month, in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and after it came out, then he apologized. Prior
Speaker 1: to that, he had denied absolutely everything. And yeah, we're
Speaker 1: talking about allegations that's been decades, decades, she said, eight
Speaker 1: separate civil suits filed at this point. You know, the
Speaker 1: videotape that CNN is reporting on here is very noteworthy.
Speaker 1: Some of the allegations against him is that he had
Speaker 1: filmed people having sex without their consent, So question mark
Speaker 1: if that's part of what's contained on this video tape.
Speaker 5: We don't know if it was part of what.
Speaker 1: Was seized in these raids or if they were able
Speaker 1: to obtain it through some other means. But you know,
Speaker 1: some of the allegations are that he was drugging victims
Speaker 1: and then raping them. Some of the allegations are of
Speaker 1: the sort of violence that we saw on camera with Cassie.
Speaker 1: So the picture that is coming into focus here is
Speaker 1: incredibly far reaching. And you don't have that long of
Speaker 1: a pattern with that many people over that many years
Speaker 1: without having other people know and be involved. And he
Speaker 1: was protected for so many years. He was protected and
Speaker 1: you know, finally now things are starting to come out.
Speaker 1: And it was also worth noting that kind of what
Speaker 1: was the watershed moment with regard to any and all
Speaker 1: of this. They've been like whispers and rumors and podcasts, etc.
Speaker 1: Like you said, some little warnings, but when this really
Speaker 1: burst into the public was when Cassie filed her suit,
Speaker 1: and that was made possible by that New York law
Speaker 1: where they opened up there's a you know, statute of
Speaker 1: limitations in New York, and they said, you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to have this limited window where people whose sexual
Speaker 1: assault allegations where the statute of limitations has expired can
Speaker 1: file civil not criminal, civil suits for basically like a
Speaker 1: year's worth of time. And that enabled Cassie to be
Speaker 1: able to file this suit. It was in the context
Speaker 1: of that law, and then not open the floodgates for
Speaker 1: all of these additional civil suits. Reporting from CNN indicates
Speaker 1: that the federal investigation really took those civil suits as
Speaker 1: a starting point for where they began to investigate. And
Speaker 1: now we're at the point where it looks like a
Speaker 1: grand jury is being impaneled and some of the survivors
Speaker 1: or alleged survivors here maybe called to testify about what
Speaker 1: happened to them, what was done to them, and what
Speaker 1: they know.
Speaker 4: I'm usually, you know, inherently skeptical or reflexibly skeptical when
Speaker 4: the Feds start cobbling together drug cases, money laundering cases.
Speaker 6: But the video is so powerful.
Speaker 4: And the testimonies of women that have been coming out
Speaker 4: in the last.
Speaker 6: Half a year are just so so powerful.
Speaker 4: That you know, and knowing by the way that they
Speaker 4: have tapes more tapes that this tape existed, that it
Speaker 4: was sat on since twenty sixteen. Some of these suits,
Speaker 4: like the Little Rod suit named Cuba Gooding Junior, implicated
Speaker 4: other celebrities.
Speaker 6: You know, this is this.
Speaker 4: Is obviously a very bad situation for Diddy's future as
Speaker 4: a free man, because these are incredibly serious. Some of
Speaker 4: them go back decades, but also some of them are
Speaker 4: super recent, like the one that names his son and
Speaker 4: names him as this was from a yacht worker actually
Speaker 4: being a party to the abuse.
Speaker 6: That's very recent stuff.
Speaker 4: We're talking within the last couple of years, you know,
Speaker 4: revenge porn stuff that's, as you mentioned, videotaped assaults allegedly.
Speaker 4: So if they're putting together, if they're leaking to CNN
Speaker 4: that they're putting together quote bulletproof indictment, these videos support
Speaker 4: the case that it's it's actually likely they've got something
Speaker 4: pretty serious on him.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Last thing I'll say about this I think is worth
Speaker 1: noting is part of I mean that Cassie video, if
Speaker 1: you guys, is just unbelieve, I mean psychopathic, like he's
Speaker 1: a monster. Yeah, there's just no denying it looking at
Speaker 1: that video. But What was also really noteworthy is she
Speaker 1: had described in the civil suit she filed that specific interaction.
Speaker 5: Bit by bit, but I mean.
Speaker 1: It was identical which she described was identical to what
Speaker 1: was reflected on the video, which gives a lot of
Speaker 1: credence to everything else she had to say.
Speaker 4: Totally, and they settled, remember amicably, that was the quote
Speaker 4: with no admission of wrongdoing on Detty's part.
Speaker 6: It happened really quickly.
Speaker 4: But that's the power of money, is that you can
Speaker 4: get people to settle quote amicably with no admission of
Speaker 4: wrongdoing within twenty four hours, even when a video like
Speaker 4: that exists and you know it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, unbelievable stuff and I definitely want to keep an
Speaker 1: eye on. Thank you Emily for filling in. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 6: Thank you for having me here. It's so much fun.
Speaker 5: Worked out well.
Speaker 1: Since you're the Diddy expert now, since you dug in
Speaker 1: on the Cassie videos, I'm glad to have you to
Speaker 1: break all of that down.
Speaker 6: We should have Mac do all rap segments in the future.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, these are senior rap correspondent.
Speaker 6: Oh perfect. We should put that on business cards for him.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much for watching again. I'm just
Speaker 1: going to say one more time. If you're having any
Speaker 1: issues Premium subscribers with Locals Support at locals dot com
Speaker 1: email them CC Breakingpoints Premium at gmail dot com. We
Speaker 1: will get whatever problem you're having. We'll get it figured
Speaker 1: out straightened out for you. Thank you, guys so much
Speaker 1: for all the love and support as we make this transition,
Speaker 1: which we are really excited about what it's going to
Speaker 1: mean for the future. Sager will be back next week.
Speaker 1: Enjoy your weekend and we will see you then.
Speaker 13: Shot Keep Shop, Keep.
Speaker 10: Shott Kemp.
Speaker 14: Shot Keep Shop, Shut Keep
Speaker 13: Keep