Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday, Welcome to Breaking Points. A
Speaker 2: little bit of an unusual pairing today. I don't actually
Speaker 2: remember if we've ever done this since studio together.
Speaker 3: I think we have over the years.
Speaker 2: Okay, I know we've done the show together, but maybe
Speaker 2: like remotely.
Speaker 4: But anyway, this is exciting.
Speaker 5: The real heads will have to look through the record
Speaker 5: books and try to figure it out.
Speaker 4: You remember better than I will.
Speaker 5: We all love the premise of the show hearing from
Speaker 5: both sides, but sometimes you just kind of get.
Speaker 2: Sick of that, right sometimes you don't, I really want
Speaker 2: to hear from the others. No, there is a very
Speaker 2: specific reason why is Ryan and mean Today we actually
Speaker 2: have Senator Chris van Holland on, which is going to
Speaker 2: change the format of the show a little bit. Ryan
Speaker 2: secured that booking. I've been really wanting to talk to
Speaker 2: Senator Van Holland. So Sager graciously said, Hey, you guys
Speaker 2: just handled the show so that we can do all
Speaker 2: of that. So we're going to make sure to save
Speaker 2: a good bit of time to speak with the senator
Speaker 2: who has been at the forefront of any number of
Speaker 2: significant issues. He's been pushing back on Schumor, He's obviously
Speaker 2: led the charge in terms of a lot of foreign policy,
Speaker 2: been very courageous with regard to Gaza, with regard to
Speaker 2: kill Marburgo Garcia. So want to talk to him about
Speaker 2: a whole range of issues. Also, Ryan has a weird
Speaker 2: because of course he does, a weird personal connection with
Speaker 2: Chris van Holland. You want to save that for the interviewer.
Speaker 2: You want to give it, Okay, So other things are
Speaker 2: going to try to get through all of this in
Speaker 2: the show. We may go through these things a little
Speaker 2: bit more quickly than we normally do because we are
Speaker 2: trying to get to that interview with Senator Van Holland.
Speaker 2: But we have a big fighte that's broken out now
Speaker 2: between the FED Chair Jerome pal and Donald Trump. The
Speaker 2: DOJ is investigating Powell now for some sort of criminal
Speaker 2: malfeasance with regards to the FED headquarters renovation, and Powell
Speaker 2: is firing back. So we've got our eyes on the markets.
Speaker 2: That is a massive, massive development. We'll break that down
Speaker 2: for you. We've got big developments with regards to ice,
Speaker 2: including very own again Ryan Grim fighting with the president
Speaker 2: vice president of the United States, so well more accurately
Speaker 2: him fighting with you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's true.
Speaker 4: He picked the fighting start.
Speaker 3: Well, I called him psychotic.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's true. That is true in any case, So
Speaker 2: we'll dig into that. But there are a lot more
Speaker 2: details to come out there as well, and also surging,
Speaker 2: you know, ice brutality across the entire country. We've got
Speaker 2: Tim Dillon wing and with his thoughts on the killing
Speaker 2: of Renee Good, we've got potential war with Aron and
Speaker 2: Trump making some new comments there. And then we have
Speaker 2: that aforementioned interview with Senator Chris van Holland, So a
Speaker 2: lot to get into. If you guys enjoy the show,
Speaker 2: please support us at Breakingpoints dot com. And also if
Speaker 2: you cannot sign up for a premium subscription, totally get it.
Speaker 2: It would help us a lot if you guys subscribe
Speaker 2: to the channel. So if you're watching the clips you
Speaker 2: haven't subscribed to the channel, please subscribe to the channel.
Speaker 2: Helps us in the algorithm. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 5: So yeah, and supposedly YouTube is starting to care again
Speaker 5: about subscriptions.
Speaker 4: Oh really, for.
Speaker 5: A long time YouTube it was just a fake button
Speaker 5: that would that just like made creators feel good that
Speaker 5: all I have X number of subscriptions, But they didn't
Speaker 5: care what you subscribed to. They were going to feed
Speaker 5: you what they thought would make you mad. Their algorithm
Speaker 5: would decide you had no real say about what you
Speaker 5: subscribe to or not.
Speaker 3: Supposedly they're going back.
Speaker 4: On that net algorithm their choice, you might say.
Speaker 5: And what they're saying now is okay, Actually, you know
Speaker 5: we're going to we're going to actually start taking into
Speaker 5: account what you have affirmatively told us you're interested in.
Speaker 5: So if you tell them you're interested in this show,
Speaker 5: they'll think about they'll consider.
Speaker 2: Maybe serving you a few more clips the show. It
Speaker 2: is also good for our egos, so that.
Speaker 4: We appreciate that too.
Speaker 3: That's true, all.
Speaker 4: Right, Ryan, you want to break down this that chair situation.
Speaker 5: So last night Jerome Pal put out a let's just
Speaker 5: roll a one here. This is Jerome Pal saying that
Speaker 5: on Friday he was basically served with papers that Trump
Speaker 5: is trying to prosecute him.
Speaker 6: On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve
Speaker 6: with grand jury subpoenas threatening a criminal indictment related to
Speaker 6: my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That
Speaker 6: testimony concerned, in part, a multi year project to renovate
Speaker 6: historic Federal Reserve office buildings. I have deep respect for
Speaker 6: the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy.
Speaker 6: No one, certainly not the Chair of the Federal Reserve
Speaker 6: is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be
Speaker 6: seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and
Speaker 6: ongoing pressure. This new threat is not about my testimony
Speaker 6: last June, or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings.
Speaker 6: It is not about Congress's oversight rule the Fed. Through
Speaker 6: testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep
Speaker 6: Congress informed about the renovation project.
Speaker 5: Those are pretexts.
Speaker 6: The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the
Speaker 6: Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment
Speaker 6: of what will serve the public, rather than following the
Speaker 6: preferences of the President. This is about whether the Fed
Speaker 6: will be able to continue to set interest rates based
Speaker 6: on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy
Speaker 6: will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. I have
Speaker 6: served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and
Speaker 6: Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my
Speaker 6: duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our
Speaker 6: mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Public service sometimes
Speaker 6: requires standing firm in the face of threats. I will
Speaker 6: continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to
Speaker 6: do with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people.
Speaker 5: And the financial fallout of this, the economic fallout I'll
Speaker 5: read just straight from the Wall Street Journal. Stock futures
Speaker 5: feed all the dollar weekend, and gold prices jumped to
Speaker 5: a record after FED share pal said President Trump was
Speaker 5: seeking to press the Central banket and cutting interest rates
Speaker 5: the markets.
Speaker 4: Gold buds really vindicated under this administration.
Speaker 5: If you bought gold, yes, every day you're feeling better
Speaker 5: and better. The market moves points, you reinvigorated concerns about
Speaker 5: FED independence. And it says that tech stocks are leading
Speaker 5: the crash in futures because tech stocks rely most heavily
Speaker 5: on interest rates, on interest rates and easy.
Speaker 3: Money, and so they because they they don't think clearly.
Speaker 5: A market doesn't think that, oh, well, he's prosecuting pal
Speaker 5: He's going to get exactly what he wants. Because if
Speaker 5: they thought that, then it'd be like, oh okay, let's
Speaker 5: bye bye bye. But instead they're they're kind of shaken
Speaker 5: by this. This And we were talking about this earlier.
Speaker 5: You were pointing out that this was this is kind
Speaker 5: of Trump airing out his grievance from last summer where
Speaker 5: Palell kind of embarrassed in front of the cameras. When
Speaker 5: you know, Trump likes to dress down his subordinates and
Speaker 5: loves to then you know, just be praised by them
Speaker 5: or they sit there silently and take it.
Speaker 3: Pal didn't do that. So let's roll.
Speaker 5: I think it's the third element here.
Speaker 3: A three.
Speaker 5: This is still the summer of twenty twenty five, and.
Speaker 7: Kim has been with me for a long time and
Speaker 7: you're in judge of the committee.
Speaker 8: One of the reasons why I wanted to see it
Speaker 8: was the overruns of the expenses, wanting to figure out why.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so we taking a look and it looks like
Speaker 7: it's about three point one billion. Who went up a
Speaker 7: little bit or a lot, so the two point seven
Speaker 7: is now three point one.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it just came out.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I haven't heard that from anybody to set.
Speaker 7: It just came.
Speaker 3: I know about three point one as well.
Speaker 6: This came from us.
Speaker 7: Yes, I don't know who does that?
Speaker 3: Are you including the Martin renovation?
Speaker 6: You just retire capital, you just you just added in
Speaker 6: a third building?
Speaker 3: Is what that is? That's a third building.
Speaker 7: It's a building that's being built.
Speaker 5: It's been it was built five years ago.
Speaker 6: We finished Martin.
Speaker 7: Five years over as part of the oldall sow So
Speaker 7: we're going to take a look. We're going to see
Speaker 7: what's happening.
Speaker 3: And it's got a long way.
Speaker 10: Do you expect any more additional course.
Speaker 3: O roads, don't expect them. We're ready for him. But
Speaker 3: we have a little bit of a reserve that.
Speaker 6: Well we may use, but no we don't expect to
Speaker 6: be finished in twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 3: We're well along as you can see.
Speaker 7: Uh, nice to take these off every once.
Speaker 10: In a while.
Speaker 5: Okay, so the Fed did a renovation project. Trump thinks
Speaker 5: it's too expensive. Probably is all renovation projects are.
Speaker 3: And now.
Speaker 5: In order to make that case, he shows how this
Speaker 5: letter pal figures out immediately you just throw in another building.
Speaker 2: Just added in this other building that was completed years ago.
Speaker 5: I'm not a developer, but if you add in another building,
Speaker 5: that does increase the cost.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 2: Ye, that's my understanding of how this works as well well.
Speaker 2: And so there's both. So I mean, obviously, government agencies
Speaker 2: go over budget all the time. Runovasions go over budget
Speaker 2: all the time. What makes this a even theoretical crime.
Speaker 2: They're investigating whether he lied to Congress about the possible
Speaker 2: cost overruns. And so you know, there's the political aspect
Speaker 2: of this, the retribution campaign. Obviously, Powell's not the first
Speaker 2: for Trump to try to go after. It has not
Speaker 2: been that successful yet, which I think is something that
Speaker 2: we should all be heartened by. They've tried to jump
Speaker 2: these like mortgage fraud claims against Letitia James and others,
Speaker 2: those have not really gone anywhere. A bunch of these
Speaker 2: things have gotten thrown out a court. Now they're going
Speaker 2: after Leticia James again. This time they're investigating something to
Speaker 2: do with her hairdresser. I mean, very obviously, this is
Speaker 2: not about going after like, oh, we've got to find
Speaker 2: the worst criminals and the worst malfeasans and go after
Speaker 2: though those people they're partnering. They're looking to go after
Speaker 2: Trump's political enemies. It is incredibly overt. It is the
Speaker 2: sort of thing that in any other time, in any
Speaker 2: other administration, would be a massive front page scandal for weeks,
Speaker 2: if not months, if not years. I still remember the
Speaker 2: whole thing about the IRS allegedly targeting tea party groups
Speaker 2: and not being independent and all of that, and that
Speaker 2: what was it a conversation between Clinton and who was
Speaker 2: it at the time, who was Attorney general. I mean,
Speaker 2: these things were like massive scandals, and now it's just
Speaker 2: out in the open. Trump sees the DOJ as his
Speaker 2: personal weapon of political retribution. He's mad at Powell because
Speaker 2: he didn't wasn't sufficiently slavish in that exchange, and most critically,
Speaker 2: because he hasn't done what Trump wants him to do
Speaker 2: with regard to interest rates. So there's that piece, and
Speaker 2: then of course there's the financial piece. So the FED
Speaker 2: is supposed to be independent from the executive. Now I
Speaker 2: think there is an argument to be made over wether
Speaker 2: that is the correct structure or not. However, if in
Speaker 2: my opinion, Trump is pushing me more in the other direction,
Speaker 2: and I was more open to it before, now I'm like,
Speaker 2: do I want Donald Trump to be setting the monetary
Speaker 2: policy and the interest rates?
Speaker 4: No? I do not know.
Speaker 2: I do not want that situation. And you know, I
Speaker 2: don't think that Wall Street is excited about that possibility either,
Speaker 2: which is why you see this this market crash. The
Speaker 2: other thing, Ryan is like Powell's term is up in May.
Speaker 2: You only have to wait this like it's a few.
Speaker 3: More months, right, What are you doing?
Speaker 4: Why now?
Speaker 2: But so, and I think that's where you're flagging of this,
Speaker 2: you know, this moment that they exchange and just him
Speaker 2: sort of like hating Powell personally, where that really comes
Speaker 2: into the mix as well, because he's going to be
Speaker 2: able to have his person his like toty loyalist who's
Speaker 2: going to be vetted for you know, his willingness to
Speaker 2: do whatever Trump wants him to do in a matter
Speaker 2: of months. Very likely, this, if anything, throws a wrench
Speaker 2: into his ability to get that person put a two
Speaker 2: up on the screen. Tom Tellus, who is a Republican
Speaker 2: but he's tiring Republican representing North Carolina, says, if there's
Speaker 2: any remaining doubt whether advisors within the Trump administration are
Speaker 2: actively pushing and the independence of the FED there should
Speaker 2: be now none. It is now the independence and credibility
Speaker 2: Department of Justice that are in question.
Speaker 4: Then this is the critical part.
Speaker 2: I will oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the FED,
Speaker 2: including the upkedit coming FED chair vacancy, until this legal
Speaker 2: matter is fully resolved. So you now at least one
Speaker 2: Republican saying I am not going along with anyone until
Speaker 2: this whole thing is put to bed.
Speaker 5: And why this matters is that he's on the Senate
Speaker 5: Banking Committee where the FED appointees would have to go.
Speaker 5: So is Chris van Holland we could ask him about
Speaker 5: the dynamics there when he's here later, but that means
Speaker 5: that if he votes no, because Republicans have a two
Speaker 5: seat majority there, that's a deadlocked vote. So then to
Speaker 5: get him onto the floor, you'd have to you know,
Speaker 5: basically have a floor fight to like pull him out
Speaker 5: of committee and go against the committee, which then puts
Speaker 5: people like Susan Collins, who's running for you know, in
Speaker 5: a competitive seat in Maine, in a tough spot because
Speaker 5: it's now like, are you going to you know, go
Speaker 5: against the Republican on the banking community so that you
Speaker 5: can fuel this corrupt prosecution of the feduer like, so
Speaker 5: that puts somebody like a Collins in a very difficult situation,
Speaker 5: or even Ricketts in Nebraska who's facing Osborne.
Speaker 3: And and and two.
Speaker 2: By the way, you know, also many of these senators
Speaker 2: are very tied into Wall Street that is not happy
Speaker 2: about these moves. So they're you know, at odds between
Speaker 2: Trump's desires and the desires of their money.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's right, there is this. This is one of
Speaker 5: those places where Wall Street, the Wall Street wing of
Speaker 5: the Republican Party is like, bro, what are you doing?
Speaker 5: And yeah, I'm I'm with you in this sense that
Speaker 5: I've always believed that there should be more democratic control
Speaker 5: around the FED.
Speaker 3: This is not this is not democratic control though.
Speaker 4: No, this is this is the control of a monarch.
Speaker 5: Right who And you could imagine, like the FED has
Speaker 5: all of these differ diferent windows that where they lend
Speaker 5: overnight to like if Trump was you know, Trump does
Speaker 5: understand lending in interest rates, because that's how he has
Speaker 5: made his career, like just basically playing games with cash
Speaker 5: flow and interest rates and bankruptcy laws. He could go
Speaker 5: in there and be like, Okay, this bank, let's let's
Speaker 5: lend to them at point twenty five. These guys at
Speaker 5: point two four, how do you get down to point
Speaker 5: two zero? Well, Trump organization, you know, has a little
Speaker 5: bitcoin sale going on, you know, pump some money in there.
Speaker 5: So like that's it is.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 5: It is an argument for uh, certainly not allowing just
Speaker 5: like the unchecked control by one guy over trillions of
Speaker 5: dollars from Trump.
Speaker 2: Wanted to get to the very latest with regard to
Speaker 2: the killing of Renee Good and the fallout from that.
Speaker 2: The way the administration is handling it, and one of
Speaker 2: the ways they're handling it is apparently getting in Twitter
Speaker 2: fights with Ryan Grimm. Let's put b one up on
Speaker 2: the screen here. This is the vice president. Now imagine
Speaker 2: you are vice president of the United States and no offense. Ryan,
Speaker 2: I agree, I don't think that this would be how
Speaker 2: I'm spending my time personally. So anyway, Ryan said something
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 4: Is objectively correct.
Speaker 2: He said that the vice president was genuinely psychotic, innocent.
Speaker 2: He shot an unarmed woman twice through a side window
Speaker 2: and then called her an effing bitch, let her bleed
Speaker 2: out and fled the scene. So this is in reaction
Speaker 2: to jd. Vance, you know, completely venerating the Ice agent
Speaker 2: who called him innocent, who killed Renee Good, and Jade
Speaker 2: Vance replies, these people meaning you are incapable of not
Speaker 2: lying about this side window question mark. You can see
Speaker 2: the photos of the car with bullet holes. The shots
Speaker 2: came from the front of the car because that's where
Speaker 2: the officer was standing when he was hit by the car.
Speaker 2: He is allowed to discharge his weapon in self defense.
Speaker 4: Ryan response, it's interesting.
Speaker 5: To go through there and and count the number of
Speaker 5: just falsehoods in it.
Speaker 2: In his in his claim that you're lying, the number
Speaker 2: of lies.
Speaker 5: Yes, like holes is a lie, there's only one hole.
Speaker 5: Bullets is a lie. Standing in front of the car
Speaker 5: is a lie.
Speaker 3: And that he's.
Speaker 5: Allowed to discharge his weapon in self defense is generally true,
Speaker 5: but not in the circumstances that he put himself in.
Speaker 5: He it was self created risk.
Speaker 4: Hit by the car does not appear hit.
Speaker 5: By the I would lost lost count of all the
Speaker 5: incorrect assertions in that thing. If we can put up
Speaker 5: this the photo next to show like, if you really
Speaker 5: don't believe me, you put up B two three here.
Speaker 5: So this is an image of this is one of
Speaker 5: the frames. This is before he has fired his first shot.
Speaker 5: MJ kindly circled In turn of m J kindly circled
Speaker 5: the legs there. So for people who are confused, because
Speaker 5: it's hard to be because the fact that the other
Speaker 5: guy's silhouette is like blocking the other dude, This would
Speaker 5: be open and shut across the spectrum if that other
Speaker 5: guy wasn't there and you could see him. So now
Speaker 5: now here this is. That's the smoke from the first
Speaker 5: shot that hits the that does hit the front windshield.
Speaker 5: But notice where his legs were.
Speaker 4: And look where that shot is.
Speaker 2: Okay, that is the front furthest corner of the windshield,
Speaker 2: which is not actually what you would hit if you
Speaker 2: were standing in front of the.
Speaker 3: Car right right.
Speaker 5: And so the fact that you can see his legs
Speaker 5: means that he was not in front of the car.
Speaker 5: If he was in front of the car, you wouldn't
Speaker 5: be able to see his legs.
Speaker 3: Now what what what Jady Van?
Speaker 5: What started this was jd Vance had said, quote, what
Speaker 5: the press has done and lying about this innocent law
Speaker 5: enforcement officer is disgusting. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Speaker 5: And he said that in response to the video that
Speaker 5: came from uh the officer's phone, which we noticed early on,
Speaker 5: We're like, wait a minute, is that is that a
Speaker 5: phone in his hand? Because he actually he actually filming.
Speaker 3: Turns out he was filming.
Speaker 5: It was leaked to Alpha News, which is a publication
Speaker 5: that has ties has close contact with like police unions
Speaker 5: in Minnesota and so. And then the fact that there
Speaker 5: was a coordinated, immediate response on the right to say
Speaker 5: this is this vindicates him, suggests that they really believe that,
Speaker 5: like they put this, they put this footage out and
Speaker 5: so let's let's we can roll this, roll this footage.
Speaker 5: This is the footage that Jadie Vance was responding to.
Speaker 5: So here he is, he gets out of his car.
Speaker 3: Here you can see the dog in the car.
Speaker 5: He's circling around and then he comes around the side,
Speaker 5: and I think this image right here is what the
Speaker 5: right was seizing on. They're like, look, she's a liberal.
Speaker 5: Look at her face. You can tell she's a liberal.
Speaker 5: We told her she was a liberal. She deserved it.
Speaker 5: So now what he has here, he's gotten her license,
Speaker 5: so he has no reason to like keep her in
Speaker 5: the scene, keep her at the scene, or anything else.
Speaker 5: He now switches hands, he moves his phone from his
Speaker 5: right hand to his left hand, so his now you
Speaker 5: see her turn to the right.
Speaker 3: You see that, you saw her.
Speaker 5: Now he shoots her, and then he calls her in
Speaker 5: F and B. So you saw her turning the wheel
Speaker 5: to the right. That means he saw her turning the
Speaker 5: wheel to the right. His feet are on the side
Speaker 5: of the car. He then shoots her once through the
Speaker 5: front windshield, twice through the side window. Jade Van sees
Speaker 5: that and just completely lies about what's in it.
Speaker 4: They seem to that.
Speaker 2: I think you're correct that the real thing that they
Speaker 2: find to be vindicating here is that these are liberal
Speaker 2: lesbian women, right and so for for a rabid online
Speaker 2: movement like the New Right online Edge, lord's the fact
Speaker 2: that they look like they're liberal and their lesbians means
Speaker 2: they deserved it, and that is the real I think
Speaker 2: that is the primary point of the video. And you've
Speaker 2: got you know, the one woman, her wife, Rene's wife
Speaker 2: who's there sassing the officer, are basically fat jaming him.
Speaker 3: And did they bleep out her saying that she was
Speaker 3: a veteran or something.
Speaker 2: I don't know, And I think that's worth mentioning too,
Speaker 2: is like this, we have no way of knowing if
Speaker 2: this was edited in any way also to make this
Speaker 2: as favorable as possible for him. But then the other
Speaker 2: thing that they seized on is, you know, at the
Speaker 2: end when he fires the shots, the phone kind of
Speaker 2: goes and they act like that's definitive that he gets hit,
Speaker 2: even though the video does not show that at all,
Speaker 2: and in fact, we have much clear videos. We showed
Speaker 2: one on the show on Friday, and New York Times
Speaker 2: did an analysis. Wall Street Journal did an analysis that
Speaker 2: found no, he actually wasn't even grazed by the car.
Speaker 4: He was to the side of the car. He was
Speaker 4: not hit by the car.
Speaker 2: But because the phone kind of like goes crazy in
Speaker 2: that moment, they oh he got hit, I saw someone,
Speaker 2: Oh he got hit And he.
Speaker 4: Got hit hard. This proves that conclusively, like it literally doesn't.
Speaker 2: And it makes you feel like you're going crazy when
Speaker 2: you watch these videos and it is so clear what
Speaker 2: is going on here, Like she was trying to leave.
Speaker 2: Now you may say she shouldn't have done that. There's
Speaker 2: also it's also very clear she was receiving contradictory orders
Speaker 2: at that point, so it was impossible for her to comply.
Speaker 2: So in any case, you could say she didn't do
Speaker 2: the right thing by trying to leave the scene. Does
Speaker 2: that justify her getting shot in the face three times?
Speaker 4: You know, we've seen now.
Speaker 2: Multiple videos of protesters who position themselves in front of
Speaker 2: ice vehicles, including you brought this up on the show,
Speaker 2: or actually Emily brought it up, and then you were
Speaker 2: challenging her on at kat Aba Gazella, who's a congressional
Speaker 2: candidate in Chicago, where you know they're trying to prosecute
Speaker 2: her because she was part of a group that was
Speaker 2: trying to stand in front of an ice vehicle and
Speaker 2: they're getting pushed by that ice vehicle. Okay, So by
Speaker 2: this logic, was her life in danger which she justified
Speaker 2: to you know, if she had a weapon pulled out
Speaker 2: and shoot the ICE agent driving the car in the face.
Speaker 2: Of course, not like anyone would look at that and
Speaker 2: say that's absolutely insane, not to mention it wouldn't like
Speaker 2: it wouldn't solve the problem because the car would then
Speaker 2: keep going. Right, Now, you have what I saw one
Speaker 2: law enforcement you know, I think retired law enforcement agents
Speaker 2: said this. Then you have an unguided missile. Then that
Speaker 2: creates other safety. Imagine there's children playing, Imagine there's other
Speaker 2: people around, and you have now this car careening with
Speaker 2: the dead person at the wheel. So you know, the
Speaker 2: whole thing and the approach to it, the immediate tagging
Speaker 2: of her as a domestic terrorist, and the not just
Speaker 2: the defense of but the veneration of this officer, and
Speaker 2: the comments from JD. Vance that ICE agents have like him,
Speaker 2: have absolute immunity. You know, we are already seeing them
Speaker 2: sort of taking and running with that. I mean the
Speaker 2: number of videos I've seen of them just randomly assaulting people.
Speaker 2: We had another shooting and poor still don't know the
Speaker 2: details of that. Two people were shot there. The government
Speaker 2: story is already not adding up with regards to the
Speaker 2: details that have come out there. So you know, the
Speaker 2: willingness to just completely deny reality is something that is
Speaker 2: very hard for me to grapple with.
Speaker 5: It is it's very tough, and Christy Gnome has really
Speaker 5: led the way in that with her initial press conference
Speaker 5: where she basically said implied that he was dragged by
Speaker 5: the car.
Speaker 2: Like she said just before we play this club, she said,
Speaker 2: one of the vehicles, the ICE vehicles became stuck and
Speaker 2: ensnare in the snow. No sign of that in any
Speaker 2: of the videos we've seen. Law enforcement were attempting to
Speaker 2: push out this vehicle. Have you seen any of that. No,
Speaker 2: we've seen no video of that. When a mob of
Speaker 2: agitators that were harassing them all day again we know
Speaker 2: she had just dropped her kid off at preschool or
Speaker 2: at school, began blocking them in, shouting at them and
Speaker 2: impeding law enforcement operations. ICE officers and agents approached the
Speaker 2: vehicle of the individual in question who was blocking the officers.
Speaker 2: We saw her wave them by by the way roadway
Speaker 2: they could have gone by and with her vehicle, and
Speaker 2: she'd been starting compeeding their work all throughout the day.
Speaker 2: ICE agents repeatedly ordered her to get out of the
Speaker 2: car and to stop obstructing law enforcement. She refused to
Speaker 2: obey their commands. She then proceeded to weaponize her vehicle,
Speaker 2: and she attempted to run a law enforcement officer over.
Speaker 2: That's what she had said, and let's go ahead and play. So,
Speaker 2: Jake Tapper, just.
Speaker 5: Real quick before you go it, because there's this debate
Speaker 5: about whether or not she was quote unquote stalking them,
Speaker 5: which doesn't change anything about whether or not it's justified
Speaker 5: in shooting her. Right, the shooting was at nine thirty
Speaker 5: five am, and we know for sure they dropped the
Speaker 5: kid off at school. I don't know exactly when school started.
Speaker 5: Anybody who was watching this either has kids in school
Speaker 5: or has gone to school themselves. It's not that much
Speaker 5: before nine thirty five, Like, there's no even if it
Speaker 5: even as one of these early starting schools of like
Speaker 5: seven fifty or something like that, that at most would
Speaker 5: give them ninety minutes to be following them around. But
Speaker 5: that doesn't remotely appear to be the case. Yes, there,
Speaker 5: it looks like a couple of minutes like this was
Speaker 5: like this was activism of opportunity. They're like coming home
Speaker 5: from dropping the kid off and they see.
Speaker 3: This is in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Street they lived blocked away, and so they're like let's
Speaker 2: get out and like let's let's protest this like that.
Speaker 5: So this is not like some like antifat trained situation
Speaker 5: where they're like been stalking them all day long.
Speaker 3: Again, nine to thirty five am is when this is happening.
Speaker 5: So yeah, anyway, So Christy Nome again on Jake Tapper's show,
Speaker 5: Why did you.
Speaker 11: Not wait for an investigation before making your comments?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 12: Well, everything that I've said has been proven to be
Speaker 12: factual in the truth. This administration wants to operate in transparency.
Speaker 12: I have the responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security
Speaker 12: to know this information as soon as possible. Had just
Speaker 12: been in Minneapolis the day before, had already had conversations
Speaker 12: with officers on the ground and supervisors and knew the facts,
Speaker 12: and has decided that the department and the people of
Speaker 12: this country deserve to know the truth that the situation
Speaker 12: of what had unfolded in Minneapolis.
Speaker 7: With all the.
Speaker 11: Respect, Secretary, the first thing you said was, quote, what
Speaker 11: happened was our ice officers were out in an enforcement action.
Speaker 11: They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse
Speaker 11: weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push
Speaker 11: out their vehicle, and a woman attacked them and those
Speaker 11: surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram
Speaker 11: them with her vehicle.
Speaker 3: That's not what happened. We all saw.
Speaker 12: What happened, absolutely is what happened. Those officers had been
Speaker 12: out in an enforcement action. A vehicle had been stuck.
Speaker 12: They had come to help get that vehicle out. That's
Speaker 12: when this individual started blocking traffic for minutes and minute.
Speaker 11: They said that the woman attacked them and surrounded them
Speaker 11: and attempted to run them over and ram them with their.
Speaker 12: Vehicle, blocked the road for a long time, and was
Speaker 12: yelling at them and impeding a federal law enforcement investigation.
Speaker 5: She should have responded, I'm not so sure I agree
Speaker 5: with your police work there. It's so weird having a
Speaker 5: Fargo type character as part of this whole thing, like
Speaker 5: what happened to the whole Northwest nice thing or.
Speaker 4: The like, not with the puppy killers.
Speaker 3: But yet this is what happened. Yeah, actually that is
Speaker 3: what happened.
Speaker 4: Like we can see the video.
Speaker 2: We saw it, you know, I mean, And that's the
Speaker 2: point is like they I think I think it is
Speaker 2: the message they want to go out to all to
Speaker 2: all of America and especially to ICE and CPP and
Speaker 2: all of these you know, federal agents and they're kidded
Speaker 2: out gear who've been searched into various cities. Is that
Speaker 2: we will make shit up on your behalf.
Speaker 4: We will completely lie.
Speaker 2: You can do whatever you want, and we will defend
Speaker 2: it in a like humiliating an embarrassing way, in a
Speaker 2: way that is completely disconnected from reality. Doesn't matter if
Speaker 2: there's a video, it doesn't matter if people can see
Speaker 2: with their own eyes that something completely different happened. We
Speaker 2: will go to the map for you, and we will
Speaker 2: lie on your behalf publicly and repeatedly. And I think
Speaker 2: you know, so it's not an accident that this is
Speaker 2: the way they approach it. The other thing here is
Speaker 2: Tapper asked, you know, made a comparison between people who
Speaker 2: actually only beat up police officers on January sixth and
Speaker 2: were pardoned by this president versus this woman. And I
Speaker 2: think many people, myself included, have pointed out like, Okay,
Speaker 2: so you know, you guys are very upset about Ashley Babbitt.
Speaker 2: I think there's some actually justification to be upset about
Speaker 2: Ashley Pabbitt, Would it have been justified for many other
Speaker 2: protesters writers on January sixth, you have been killed by
Speaker 2: the cops there who were actually getting beaten and violently threatened.
Speaker 2: Let's go and take a listen to tap or make
Speaker 2: that comparison with her.
Speaker 11: Those are law enforcement officers being physically attacked by this standard,
Speaker 11: Would any of those officers being justified and shooting and
Speaker 11: killing the people causing them physical harm?
Speaker 12: Every single situation is going to rely on the situation
Speaker 12: those officers are on. That they know that when people
Speaker 12: are putting hands on them, when they are using weapons
Speaker 12: against them, when they are physically harming them, that they
Speaker 12: have the authority to arrest those individuals.
Speaker 11: President every single one of those people.
Speaker 12: And make sure that they're getting justice for their actions.
Speaker 4: Going forward.
Speaker 11: President Trump pardoned every single one of those Every.
Speaker 12: Single one of these investigations comes in the full context
Speaker 12: of the situation on the ground. And that's one thing
Speaker 12: that President Trump has been so focused on is making
Speaker 12: sure that when we're out there, we don't pick and
Speaker 12: choose which situations are in which laws are enforced and
Speaker 12: which ones aren't. Every single one of them is being
Speaker 12: enforced under the Trump administration and the clarity of the
Speaker 12: law stands, and if people don't like it, these members
Speaker 12: of Congress and elected officials should go change the law
Speaker 12: and make sure they have that debate in policy.
Speaker 11: I just showed you video of people attacking law enforcement officers,
Speaker 11: undisputed proof, undisputed evidence, and I just said President Trump
Speaker 11: pardoned all of them. And you said that President Trump
Speaker 11: is enforcing all the laws equally.
Speaker 3: It's just not true.
Speaker 11: There's a different standard for law enforcement officials being attacked
Speaker 11: if they're being attacked by Trump supporters.
Speaker 3: We just saw them.
Speaker 12: This individual and these instances and these investigations all have
Speaker 12: to be taken and done and done correctly in context
Speaker 12: of every situation that is happening on the ground.
Speaker 2: I mean, the whole thing is just in group versus
Speaker 2: out group, and it's deeply un American, and the idea
Speaker 2: is supposed to be not that we've ever lived up
Speaker 2: to it, but there's one standard of justice for all.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: They don't accept that. They genuinely don't. And that's where
Speaker 2: you know, included in on the video that they were
Speaker 2: so excited to share. What they wanted you to get
Speaker 2: is this is the out group. So they deserved it,
Speaker 2: whereas January sixth rioters who were some of whom were
Speaker 2: actually assaulting police.
Speaker 4: Well, that's the end group. So it's totally different.
Speaker 2: And you know, that's what Trump's pardon schemes, that's what
Speaker 2: that's about as well, Like, oh, well they're on my
Speaker 2: team now, so you know, even though you may have
Speaker 2: been a former president who actually was involved in narco
Speaker 2: trafficking a quote unquote narco terrorists, that's the term of art,
Speaker 2: now doesn't matter because you're on our team. So you
Speaker 2: can do yeah, you can you can do yeah. You're
Speaker 2: you're close with Peter Tiel and whatever, so you can
Speaker 2: do whatever you want. And you know, and there is
Speaker 2: he has said himself like he claims the powers of
Speaker 2: the monarch, that the only limits to his power are
Speaker 2: his own morality.
Speaker 4: Is that is the quote.
Speaker 2: So they don't accept the idea that there should be
Speaker 2: one standard of justice. They they want to rip that apart.
Speaker 2: They want to change that in the minds of the
Speaker 2: American public. And I think you have to say, with
Speaker 2: regard to their own base, they have accomplished that. Now, Look,
Speaker 2: everybody is guilty on some level of hypocrisy, right of
Speaker 2: there's a lot of tribal thinking and partisan brain. There's
Speaker 2: no doubt about that. That that is, you know, something
Speaker 2: that happens across the board. This is really something different
Speaker 2: in terms of the weaponization, the use of the federal
Speaker 2: government to try to codify and to actualize a reality
Speaker 2: where all that matters is whether you're on the in
Speaker 2: group or in the end group. And you know, I
Speaker 2: don't think it'll work. I think people are disgusted by it.
Speaker 2: I actually be curious for your take on you know,
Speaker 2: how you think this is going, like for JD. Vance
Speaker 2: and his presidential ambitions, But they've convinced themselves that this
Speaker 2: is a strong place politically to stand. I don't think,
Speaker 2: you know, it couldn't be further from the truth. Abolished ice,
Speaker 2: which used to be you know, sort of a fringe sentiment,
Speaker 2: is creeping up on majoritary position. Yeah, and the overwhelming
Speaker 2: majority of Americans say that they use way too much
Speaker 2: force and they're out of control because they can see
Speaker 2: these videos and so this is insane, right. I mean,
Speaker 2: as much criticism as I've had for local police officer,
Speaker 2: like you would never see them behaving in this completely
Speaker 2: like just routinely in every situation, totally insane and illegal manner.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it is jd Vance tying himself unnecessarily,
Speaker 5: even like he didn't have to jump in here to
Speaker 5: the least popular elements of this version of trump Ism
Speaker 5: or Maganism like that. So I think it's extremely damaging
Speaker 5: to him. I think clearly AOC who I don't think
Speaker 5: will be his opponent this time, but maybe twenty thirty
Speaker 5: two more likely you've seen her kind of say, like
Speaker 5: the difference between me and Jade Vances, I don't think
Speaker 5: that the American people should be shot in the face.
Speaker 5: Like it's like, how did you wind up positioning yourself
Speaker 5: in defense of this guy calling him innocent, saying he
Speaker 5: should be thanked for what he did when the entire
Speaker 5: country like saw what he did. Yeah, so yeah, I
Speaker 5: think it's actually extraordinarily dangerous for him politically, Like I think,
Speaker 5: and I think he recognizes that. I think he's a
Speaker 5: bit impulsive. He posts too much, and now he's out there,
Speaker 5: and I think that's why he's saying just completely false
Speaker 5: things because he wants to establish, at least among the
Speaker 5: Republican base, a set of facts which are that I'm
Speaker 5: putting facts in quote here and the facts he wants
Speaker 5: to establish are this guy was hit by the car
Speaker 5: and that he and then the you know, the bullets
Speaker 5: came through the front windshield, Like he needs he wants
Speaker 5: those quote unquote facts to be established. And then no
Speaker 5: one wants to show you that grainy, sped up video
Speaker 5: that they've been circulating. Yeah, which if you if that's
Speaker 5: all you saw, you'd be like, oh, it does kind
Speaker 5: of look like he gets bumped in that footage. Then
Speaker 5: if you watch it in the regular speed and you
Speaker 5: watch it in context with the other body, you're like, oh,
Speaker 5: he didn't get hit.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think he really cares about what facts
Speaker 2: he establishes. I think he wants the like white nationalist
Speaker 2: Graper part of the base to forgive him for having
Speaker 2: an Indian wife and and.
Speaker 4: This is his work. It's not going to happen.
Speaker 2: This is his attempt to convince them that he's he's
Speaker 2: one of them, he's one of them, that he will
Speaker 2: go full fascist, that he's all in on the race war,
Speaker 2: that he will lie on behalf of the regime. Like
Speaker 2: he wants to convince them that he is one of
Speaker 2: the good ones and he is not actually a race trader,
Speaker 2: and you know, I don't think that is ever going
Speaker 2: to work out for him, but he doesn't seem to
Speaker 2: have figured that out.
Speaker 4: This next piece I think is important.
Speaker 2: Tom Homan, who it's worth remembering like actually got the job,
Speaker 2: got his initial job in government under Obama.
Speaker 4: Was where he was really elevated.
Speaker 2: His initial reaction after this happened was kind of like
Speaker 2: the normal reaction you might expect, where he was like,
Speaker 2: we should have an investigation, right, not.
Speaker 5: Going to say anything about this until the investigation plays out.
Speaker 2: And Tom Holman is a disgusting, psychopathic cretan, okay, but
Speaker 2: even he was like, we should have an investigation and
Speaker 2: then we'll see.
Speaker 4: He has since shifted.
Speaker 2: His tone as he's picked up on what this administration,
Speaker 2: this regime expects him to do. He got asked about
Speaker 2: this question of do you think she's a domestic terrorist?
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and take a listen to this, because
Speaker 2: I think this is an important piece.
Speaker 8: Is anyone who protests ice a domestic terrorist in the
Speaker 8: eyes of the administs?
Speaker 9: I can't say that. You know, it's a case by
Speaker 9: case basis, but you know, if you look up definition
Speaker 9: of terrorism, is there violence, is there threat? Of violence
Speaker 9: based on an ideology that wants to change the way
Speaker 9: the government does what we do. Look up the definition terrorism.
Speaker 5: With Secretary Nome correct to label her a domestic terrorist.
Speaker 4: Mister Homan, look, we don't know what.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 9: If Secretary Nome knows, what I know, I can tell
Speaker 9: you is what they did is illegal. And if you
Speaker 9: look up this definition of terrorism, it certainly could fall
Speaker 9: within that definition. If you look at definition, you don't
Speaker 9: have evidence.
Speaker 4: Pardon you don't have evidence that she's a domestic terrorist.
Speaker 13: I don't know.
Speaker 9: What secretary has that I don't I'm not going to
Speaker 9: judge what the Secretary says, but if you look up
Speaker 9: the definition of terrorism, it certainly can fall within that.
Speaker 2: So Ryan, he says, if you look up the definition,
Speaker 2: and true enough, if you look up the definition as
Speaker 2: offered by this government, he's probably right. And he says
Speaker 2: something else, that's like, she has an ideology that wants
Speaker 2: to change how we do what we do. Isn't I mean,
Speaker 2: aren't we allowed to have an opinion about how the government?
Speaker 4: But in their they think no.
Speaker 2: And this is where Ken Klippenstein's reporting about NSPM seven
Speaker 2: comes in. They genuinely want to define any protesters, like
Speaker 2: anyone who does disagree with how they do what they do.
Speaker 2: They think that's illegitimate. They think we won the election,
Speaker 2: we get to do whatever the fuck we want, and
Speaker 2: you don't get to really say anything. And if you
Speaker 2: do step out on the line in any way, yeah,
Speaker 2: we we think you should be put in this category
Speaker 2: of domestic terror. So I think in their minds and
Speaker 2: according to the definition, which you know, the definition of
Speaker 2: terrorism is sort of like always fake and made of
Speaker 2: and extremely political by their definition, they genuinely see.
Speaker 4: Her that way.
Speaker 5: Well, they've some elements of the administration have called the
Speaker 5: Democratic Party like domestic terrorists.
Speaker 4: That's right, Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: They don't think that opposition is legitimate, even the incredibly weak,
Speaker 2: barely existent opposition offered by the Democratic Party.
Speaker 4: They find that to be too much.
Speaker 5: And what they have managed to do is create actual opposition.
Speaker 5: If you've been watching this show, you you've noticed over
Speaker 5: the kind of first year of the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: And Trump himself even commented on this.
Speaker 5: He said, Wow, I thought there'd be more opposition to me,
Speaker 5: but the opposition is basically just rolled over, And that
Speaker 5: was that was more or less the case other than
Speaker 5: like Chris van Holland going down to El Salvador and
Speaker 5: a few cases here and there. The party was just
Speaker 5: flat on its back, and so were a lot of
Speaker 5: activist groups. Now because of them constantly poking this bear,
Speaker 5: people are actually starting to rise up and can put
Speaker 5: up b seven here. So it's not just that people
Speaker 5: are now coming out in the streets of Minneapolis and
Speaker 5: confronting Ice wherever they find themselves. You know, they try
Speaker 5: to go to the bathroom a target, and they just
Speaker 5: and they just get yelled at the.
Speaker 3: Entire way in and the entire entire way out.
Speaker 5: They have lost all legitimacy within in the cities where
Speaker 5: they're trying to operate. And now states democratic states are
Speaker 5: trying to figure out different ways that they can set
Speaker 5: themselves up in an adversarial posture to Ice, and they're
Speaker 5: seeing that the polling is against ICE and with opposition
Speaker 5: to ICE. So the Trump administration came in with the
Speaker 5: administration flat on its back and with public opinion on
Speaker 5: their side when it came to kind of reversing Biden's immigration.
Speaker 3: Policies, and.
Speaker 5: Because of Stephen Miller's need for these kinds of images
Speaker 5: they have now kind of flipped the entire political table
Speaker 5: against them.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think that point about legitimacy is very
Speaker 2: important because if you talk to law enforcement officers, I mean,
Speaker 2: you will not be able to operate effectively. You have
Speaker 2: to have some consent from the local community. And that's
Speaker 2: actually what sanctuary city policies are about, because the idea
Speaker 2: is if there's no trust with local law enforcement.
Speaker 4: You know, in immigrant communities.
Speaker 2: Where you have a lot of mixed status families, where
Speaker 2: you have a significant number of undocumented immigrants, you're going
Speaker 2: to have more rampant crime because people are not going
Speaker 2: to talk to the local cops about what's going on.
Speaker 2: They're not going to assist in investigations, and so that
Speaker 2: is part of the rationale, and there's a lot you know,
Speaker 2: there's studies that bear this out. It's a public safety
Speaker 2: rationale behind sanctuary city policies. But yeah, I mean, if
Speaker 2: you go into Minneapolis and everyone there hates your guts
Speaker 2: and are chasing around with whistles to alert everyone to
Speaker 2: you're in the neighborhood and this is what's going on,
Speaker 2: You're going to have a lot harder time actually operating.
Speaker 2: I mean, Obama earned his moniker to Porter in chief,
Speaker 2: did it in a much I mean, I don't support it.
Speaker 2: I think he did also things that were cruel, though
Speaker 2: not anything approaching this level of just like mass thugs,
Speaker 2: jack booted, thugs in the street, insanity with the largest
Speaker 2: law enforcement budget of anywhere, of any time, but he
Speaker 2: was very efficient in what he was. He was actually
Speaker 2: much more effective, in particular at getting the quote unquote
Speaker 2: worse the worst, which is what they're supposed to be
Speaker 2: going after, because they actually put investigatory resources towards focusing
Speaker 2: and prosecutorial resources towards focusing on criminals first and foremosts
Speaker 2: and prioritizing them. So you know, the goal here is
Speaker 2: not actually to sweep up the most number of immigrants possible.
Speaker 4: The goal is this show of.
Speaker 2: Force, and not just to scare immigrants, to scare anyone
Speaker 2: who would oppose this government.
Speaker 4: That's what this is actually about.
Speaker 2: It's you know, immigration is obviously part of it, and
Speaker 2: those are the people who are most in the sights
Speaker 2: of these mass thugs in the streets and of this
Speaker 2: administration in general. But you know, when they're when they're
Speaker 2: recording videos, all this surveillance there's new reporting out about
Speaker 2: mass surveillance systems also in the context of this immigration
Speaker 2: sweep that is not just targeted at immigrants. It's certainly
Speaker 2: not just targeted undocumented undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 4: This is about this is about all of us. This
Speaker 4: is about the way, the very radical.
Speaker 2: And revolutionary, very negative sense, in my opinion, way that
Speaker 2: they want this country to be, in this country to operate.
Speaker 2: So when you put together the largest law enforcement agency
Speaker 2: by budget in history, with now Trump asking for one
Speaker 2: point five trillion dollar defense budget, I mean, you get
Speaker 2: the sense of they really want to concentrate tax payer
Speaker 2: resources in a police, surveillance and military state. That is
Speaker 2: the direction that they're pushing things in, and immigration is
Speaker 2: the pretext for the build up of that.
Speaker 4: Capacity, right.
Speaker 5: And the other way that the federal government could have
Speaker 5: gone about this is to say that this may have
Speaker 5: been a crime, and we're going to investigate it.
Speaker 3: The officers going on leave.
Speaker 5: They have instead squarely positioned themselves on the other side
Speaker 5: and put b eight the Daily Mail reporting that a
Speaker 5: bunch of masked ICE agents we're photographed removing a whole
Speaker 5: bunch of stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I don't know if we know if they
Speaker 2: are ICE or FBI. I think the theory that this
Speaker 2: is actually FBI removing a bunch of stuff from Jonathan
Speaker 2: Ross's house. He appears to have fled with his family,
Speaker 2: and so you know, is this evidence is it just
Speaker 2: his belongings that he wasn't able to grab and they're
Speaker 2: you know, helping him out. But the FBI has now
Speaker 2: blocked state and local officials from being involved in the
Speaker 2: investigation at all. And you know, I don't think that
Speaker 2: they care that it is blatantly appears to be a
Speaker 2: cover up. After the everybody from the President down to
Speaker 2: you know, the vice for everybody involved has already said no,
Speaker 2: he's innocent, Like there's no one even if they hadn't
Speaker 2: done that, I don't think anyone would have confidence that
Speaker 2: cash Betel's FBI is going to do like a straightforward,
Speaker 2: bang up, unbiased job in any of this. But you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's clear what conclusion they have already made. They
Speaker 2: have no interest in actually gathering the facts. There are
Speaker 2: enough facts available, I think to all of us already
Speaker 2: to see that this was you know, this was not
Speaker 2: justified in any way. I mean, he put him self
Speaker 2: in front of that car, which in and of itself,
Speaker 2: that officer is called officer created jeopardy. Like you're trained
Speaker 2: not to do that, and yet not just with him,
Speaker 2: strips you of your defense, and it strips you of
Speaker 2: your defense. That's exactly right, not just with him, but
Speaker 2: this seems to be a pattern in practice with ICE
Speaker 2: end with CBP, going back years. There's a twenty fourteen
Speaker 2: article that's circulating now about how they how they do this,
Speaker 2: how they put themselves intentionally in danger in order to
Speaker 2: justify using deadly force.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and so the put up B nine here, this
Speaker 5: is you know, there is the tensions are continuing to escalate.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 5: You have the guy pointing, you know, first he points
Speaker 5: this his like riot control weapon at the at the
Speaker 5: person and then pulls pulls a gun out and put
Speaker 5: puts it right in the pulls it right in the
Speaker 5: person's face. Just just utterly, utterly provocative in a way
Speaker 5: that seems designed to kind of increased tensions.
Speaker 2: Yes, let's go ahead and turn to some interesting comments
Speaker 2: from Tim Dillon. And you know, I find what he
Speaker 2: says noteworthy because obviously he was a supporter of this administration.
Speaker 2: He is an immigration restrictionist. I listened to this whole thing,
Speaker 2: by the way it is, he does his classic like
Speaker 2: sort of both sides the stuff, but the clips that
Speaker 2: have gone viral are where he's not backing up the
Speaker 2: administration in this really at all. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: take a listen to Tim Dillon talking about how he
Speaker 2: does not think that this officer feared for his life
Speaker 2: in that moment.
Speaker 14: Now, I don't believe from the angle I'm watching that
Speaker 14: the federal officer feared for his life at the speed
Speaker 14: she's going, when she's turning the wheel, I don't believe
Speaker 14: that the federal officer feared for his life. He could
Speaker 14: have shot the tires, it could have done other things.
Speaker 14: This idea that everyone just they have to just shoot
Speaker 14: them in the head.
Speaker 2: So he says, I do not believe this officer feared
Speaker 2: for his life. He goes on to really go after
Speaker 2: the ICE agents for their lack of training. Now with
Speaker 2: this guy, that's no excuse because I think he'd been involved.
Speaker 2: I saw like nineteen years he's been you know, ICBP
Speaker 2: whatever involved in some way, and again we'll talk about
Speaker 2: it on the other side, But in any case, he
Speaker 2: also goes after the ICE agents for their their lack
Speaker 2: of training and professionalism. Let's say, let's take a listen
Speaker 2: to that.
Speaker 14: I don't believe the cop was justified in shooting her
Speaker 14: three times in the face. By the way, I've always
Speaker 14: believed this, and this is something that I've quit heat for,
Speaker 14: but I've literally believed since I'm a kid. I don't
Speaker 14: believe you should ever shoot someone in the face more
Speaker 14: than once. I've no, seriously, I think I just think
Speaker 14: it's ridiculous so that they did that, and they you know,
Speaker 14: the guy there, These are not well trained law enforcement
Speaker 14: people in Ice right now. We're taking people that did
Speaker 14: backyard wrestling. I mean, we are the people that are
Speaker 14: in Ice right now are I mean, this is your
Speaker 14: cousin who like was in backyard wrestling, Like this is tough.
Speaker 14: This is not the cream of the crop, you know,
Speaker 14: the guys your kidnapped Maduro Like Delta Force Navy seals.
Speaker 3: This is not them. This is not the Delta Force
Speaker 3: Navy Seal people.
Speaker 14: This is people that like had This is people in
Speaker 14: their third grade rapport card the teacher where they has
Speaker 14: violent tendencies.
Speaker 2: I saw one of the Chapbo guys said that this
Speaker 2: was like a war of the unemployable versus the employed.
Speaker 2: And I thought that kind of nailed it too, But
Speaker 2: you know, this guy doesn't have that excuse, And in
Speaker 2: a sense, I think it's a little bit of a
Speaker 2: and I would soccer and I and aren't very lengthy
Speaker 2: debate talk to some about the training as well, which
Speaker 2: is obviously an issue when you turn loose a bunch
Speaker 2: of like thugs who have watched this sort of stuff
Speaker 2: and been like, that's what I want to do, and
Speaker 2: you give them forty seven in honor of our great
Speaker 2: president days of training, and there's reports coming out saying
Speaker 2: that many of them can like barely read and write,
Speaker 2: and you just turn them loose and have the vice
Speaker 2: president say you have absolute immunity, Like that is a problem.
Speaker 2: That is definitely a problem. But I also think in
Speaker 2: a sense, the training, like the fact that this man
Speaker 2: has been on the job for years, for like many years,
Speaker 2: I think in a sense the training is also the
Speaker 2: problem because clearly, again the way he operated here, it's
Speaker 2: not just him. It's not just him that's recording with
Speaker 2: the iPhone, right, there's pressure, both for surveillance reasons and
Speaker 2: also for content creation reasons to be recording all these
Speaker 2: interactions and hope that you get on the next viral
Speaker 2: hype reel. Right, the moving around the front of the vehicle. Now,
Speaker 2: by the time the shots are fired, he's to the
Speaker 2: side of the vehicle. But walking in front of a
Speaker 2: vehicle with the engine on is directly contradictory to what
Speaker 2: any local law enforcement I mean, they have years and
Speaker 2: years and years decades of training like data of how
Speaker 2: it goes and how you're supposed to approach in a
Speaker 2: situation where you've got a vehicle where the engine is on,
Speaker 2: and that is contrary to any of those training books.
Speaker 2: Yet what you see is many this is done. The
Speaker 2: same maneuver is used in many, many instances where they
Speaker 2: try to block in the vehicle with their body and
Speaker 2: put themselves into that jeopardy so that they can then
Speaker 2: justify more aggressive and in this case, deadly tactics. So
Speaker 2: I don't think the problem was that he didn't know
Speaker 2: what he was doing. I think he knew exactly what
Speaker 2: he was doing, because you can see in that video,
Speaker 2: you know, when he switches the camera phone from his
Speaker 2: right to his left so that he's got his you know,
Speaker 2: his trigger finger ready to go. This is someone who
Speaker 2: actually was very in control and knew exactly what he
Speaker 2: was doing in that moment, right.
Speaker 5: And he finishes it with F and B like and
Speaker 5: then they block medical care like so, and it's a
Speaker 5: case where you're where and the lawyers you've looked at
Speaker 5: this said like that also is going to be a
Speaker 5: huge problem if it ever got in front of a jury,
Speaker 5: because if this was purely self defense, then how do
Speaker 5: you justify for forget the second and third shots, not
Speaker 5: trying to help her with medical care.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's that's and that again shows you like
Speaker 2: a gun in the in group out group distinction, because
Speaker 2: they none of those guys thought this woman deserved to live, right, clearly,
Speaker 2: none of them, I mean not just the man who
Speaker 2: killed her, but none of them thought she was worthy
Speaker 2: of life because none of them tried to save her life,
Speaker 2: and they blocked the doctor who was there who wanted
Speaker 2: to intervene and help. They you don't if they pointed
Speaker 2: a gun and him said absolutely not, We're going to
Speaker 2: let her bleed out.
Speaker 4: That's what the choice was made.
Speaker 3: And I believe it was.
Speaker 5: On CNN, I saw an interview with a with a
Speaker 5: police commander who had said he's like for instance, I
Speaker 5: once had two officers who were shot at by a
Speaker 5: man like who shot directly at them, he missed them,
Speaker 5: They returned fire, they hit the guy. They immediately ran
Speaker 5: and got their medical gear and rushed to the guy
Speaker 5: too that they had just shot who had shot at them,
Speaker 5: and immediately start delivering attempts to save his life and
Speaker 5: call in an ambulance, because at that point you transition
Speaker 5: from he's no longer a threat. You transition back into
Speaker 5: this protect and serve like this is your that this
Speaker 5: is your job's what you're training to do. To just
Speaker 5: be like sauntering around and and like joking around and
Speaker 5: then hop into a vehicle and flee gives gives away,
Speaker 5: gives away the game. And did you did you see
Speaker 5: the h the ice officer busted going into the porta potty?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sharing him play this is I mean, this is
Speaker 2: just thinking all in ones, all at one. Because you've
Speaker 2: got him slipping, comically slipping on the ice like in
Speaker 2: a Looty Tunes as kind of way. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of video of that in Minnesota right now. So he
Speaker 2: falls down, okay, not that they're not sending their best
Speaker 2: and then goes into the porta potty with this detainee
Speaker 2: while you know, this other agent sits in the car
Speaker 2: and watches Ilhan Omar who you know this is in Minneapolis,
Speaker 2: this is her district. She posted like, can someone please
Speaker 2: tell me what's going on with this? Because I find
Speaker 2: this deeply disturbing. And you know, there was another I
Speaker 2: believe ICE agent who was convicted of sexually abusing one
Speaker 2: of the detainees. Like these things that we're seeing like
Speaker 2: this is only just what we can see. Imagine what's
Speaker 2: happening behind closed doors where the cameras aren't allowed in.
Speaker 2: And by the way, on that note, they're now trying
Speaker 2: to block there's a law that is supposed to require
Speaker 2: Congressional any members of Congress, from being able to go
Speaker 2: and inspect ICE facilities at any time. Don't have to
Speaker 2: give notice, Chris, you know, I'm just put out some
Speaker 2: memos saying no, now you have to give a week's notice.
Speaker 2: Don't see how that is compliant with the law. It'll
Speaker 2: probably be a court case over that. But in any case,
Speaker 2: Ilhan and others showed up at one of these ices,
Speaker 2: so they wouldn't want him ment. So, you know, in
Speaker 2: direct violation of a law that you know, Congress passed
Speaker 2: in response to concerns about exactly these sorts of things.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Omar said, this is deeply alarming. If anyone has
Speaker 5: more information, please share Brooklyn centers in my district, and
Speaker 5: I would love any info you all can provide. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and when it's bad news, when you're like, oh, if
Speaker 5: you've seen the video of the ice officers, you know,
Speaker 5: slipping on the ice and then but like and you're like,
Speaker 5: which one because then the other one they slip on
Speaker 5: the ice and the guy and his gun discharges. Yes,
Speaker 5: there's there's no world in which you're following proper gun
Speaker 5: safety and you fall in your gun discharges Like, that's
Speaker 5: just not a thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he almost took out his buddy there. Yeah, that
Speaker 2: was alongside there was another instance where they again involved
Speaker 2: involved a vehicle and they were trying to shoot the
Speaker 2: person in the vehicle and ends up like the bullet
Speaker 2: ricochet and he shoots his partner. So yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: just comically comically.
Speaker 5: One's being caught on video like there's somebody just happened
Speaker 5: to be filming that portaty right like what like that?
Speaker 5: So we're just getting the very very tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 4: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. All right, Ryan, you
Speaker 4: want to tell us what's going on in Iran.
Speaker 5: So moving on to Iran, President Trump on Air Force
Speaker 5: One was asked about whether or not Iran has cross
Speaker 5: across a red line. Yet it's interesting, if we were
Speaker 5: just talking about a protest being killed in Minneapolis, Trump
Speaker 5: seems to have more concern for protesters being killed in
Speaker 5: Iran than he does here.
Speaker 3: In the United States.
Speaker 5: Setting that apocrious hypocrisy aside, let's listen to Trump's back
Speaker 5: and forth with the press about whether or not he's
Speaker 5: about to start bombing Iran. I guess on in the
Speaker 5: interests of peace or something. Let's roll this.
Speaker 13: They call yesterday Iran call to negotiate. Yesterday, the leaders
Speaker 13: of Iran called they want to negotiat.
Speaker 10: I think they're tired of being beat up by the
Speaker 10: United States. Iran wants to negotiate. Yes, we may meet
Speaker 10: with them. I mean if a meeting is being set up,
Speaker 10: but we may have to act because of what's happening
Speaker 10: before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up,
Speaker 10: Iran called, they wanted negotiating.
Speaker 5: And so we know that the foreign minister from Oman
Speaker 5: recently went to Tehran. There's some reports that he delivered
Speaker 5: some type of a message from the United States. Iran
Speaker 5: is responding saying they want to get back into the
Speaker 5: Iran nuclear deal, but obviously if you go to war
Speaker 5: against us, that will make those negotiations a little bit more.
Speaker 3: Difficult if we can put up D one.
Speaker 5: According to the New York Times and other outlets, Trump
Speaker 5: has been briefed on new option for striking Iran. He
Speaker 5: has laid out what he has said is a red line,
Speaker 5: although it's not entirely clear what that red line is.
Speaker 5: It is if if protesters are killed under certain circumstances
Speaker 5: but not other circumstances, because some of these protests have
Speaker 5: veered into not just like riots, but like armed, armed
Speaker 5: attacks on security forces. More than Iran has said, I
Speaker 5: think more than one hundred members of the security services.
Speaker 3: Have been killed.
Speaker 5: You've seen some and you're seeing videos of that circulate.
Speaker 5: Police officer killed and set on fire, a nurse was killed,
Speaker 5: firefighter was killed. There are reports of the beheadings of
Speaker 5: at of like government security services. Meanwhile, you have at
Speaker 5: least five hundred protesters killed at this point, and arguably
Speaker 5: probably thousands at this point, like it's and Iran has
Speaker 5: cut the internet, so it's very difficult to get to
Speaker 5: get legitimate information out of there. Lindsey Graham was at
Speaker 5: an event last night and told people there he had
Speaker 5: to cut it short because he was very excited that
Speaker 5: we might go to war that night.
Speaker 3: Let's roll D two.
Speaker 8: But the reason I had to cut the speech off
Speaker 8: a little bit, and it was really very kind of
Speaker 8: you to do what you were doing. I don't know what,
Speaker 8: but this might be the night. It's just a matter
Speaker 8: of time now, just a matter of time. Why is
Speaker 8: it just a matter of time? And you know what
Speaker 8: I'm talking about, don't you. This tyrannical regime needs to end.
Speaker 8: We need to end this for the good people of
Speaker 8: Iran and for our own selves and the people of Israel.
Speaker 3: We need to.
Speaker 8: Take this guy down. He needs to leave, standing up
Speaker 8: or laying down, I don't care.
Speaker 3: He needs to go.
Speaker 8: And if we can pull this off, it'd biggest change
Speaker 8: in the Mid East in a thousand years.
Speaker 3: Hamas has gone.
Speaker 5: It's not even clear to me why Lindsey Graham would
Speaker 5: need to cut it short, Like is he calling the
Speaker 5: shots here? Is he like picking targets like what is
Speaker 5: his involvement with this potential bombing or is he just
Speaker 5: need to be in private to enjoy it, needs.
Speaker 4: To be alone to fully savor the moment.
Speaker 5: Like the fact that he's still so influential with Trump
Speaker 5: really undercuts the idea that Trump.
Speaker 3: Is not just.
Speaker 2: There are many things about this that have undercut the
Speaker 2: idea that Trump is.
Speaker 4: Mister Pace.
Speaker 2: I mean to be honest with you, I think he
Speaker 2: is worse than the neocons. He's actually worse than the
Speaker 2: neocons because he has bombed what seven countries so far,
Speaker 2: and you know, the any of the like at least
Speaker 2: the neocons felt the need to like build up some
Speaker 2: sort of case, have some sort of legit intemacy with
Speaker 2: the American people, the full on barbarism and the complete
Speaker 2: law of the jungle might makes right like this this
Speaker 2: is this is actually worse now. And I'm someone who
Speaker 2: and I think you were too, probably and the first
Speaker 2: Trump administration was like Bush is still worse, Like Bush
Speaker 2: is still worse than what you know what Trump has been.
Speaker 2: I can no longer make that case. Like the resistance
Speaker 2: lips were right, their most arranged takes on everything except
Speaker 2: Rush of Gate were one hundred percent proven correct. I
Speaker 2: am sorry forever criticizing you, you guys, and you know
Speaker 2: what all the like discussion of his world temperament and
Speaker 2: like his character, which I also used to sort of
Speaker 2: like roll my eyes and no, you were correct, like
Speaker 2: that actually did that ended up mattering a lot in
Speaker 2: terms of the conduct of his presidency. So yeah, completely vindicated.
Speaker 2: You know that first clip we played about where Trump
Speaker 2: is like, you know, maybe we'll talk about a deal.
Speaker 2: I would love to believe that's the case, but we've
Speaker 2: now had multiple instances where the possibility of diplomacy has
Speaker 2: been used as a pretext and a cover for a
Speaker 2: bombing campaign. So you can never like this could be
Speaker 2: yet another trojan horn. Oh we're going to extend the arm.
Speaker 2: Oh now we know where all of you are, so
Speaker 2: we can murder you. You know that, Like you just
Speaker 2: can't rule any of that out. Ever, not to mention
Speaker 2: in that same clip, he says, well, we might have
Speaker 2: to take action before we can get to the negotiation table.
Speaker 3: And there's also a.
Speaker 5: Thing where he's like like, Okay, yeah, we're doing a
Speaker 5: lot of war, but we're really only going to do
Speaker 5: it in our hemisphere. That's what America first means, just
Speaker 5: doing the war here. So okay, you thought we were
Speaker 5: going to be, you know, a more peaceful administrative we're not.
Speaker 3: But it's just here, promise.
Speaker 5: And then like three days later like, oh and also
Speaker 5: we're going to bomb Iron, right, which is I mean.
Speaker 3: Can you can pick up a globe if you don't
Speaker 3: believe me? It's not in our backyard?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, right now, the Swedes are thinking of getting
Speaker 2: nukes to protect themselves from like they're in a coalition
Speaker 2: of Nordic countries, Like maybe we should get news. You should,
Speaker 2: everybody should. I mean, that is the logic that we
Speaker 2: have created around the world. The only people we don't
Speaker 2: fuck with are the ones who have nuclear weapons. So,
Speaker 2: you know, I guess that's that's the way that people
Speaker 2: are increasingly looking at it. And who could possibly blame
Speaker 2: them for viewing things through that lens, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of what actually happens here, I genuinely don't know,
Speaker 2: because Trump doesn't. I think he doesn't want to get
Speaker 2: into some long protracted He.
Speaker 4: Likes the theater of war.
Speaker 2: He likes being able to do his mission accomplished moment
Speaker 2: after the you know, Seal team or whoever goes in
Speaker 2: and does their Oh my god, we kidnapped Maduro and
Speaker 2: it was so spectacular and amazing and aren't we the best?
Speaker 2: And obviously right now he actually posted that he's the
Speaker 2: acting president of Venezuela.
Speaker 4: I don't know if he saw that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he likes that, but he had enough enough
Speaker 2: caution around, you know, putting this Machado in and like
Speaker 2: completely doing the regime change thing, like that's probably going
Speaker 2: to require more for me than I really want to give.
Speaker 4: And he seems to have that same sense. In Iran,
Speaker 4: he said that.
Speaker 3: He's like, yeah, this rezip Levi al Sun for the shot.
Speaker 3: He doesn't have the.
Speaker 2: Jews, he doesn't have the support. And he's right, I mean,
Speaker 2: he's absolutely right. But the Israelis definitely want to they
Speaker 2: want a regime change, but you know, tree to Parsi
Speaker 2: is correct and saying what they really want is regime destabilization,
Speaker 2: Like they don't care for Rams, the failed state. They're
Speaker 2: happy for Aron to be. Yeah, they want it to
Speaker 2: be a Libyer or a siri or whatever, like that's
Speaker 2: what their goal is now is Trump is he on
Speaker 2: board with that goal? We don't know but it certainly
Speaker 2: seems like he is being increasingly persuaded by the ego
Speaker 2: kick that he got out of the Venezuela operation, plus
Speaker 2: these protests, which I think are helping to convince him
Speaker 2: that this would be easier than perhaps he thought in
Speaker 2: the past. So, you know, I don't think there's anything
Speaker 2: that we could possibly put off the table, especially.
Speaker 4: When again mirror mirroring.
Speaker 2: The dynamic with Venezuela, where you have the Miami occupied government,
Speaker 2: with Marco Rubio and others who are you know, South
Speaker 2: Floridians who are very excited about these possibilities. You have
Speaker 2: a similar dynamic obviously with Mary Maddilson and people in
Speaker 2: the administry or my Kakabee and people in the administration
Speaker 2: who are very very committed to what Israel wants with
Speaker 2: regard to Iran, and they're just going to keep pushing
Speaker 2: and pushing and pushing and cycling through arguments with him
Speaker 2: until they find one which works, which is exactly what
Speaker 2: happened previously with Iran, and which is exactly what happened
Speaker 2: with Venezuela. They kept making different cases to him until
Speaker 2: they found one that they could use to convince him
Speaker 2: to effectuate the NDS that they wanted.
Speaker 5: And I don't even know what this one is, Like,
Speaker 5: what's the argument, like why like he was he did
Speaker 5: a twelve day war. They wanted more than twelve days,
Speaker 5: although they were getting pounded pretty badly, but they still
Speaker 5: would have gone a little further. But what is like,
Speaker 5: what even is the argument? Like I haven't I think,
Speaker 5: as a better bit of the public, I haven't even
Speaker 5: like received like why are we going to bomb them
Speaker 5: this time?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: Because initially he had said in his meeting with Netanyahu,
Speaker 2: if they went back to building nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4: Right, that that would be but he they yeah, they, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, we haven't received even any fake reports about that.
Speaker 2: Well that's probably coming soon, stay tuned for that. But
Speaker 2: in any case, that's sort of been pushed to the side.
Speaker 2: Now it's supposedly about like the rights and dignity of
Speaker 2: the protesters. I mean, does anyone really believe that Trump
Speaker 2: cares about like the you know, aspirational human rights of
Speaker 2: the Iranian protesters when obviously doesn't give a shit about
Speaker 2: that with American protesters. But now since he put this
Speaker 2: red line down, now it's just about ego. It's like
Speaker 2: they're they're embarrassing you. You know, you said you made
Speaker 2: this line in the sand. You can't be like Obama
Speaker 2: where he had his red line and then they walked
Speaker 2: all over him like you said this thing. You've got
Speaker 2: to stand strong, I think. I mean, that's as far
Speaker 2: as I can tell, because I don't really see any
Speaker 2: sort of any other affirmative case being made for why
Speaker 2: this is in our interest at all?
Speaker 5: And isn't the a bombing campaign more likely to just end.
Speaker 3: The protests like that?
Speaker 5: That's the only I don't I don't connect how coming
Speaker 5: in with you bomb a bunch of military installations or something,
Speaker 5: and that that's good, that's kind of somehow further the protests.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I get. I guess anything's possible.
Speaker 5: Meanwhile, Iran has said put up D three here that
Speaker 5: if the US strikes Iran, that they that they consider
Speaker 5: US targets throughout the Middle East, including the bases in
Speaker 5: Iraq which are which are quite vulnerable to irunning attacks,
Speaker 5: as well as any Israeli targets, that those are legitimate
Speaker 5: targets and that's that that's how that's how they will respond.
Speaker 3: We put up and.
Speaker 5: Then covering these protests is extraordinarily difficult. There is probably
Speaker 5: no arena where there's more disinformation and fake videos thrown
Speaker 5: out there. Trita Parsi has has talked about this. It's
Speaker 5: like it's there's some some is trickling out. There are
Speaker 5: a few Starlink Starlink was mostly successfully taken down actually,
Speaker 5: which is fascinating development and it's freaking out, you know,
Speaker 5: Musk investors. It seems like Russian Iran figure found a
Speaker 5: kill switch for it. Some starlinks are still operative and
Speaker 5: have been able to get some videos of massacres out.
Speaker 5: Some Arinians have left and gone to say Dubai or
Speaker 5: elsewhere and have brought videos with them. One of those
Speaker 5: we can put up D five here actually and then
Speaker 5: we'll go back to go.
Speaker 3: Back to D four. D five.
Speaker 5: This is this is footage being played and we blurred
Speaker 5: this out, but these are basically there's two hundred and
Speaker 5: fifty files here. Somebody smuggled this out, likely was smuggled out,
Speaker 5: and it's basically evidence of about of at least two
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty people getting killed. And then each file
Speaker 5: kind of goes through somebody else where and families are
Speaker 5: being asked to come to come identify and receive their
Speaker 5: their their loved ones, and we could, like I said,
Speaker 5: we could be talking about many thousands of.
Speaker 3: Debt at this point.
Speaker 5: Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, Yeah, and we can put up
Speaker 5: this this post here. D four, a U haul truck
Speaker 5: drove through a group of protesters who are who are
Speaker 5: supporting the protests against the Iranian regime.
Speaker 3: The imagery on the U haul.
Speaker 5: Is suggestive of the possibility that it is an m
Speaker 5: K aligned action. M K is this bizarre kind of
Speaker 5: anti regime cult that is also hostile to the Shah
Speaker 5: and that has weird connections to the US security establishment
Speaker 5: and was based in Iraq and backed by the CIA
Speaker 5: at various times. Like it's like it's a very just
Speaker 5: look up the m K. It's a very odd organization
Speaker 5: that has no base of support inside Iran and would
Speaker 5: do something insane like.
Speaker 2: This, like terror attacks previously, the whole like we've turned
Speaker 2: over a new leaf thing.
Speaker 5: But if you did, like I don't know if this
Speaker 5: member got the memo, if it was if this was
Speaker 5: an MK link attack, but this is the kind of
Speaker 5: thing that m K would be associated with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and these were you know, the I think the
Speaker 2: protest the flavor was like pro monarchists, you know, more
Speaker 2: in back, Yeah, the the Shaw's Sun and you know,
Speaker 2: in support of him, et cetera. So in any case, yeah,
Speaker 2: you have very difficult situation to know what's going on
Speaker 2: in the ground. I saw doctor Parcy also tweeting, and
Speaker 2: it might have even been in that tweet that anecdotally
Speaker 2: what he's hearing is that the some of the lesson
Speaker 2: that was taken from the previous protests, which were largely peaceful,
Speaker 2: was that they failed because they were to they were peaceful,
Speaker 2: that there wasn't violent a violent cost associated with it,
Speaker 2: and that's part of why you're seeing this, you know,
Speaker 2: this more violent approach from the protesters this time. But
Speaker 2: again it's very hard to know what's what exactly is
Speaker 2: going on, how White's right, they are, how there's no
Speaker 2: doubt that the Iranian regime is deeply unpopular. I don't
Speaker 2: think there's any question about that. And you know, part
Speaker 2: of that is the certainly the repression. These protests were
Speaker 2: initially sparked by the currency collapse, triggered by you know,
Speaker 2: largely by our sanctions and our aggressive approach towards them.
Speaker 2: We've trashed their economy. You know, youth unemployment is just
Speaker 2: sky high. It's an incredibly you know, dim situation for
Speaker 2: people economically on the ground. And so it's no surprise
Speaker 2: that the country would be a powder keg. And it's
Speaker 2: also no surprise that you would have actors in the
Speaker 2: US and Israel who want to take advantage of those
Speaker 2: legitimate grievances to pursue their own ideological ends.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and Israel brags about how well organized massade is inside.
Speaker 4: Iran and that well they've showed that off out.
Speaker 5: Of what a massive network of allies and assets they
Speaker 5: have in there. And there was no immediate and we'll
Speaker 5: get to Van Holland the moment. There was no immediate
Speaker 5: kind of triggering event that sparked these protests. It really
Speaker 5: appears like it was an organized, like orchestrated, planned out
Speaker 5: thing rather than you know, let's say somebody, you know,
Speaker 5: a protester, or police kill somebody, or you know.
Speaker 2: Maybe an ICE agent shooting someone in the base three
Speaker 2: times for as one example, as a precipitating event.
Speaker 3: There was none of that.
Speaker 5: It was just like all of a sudden, there's protests. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and you have Israel, and Israel was in the weeks
Speaker 5: leading up to this, saying we're going to war against
Speaker 5: them again, and so they've basically taken a lot of
Speaker 5: credit for this