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 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday. We have a great show for everybody's day.
Speaker 2: But with some sad news.
Speaker 1: What do we have to maakere Yeah, there is a
Speaker 1: lot going on today. We're going to cover this breaking
Speaker 1: news out of Baltimore where a major bridge collapsed after
Speaker 1: being struck by a cargo ship. We'll tell you everything
Speaker 1: we know about that. Sadly, there are expected casualties. Will
Speaker 1: give you all of the details and some absolutely shocking
Speaker 1: video that is coming out this morning, so we've.
Speaker 3: Got that for you.
Speaker 1: We also have the fallout after the US allowed a
Speaker 1: UN Security Council vote to go through which backed sort
Speaker 1: of cease fire. There's recriminations from these Raley side. The
Speaker 1: US side is now going around promising that this really
Speaker 1: doesn't mean anything at all, so we'll tell you all
Speaker 1: about that. We also have a very interesting interview from
Speaker 1: Donald Trump with an Israeli outlet about how he would
Speaker 1: handle the US Israel relationship and what he thinks of
Speaker 1: the way that Israel has conducted itself. Perhaps some surprising
Speaker 1: comments there, very trumpy in comments.
Speaker 3: Let's just say that.
Speaker 1: He also had a big day in court yesterday, one
Speaker 1: big win in terms of that massive bond amount getting
Speaker 1: knocked down. But he also now has an official criminal
Speaker 1: trial date on the calendar, so that is incredibly significant.
Speaker 1: We also learned yesterday that Boeing CEO is going to
Speaker 1: step down at the end of this year. It's part
Speaker 1: of a larger leadership shakeup. We had the chance to
Speaker 1: talk to Matt Stoller, who was tracked the Boeing fiasco
Speaker 1: and their sort of downward spiral for years now, so
Speaker 1: we got some really great in depth information from him.
Speaker 1: You definitely want to stick around for that. We also
Speaker 1: had breaking yesterday apparently Diddy Sean Combs his house in
Speaker 1: Miami and his house in California both rated by the
Speaker 1: Feds yesterday. A lot going on now. This is in
Speaker 1: connection with a sex trafficking investigation. We have not heard
Speaker 1: officially who is the target of that investigation, but given
Speaker 1: all of the allegations that are out there surrounding mister Combs,
Speaker 1: you can guess who is probably the target.
Speaker 3: And Soccer is.
Speaker 1: Taking a look at a new piece on podcaster Andrew Huberman,
Speaker 1: he is not happy about the way that this turned out.
Speaker 2: I got a lot of details for people. We'll get
Speaker 2: into it and put my bias up front here with
Speaker 2: pod and in the monologue he's guy's a friend, so
Speaker 2: you know, definitely I'm biased in my presentation, but I'm
Speaker 2: going to do my best to bring it to everybody.
Speaker 1: All right, So we want to begin with that tragic
Speaker 1: news out of Baltimore. Let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen, so a major thoroughfare. This is
Speaker 1: the Francis Scott Key Bridge on six ' ninety five,
Speaker 1: just outside of Baltimore, collapsing after a large cargo ship
Speaker 1: runs into it.
Speaker 3: If you watch this video closely, you can.
Speaker 1: See what appears to be that ship losing power multiple times,
Speaker 1: it looks like two times.
Speaker 3: Before hitting this bridge.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's going to be an investigation to find
Speaker 1: out exactly what happened here, but this is a significant roadway.
Speaker 1: You can also see trucks and vehicles traversing the bridge. Expectation,
Speaker 1: as far as we know at this point is at
Speaker 1: least seven cars fell into this frigid water. We've also
Speaker 1: seen some reports there were potentially construction workers on this
Speaker 1: bridge as well. They are treating it as a mass
Speaker 1: casualty incident. Obviously a tragic, horrifying scene unfolding there. In addition,
Speaker 1: we know this was actually the first thirty minutes of
Speaker 1: a twenty seven day journey that this cargo ship was
Speaker 1: just embarking upon. We can put another image up on
Speaker 1: the screen here showing you that aftermath, as the sun
Speaker 1: is just beginning to come up. There, I mean, this
Speaker 1: entire truss bridge collapsing. I saw one person saying, this
Speaker 1: is one of the largest spans of this particular type
Speaker 1: of bridge in the world. So you can imagine, you know,
Speaker 1: the number of vehicles that may have been on this bridge.
Speaker 1: You know, this happening overnight. You can only imagine if
Speaker 1: this had happened during rush hour. Terrifying scene. Sager, and
Speaker 1: we also have a few details we can give you.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen from the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. So they say Baltimore Bridge collapses after being
Speaker 1: hit by ships, sending vehicles into the river. And as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, you know, there is an expectation that there
Speaker 1: could be casualties here right now, around twenty people and
Speaker 1: multiple cars they are saying are likely to have fallen
Speaker 1: in the water. As far as we know, everybody who
Speaker 1: was on board the ship is actually okay and Soccer.
Speaker 1: They say they're going to be cooperating fully with the
Speaker 1: investigation into what occurred here, but also authorities in Baltimore
Speaker 1: saying there is no indication that this was intentional or
Speaker 1: this was terrorism. It appears upon first glance. Will wait
Speaker 1: for the full investigation, but to have been a horrific
Speaker 1: technical mishap.
Speaker 2: A lot of questions though around this ship. So this
Speaker 2: is the Dolli. It's a Singaporean flagged vessel. As you said,
Speaker 2: it was departing Baltimore for Sri Lanka, supposed to arrive
Speaker 2: there on April twenty second, one thousand feet long, and
Speaker 2: it was contracted byk mirsk said that they had fully
Speaker 2: owned all of the cargo that was on board. Some
Speaker 2: interesting details actually previously had it been involved in a mishap,
Speaker 2: it said in a mishap previously where they did not
Speaker 2: see any major damage. But the thing is Crystal is
Speaker 2: the relatively new vessel. The ship was built in twenty
Speaker 2: fifteen by Hyundai Industries, so I mean this is a
Speaker 2: pretty reputable corporation with a good engineering background. So there's
Speaker 2: going to be a lot of questions here. Yeah, this
Speaker 2: one was earlier this year, and two story earlier that year.
Speaker 2: Following twenty sixteen, the ship was involved in an incident
Speaker 2: where it hit a stone wall at the port of Antwerp,
Speaker 2: which is sayed minor damage at the time, but nobody
Speaker 2: was injured. So there is quite a bit of regulatory
Speaker 2: stuff that's going to kick in now. In a similar
Speaker 2: way the NTSB handles flight crash like, we're going to
Speaker 2: have to see whether the pilots on board were acting propuarly,
Speaker 2: procedure was taking place, whether there was a mechanical failure
Speaker 2: that was avoidable, whether this was a maintenance issue before
Speaker 2: it had left port. But clearly we can infer a
Speaker 2: couple of things. It had just left port, so we
Speaker 2: really need to examine what exactly led up to this.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a major transportation catastrophe here in
Speaker 2: the US. We were both talking beforehand. I don't know
Speaker 2: how many times you and I have both been on
Speaker 2: this show. Oh absolutely, anybody who lives in the DMV
Speaker 2: has been on the bridge at least a couple of times,
Speaker 2: or you know, driven driven.
Speaker 1: Obstually Kyle's plan and drives to New York today very
Speaker 1: likely would have been over this bridge if it wasn't
Speaker 1: for you know, the fact obviously it closed and catastrophically collapsed.
Speaker 1: But you know this is not only right there near
Speaker 1: the port, this is also close to the Baltimore Airport.
Speaker 1: This is one of the major thoroughfares if you're going
Speaker 1: from DC to New York or New York to DC,
Speaker 1: this is one of the major routes that you take
Speaker 1: because you sort of bypass that downtown Baltimore city traffic
Speaker 1: and take this kind of outer loop around downtown. So
Speaker 1: you know, this is going to cause catastrophic transportation issues
Speaker 1: for quite a while while this is dealt with, while
Speaker 1: the investigation unfolds, and you know, obviously will take quite
Speaker 1: a while to reconstruct this bridge, which seeing it just
Speaker 1: collapse like that, I mean, it's shocking. So our hearts
Speaker 1: go out to the people who you know, have lost
Speaker 1: loved ones in this horrific incident. Obviously, we don't have
Speaker 1: all the details of how many people there is. Rescue
Speaker 1: effort underway, so you know, we pray that there could
Speaker 1: be some survivors, but a very very dire situation unfolding
Speaker 1: and you know, truly a shocking thing to behold.
Speaker 2: Sad it's a horrible incident. It's a you know, city
Speaker 2: that was already This is probably the last thing they needed.
Speaker 2: This is going to be a lot of questions here
Speaker 2: about cargo shipping and all that. But in the immediate aftermath,
Speaker 2: it's cold water and it's just a nightmare situation, just
Speaker 2: driving along doing your job. A lot of these guys
Speaker 2: apparently were construction workers who are included working in the
Speaker 2: middle of the night and the next thing, you know,
Speaker 2: bridge below you just blows out.
Speaker 1: This entire thing unimaginable. Yeah, literal nightmare stuff there.
Speaker 2: So hoping praying for everybody who's involved.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, let's go ahead and get to the very latest
Speaker 1: with regard to our relationship with Israel. So, as Ryan
Speaker 1: and doctor Parsi brought to you yesterday, the US decided
Speaker 1: to abstain yesterday in the UN and allow sort of
Speaker 1: ceasefire resolution to go through. Previously, the US has vetoed
Speaker 1: three different ceasefire resolutions, So the fact that we abstained
Speaker 1: and allowed this through did appear appear to be a
Speaker 1: shift in terms of our policy and what we are
Speaker 1: willing to do, at least through diplomatic channels in order
Speaker 1: to try to pressure Israel to come to some sort
Speaker 1: of a deal and end their outrageous assault on the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. Let's go ahead and we can show you
Speaker 1: as this vote went down.
Speaker 3: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: The result of the voting is US for US votes
Speaker 4: in favor, zero vote against, one abstention. The draft resolution
Speaker 4: has to be adopted a volution twenty seven twenty eight
Speaker 4: since A twenty.
Speaker 3: Four, So that's the actual vote going down.
Speaker 1: And immediately there were a few questions. Number one, how
Speaker 1: is Israel going to react? And number two, is this
Speaker 1: just another version of pr messaging shift from the US
Speaker 1: or is this going to be backed up by some
Speaker 1: actual policy changes. We now can answer both of those questions,
Speaker 1: So let's start with Israel's response. They freaked out, put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen through an absolute tantrum, Bibi
Speaker 1: nan Yaho canceled the meetings of this delegation that was
Speaker 1: supposed to come here and meet with Biden officials. Specifically,
Speaker 1: they were supposed to be meeting about alternative plans with
Speaker 1: regard to Rafa and the looming invasion.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: I'll read you a little bit from this piece, so
Speaker 1: they say. Minutes before the vote, Natanya, who claimed the
Speaker 1: resolution did not condition the ceasefire call on the release
Speaker 1: of hostages and threatened to cancel the rougher meanings if
Speaker 1: the US didn't use its veto.
Speaker 3: That's really not even accurate.
Speaker 1: I mean, the resolution does in fact call for the
Speaker 1: release of hostages, but that was the way he wanted
Speaker 1: to spin it. After the US abstained, UN Ambassador Linda
Speaker 1: Thomas Greenfield offered assurances the resolution meant the seasefire must
Speaker 1: come as part of a hostage deal. This explanation apparently
Speaker 1: did not reassure Netnyahu, who swiftly announced the cancelation of
Speaker 1: that delegation. We also have some reporting on bringing you
Speaker 1: a little bit that US officials were apparently perplexed and
Speaker 1: confused by this and feel like he is just using
Speaker 1: this moment for his own domestic political benefits, so put
Speaker 1: a pin in that. More on that later, but let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit also about the US response. Did
Speaker 1: this actually represent some sort of a shift. Is this
Speaker 1: going to come this Security Council resolution with some sort
Speaker 1: of pressure to actually get Israel to stop doing the
Speaker 1: atrocities and starvation of the Gaza strip and actually come
Speaker 1: to some sort of a what they said in the
Speaker 1: Steal lasting ceasefire agreement. Well, according to Matt Lee, no,
Speaker 1: it does not represent a shift at our position. It
Speaker 1: comes with no pressure. It is effectively per us meaningless.
Speaker 3: Let's take listen to this exchange, and so what.
Speaker 5: Do you expect now that happen as a result of
Speaker 5: the passage of this resolution. So I think you expect
Speaker 5: that Israel is going to announce a cease fire.
Speaker 2: I do not.
Speaker 5: Is that so if you expect that Hamas is going
Speaker 5: to release hostages?
Speaker 6: So I'm glad you get you mentioned that, because one
Speaker 6: of the things that we have objected to for some
Speaker 6: time is that most of the people that call for
Speaker 6: a cease fire, we believe are calling for Israel to
Speaker 6: unilaterally stop operations and not calling for Hamas to agree
Speaker 6: to cease fire where they would release hostages.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it goes so it could so that
Speaker 5: the wait wait wait wait wait wait no, but.
Speaker 6: The resolution today is is an non binding resolution.
Speaker 5: So what's the point? Why? Why?
Speaker 7: Why?
Speaker 5: Why did you abstain? Why didn't you veto?
Speaker 6: We didn't veto because we thought the language and it
Speaker 6: was consistent with something that the language as it relates
Speaker 6: to the ceasefire and release of hostage was consistent with
Speaker 6: the long stand United States position.
Speaker 5: So you don't believe anything is going to happen as
Speaker 5: a result of the passage.
Speaker 6: Of this So I think that separate and apart from
Speaker 6: this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to
Speaker 6: achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the uh
Speaker 6: AN immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I can't say that this impact this resolution is going
Speaker 6: to have any impact on those negotiations. But those negotiations
Speaker 6: are ongoing. They've been ongoing over the weekend and they've
Speaker 6: made progress.
Speaker 5: So I don't expect you to answer this now, but
Speaker 5: to me, you just stick this in your pocket. If
Speaker 5: that's the case, what the hell is the point of
Speaker 5: the UN or the UN Security Council.
Speaker 6: So we think it plays an important.
Speaker 5: Role, even though absolutely nothing every and that you're going
Speaker 5: to get what you would like to see, not out
Speaker 5: of the UN, but out of discussions.
Speaker 6: So we believe it's important that the UN speak and
Speaker 6: the UN Security Council speak on matters of international security.
Speaker 6: It's why we've been engaged in this process, why we
Speaker 6: thought we were going to have a successful vote on
Speaker 6: Friday that Russia and China unfortunately and quite cynically vetoed.
Speaker 6: But I do believe that ultimately, if we were able
Speaker 6: to achieve a cease fire and the release of hostages
Speaker 6: is going to come not through a UN process, but
Speaker 6: through the process with which we've been engaged.
Speaker 1: Yes, in Doha, what the hell is even the point
Speaker 1: of the UN? Let me just say, God bless Matt Lee.
Speaker 1: This exchange was extraordinary. And let me pick up on
Speaker 1: one piece in particular because immediately not only Matt Miller,
Speaker 1: but Linda Thomas Greenfield and others washed through the mics
Speaker 1: to say, oh, well, this resolution is non binding, so
Speaker 1: it really doesn't mean anything at all. Our positions the same,
Speaker 1: and HAW hasn't changed, etctera, et cetera. This is just
Speaker 1: making stuff up. UN Security Council resolutions are binding, so
Speaker 1: they're just inventing new international law to pretend to the
Speaker 1: world themselves, Israel whatever, that this is inconsequential. And because
Speaker 1: they have taken the position that it is inconsequential and
Speaker 1: that it literally means nothing, causing Matt Lee to ask,
Speaker 1: what the hell is even the point of the UN?
Speaker 1: Why did you even freakin do this? Why should we care,
Speaker 1: revealing that it actually does mean nothing in their eyes,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to come with any change in policy,
Speaker 1: any pressure with regard to Israel, and is just one
Speaker 1: more example of their BS propaganda ass covering moves that
Speaker 1: really don't come with any sort of substantive policy difference
Speaker 1: to try to effectuate a different policy direction.
Speaker 2: Well, i mean, look, all of this is symbolic, and
Speaker 2: that's part of why it's so annoying to watch this
Speaker 2: whole charade play out. The Israelis treat it as if
Speaker 2: it's a real change in policy. They're not stupid, and
Speaker 2: they know that's not the case. The same thing happened
Speaker 2: from twenty sixteen when Barack Obama, at the end of
Speaker 2: his presidency, allowed a UN resolution to go through, which
Speaker 2: is critical of the settlement policy. Did anything change in
Speaker 2: the settlement policy? Crystal? Okay, so what do we learn
Speaker 2: about that? Second though, is that the Biden administration is
Speaker 2: doing their absolute best to get as many headlines as
Speaker 2: possible to make it appear as if they have rhetorically
Speaker 2: changed anything, while policy on the ground remains exactly the same.
Speaker 2: The problem though, is that in some ways, you know,
Speaker 2: the Israelis are not wrong in that they have even
Speaker 2: ground somebody like Biden to the point where even whenever
Speaker 2: you're going to ship them as many weapons as possible,
Speaker 2: that they have to try and distance themselves from your actions.
Speaker 2: And this is where, symbolically, I mean, what we've really
Speaker 2: been warning about from the beginning is listen, you can
Speaker 2: do what you want, but you are really suffering in
Speaker 2: the eyes of the world. And this is just further
Speaker 2: evidence of that. And that's also why they're pulling out
Speaker 2: all the stops. We have this, for example, a tried
Speaker 2: and true friend now in this conflict, the Israeli minister
Speaker 2: Ben It's amen Ben Gavie it up there please on
Speaker 2: the screen. He says that the Security Council decision proves
Speaker 2: that the United Nations is anti Semitic and its secretary
Speaker 2: General is anti Semitic, and it encourages Hamas. I mean,
Speaker 2: everything is anti Semitic and or encouraging to Hamas. But
Speaker 2: I mean, I just think that the way that we
Speaker 2: can look at this is that it is both symbolically
Speaker 2: a problem from Israel I think in the long run,
Speaker 2: but in the short term there has been and this
Speaker 2: is why it was so critical to play that Matt
Speaker 2: Lee clip. There is no change in official US policy
Speaker 2: and that is the actual takeaway that our audience needs
Speaker 2: to hear today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I have more on that in a moment.
Speaker 1: Let me show you the Hamas response to this. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So, in a surprising statement,
Speaker 1: this person of Pines Hamas welcomed the unsc's decision called
Speaker 1: for its immediate implementation. Hamas also firm their readiness to
Speaker 1: engage in a prisoner exchange process leading to the release
Speaker 1: of detainees held by both sides. So that was their
Speaker 1: reaction to this. And put the next one up on
Speaker 1: this just more to the point about Israel's reaction here.
Speaker 1: So a bunch of US officials leak to Axios's baroque
Speaker 1: revide that they think BB is intentionally provoking a crisis
Speaker 1: for his own domestic benefit. A US official said the
Speaker 1: White House was perplexed by what it sees as an
Speaker 1: overreaction by Netanyaho because in their mind, they're like, we
Speaker 1: haven't changed our policy. This is all just some bullshit
Speaker 1: pr stunt, So why are you freaking out? Like we're
Speaker 1: not cutting off weapons, We're not doing anything different, So
Speaker 1: why are you freaking out?
Speaker 3: The official said. The White House is puzzled.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister rejected the US interpretation of the UN resolution,
Speaker 1: decided to air his differences with the Biden administration and
Speaker 1: public and tell the US what its policy is when
Speaker 1: the US is already stating its policy, which is different
Speaker 1: from what Netanyahu is saying.
Speaker 3: Quote, all of that is self defeating.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister could have chosen a different course to
Speaker 1: align with the US on the meaning of this resolution.
Speaker 1: He chose not to, apparently for political purposes. So they're
Speaker 1: saying here basically that the freak out is for show
Speaker 1: for our domestic Israeli political consumption, that it looks good
Speaker 1: for him to seem to be standing up to the
Speaker 1: US and being angry about the UN Security Council resolution,
Speaker 1: even as these officials went out of their way to
Speaker 1: assure him that literally nothing is actually changing. So to
Speaker 1: your point about it being theater like this is proof
Speaker 1: positive of exactly that.
Speaker 2: And to really hit this home, I want especially again
Speaker 2: what's actually happening, let's put this please up on the screen,
Speaker 2: is that the US at the exact same time, actually
Speaker 2: found within the State Department that Israel is in compliance
Speaker 2: with the Biden demand of international law and humanitarian aid.
Speaker 2: The State Department has said, quote, we have not found
Speaker 2: Israel to be in violation either when it comes to
Speaker 2: the conduct of the war or the provision of humanitarian assistance.
Speaker 2: This was made crystal. They had up until May eighth
Speaker 2: to provide Congress with that report on its compliance after
Speaker 2: the demand was currently happening. And the key point of
Speaker 2: saying that they have not found it is that that
Speaker 2: then all allows them to continue the weapons shipments and
Speaker 2: to continue to fulfill the weapons wish lists that are
Speaker 2: currently here. So may very careful about just accepting whatever
Speaker 2: is supposedly a change in policy at the United Nations
Speaker 2: at the brass tax level in terms of weapons that
Speaker 2: will continue to flow. The US State Department certifies that
Speaker 2: these weapons are being used in the international laws of war,
Speaker 2: and the humanitarian aid is being allowed into the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: I expected this, and it still was absolutely enraging to
Speaker 1: me because you literally had last week sectuary of Saint
Speaker 1: Toni Blncoln saying that one hundred percent of the population
Speaker 1: is facing acute food deficiencies.
Speaker 3: Okay, he said, this is the.
Speaker 1: First time we've ever seen an entire population suffer from
Speaker 1: this level of food deprivation. And then not even a
Speaker 1: week later, you and the State Department turn around and certify, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's no problem with humanitarian eight.
Speaker 3: No, they're not blucky. You do you think we're stupid?
Speaker 1: Do you think we can't see the images coming out
Speaker 1: the absolute desperation as people clamor for anything they can
Speaker 1: get their hands on, eating weeds, drinking water that is unsafe, unsanitary,
Speaker 1: making them sick making at best at best, using feed
Speaker 1: that is meant for animals to try to put together,
Speaker 1: you know, something that they could possibly sustain themselves on
Speaker 1: the entire populations at.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent.
Speaker 1: You've never seen this before, and yet you're going to
Speaker 1: certify that, Oh, no, they're not blocking humanitarian aid. This
Speaker 1: certification came on the very same day that the UN
Speaker 1: released a report saying, yes, it does look like genocide
Speaker 1: based on Israel's actions, based on not just the number
Speaker 1: of people that have been killed, but the total annihilation
Speaker 1: of civilian life, based on Hey, we just saw it,
Speaker 1: not just in Gaza, but we saw the largest land
Speaker 1: grab in the West Bank that we seen in thirty years,
Speaker 1: as we covered yesterday. And with all of this going on,
Speaker 1: you're going to sartify, no, they're following international law.
Speaker 3: Bullshit.
Speaker 1: We just saw the drone footage of them targeting unarmed
Speaker 1: civilians who were just walking by in Conunis and they
Speaker 1: hit them, and when they're crawling and scrambling for their lives,
Speaker 1: going back in and hitting them again with zero justification,
Speaker 1: And you're going to certify now now we think it's
Speaker 1: it's all fine, They're a riding by international law. Your
Speaker 1: own base, fifty percent majority think that this is a genocide.
Speaker 1: We have polling that will show you in a moment
Speaker 1: about the way that your own voters view this conflict,
Speaker 1: and how much the US public, Democrats, Republicans, Independence, how
Speaker 1: wary they are are providing additional military assistance to Israel
Speaker 1: at this moment, and You're going to go against all
Speaker 1: of that. You're going to go against what a number
Speaker 1: of Senate Democrats have said, including Chris van Holland, who's
Speaker 1: no frickin rat.
Speaker 3: You're going to go against that.
Speaker 1: You're going to go against what every human rights organization,
Speaker 1: including a number of Israeli human rights organizations, have said
Speaker 1: about what's unfolding on the ground. You're going to go
Speaker 1: against your own words a week ago, where you were
Speaker 1: talking about how the whole population is being starved to death.
Speaker 1: It's just it's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. And so if
Speaker 1: there was any inkling of hope that perhaps this abstention,
Speaker 1: remember they didn't even.
Speaker 3: Vote for it, but they allowed the resolution.
Speaker 1: To pass their Security Council, that this represented some sort
Speaker 1: of shift in terms of this administration's support for an
Speaker 1: ongoing genocide in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 3: If you had any inkling of hope.
Speaker 1: That that was the case, this is your answer, definitively, conclusively.
Speaker 1: They have not shifted or budged one single inch. They
Speaker 1: have changed their messaging for their own domestic political consumption.
Speaker 1: And it is all a game, it is all theater
Speaker 1: to them. BBE is playing off of it doing what
Speaker 1: he needs to do to try to stay in power,
Speaker 1: and Biden is changing his messaging and his rhetoric thinking
Speaker 1: that is going to fool all of us into thinking
Speaker 1: that there has been some actual change in policy.
Speaker 3: And it is total and complete bullshit. Matt Miller got.
Speaker 1: Asked about this yesterday whether they still think that, you know,
Speaker 1: Unrich should be defunded, and asked about whether Israel is
Speaker 1: blocking humanitarian aid.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to how he responded, do.
Speaker 7: You still believe is it still the US assessment that
Speaker 7: Israel is not using food or assistant as a tool
Speaker 7: of fool.
Speaker 6: So we have not made an assessment or drawn the
Speaker 6: conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law
Speaker 6: when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
Speaker 1: We have not made an assessment. I mean, Sager, what
Speaker 1: do you make of that language? That's such like, you know,
Speaker 1: a non answer here, because they really can't come out
Speaker 1: and say no, they're not blocking aid because it's so
Speaker 1: manifestly obvious to anyone who's paying attention, So they just say, well,
Speaker 1: we haven't made that assessment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, they're just living in their own house
Speaker 2: of cards now at this point, because they've constructed their
Speaker 2: entire policy such that they're trying to have the language
Speaker 2: of humanitarianism and compliance with international law, in compliance with
Speaker 2: US law, frankly, and then also to try and assuage
Speaker 2: some of the concerns of what is just patently obvious
Speaker 2: to any even neutral observer now at this point. So
Speaker 2: I just see it as really collapsing within its own
Speaker 2: like tortured logic, which frankly, that's really been the case
Speaker 2: now for the Biden administration for quite some time. And
Speaker 2: echo what you said. God bless Matt Lee and all
Speaker 2: the other State Department reporters are on Ryan Graham as well,
Speaker 2: who have been a great question because it all collapses,
Speaker 2: you know, on it's with the most basic level of scrutiny.
Speaker 2: And that's really what we're seeing with this guy. Even
Speaker 2: this MSNBC training is is not coming out all that
Speaker 2: useful for him in this time.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I just I think about these people, Matt Miller, kareem
Speaker 1: jump here, like I knew her, we were at AMSNBC together.
Speaker 1: She comes down of this like lefty anti war activist background,
Speaker 1: and I'm just like, how did you justify this.
Speaker 2: To yourself because Trump is bad and they work for Biden,
Speaker 2: and Biden is not Trump. I genuinely think that's it.
Speaker 1: Was there a moment, you know, was there a decision
Speaker 1: point where it was like, I can either advance my
Speaker 1: career or I can hold to some sort of principle here,
Speaker 1: and the career path was chosen. And then you find
Speaker 1: yourself in front of a podium justifying a genocide, like.
Speaker 3: Does it happen little by little?
Speaker 1: Is there one sort of seminal moment that sends you
Speaker 1: inexorably in that direction?
Speaker 3: I think about that because it's it's crazy to.
Speaker 1: Me to say, I'm sure Matt Miller, I don't really
Speaker 1: know him, but I know him from you know, his
Speaker 1: MSMEBC days and whatever. I'm sure he saw himself as
Speaker 1: this like moral liberal, progressive type. And now look at
Speaker 1: you standing up there and saying, oh, well, we haven't
Speaker 1: assessed whether or not they're blocking humanitarian age justifying carrying
Speaker 1: water for all of this these we don't even know how.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the number is about thirty thousand people.
Speaker 1: We really don't know. We don't know, we don't know
Speaker 1: how many people buried under the rubble. We don't know
Speaker 1: what this is going to do to every single child
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: Entire thing destroyed, and you're still standing there carrying water,
Speaker 1: doing whatever you need to do for that day's propaganda agenda.
Speaker 1: It's utterly disgusting and these people are complete and utter monsters.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to how the public feels about this war,
Speaker 1: which is quite dissonant, especially the Democratic base, from how
Speaker 1: the elite elected officials have been supporting this war.
Speaker 3: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So we've got a whole bunch of pulling from Pew
Speaker 1: Research Center. You've got Dems and lean Dems basically split
Speaker 1: on yes, no, or don't know on whether Hamas's reasons
Speaker 1: for fighting Israel are valid, regardless of how acceptable respondent
Speaker 1: views October seventh.
Speaker 3: So there's a difference here.
Speaker 1: Right, you have overwhelming sentiment against thinking that October seventh
Speaker 1: was acceptable. Right, There's very few in the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party anywhere that say, hey, October seventh
Speaker 1: was acceptable. The question is do you think that the
Speaker 1: reason that Hamas is fighting is valid?
Speaker 3: And you've got in.
Speaker 1: The Democrats and lean Democrats, you've got thirty eight saying invalid,
Speaker 1: thirty four valid and twenty eight not sure. And you
Speaker 1: can see here there's a significant partisan divide. You can
Speaker 1: also see, you know, their significant generational divide, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of a consistent theme across a lot
Speaker 1: of this polling. Let's go ahead and put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen because I think this is
Speaker 1: really critical. So you have this question, is the way
Speaker 1: that Israel is fighting this war with hamas acceptable and
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party with Democrats and lean Democrats, a
Speaker 1: majority fifty two percent say it is unacceptable, Only twenty
Speaker 1: two percent say that it is acceptable, and another twenty
Speaker 1: six percent say that it's not sure. That they're not sure,
Speaker 1: So Sager, this one really demonstrates how at ad the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is with their own base of voters, and
Speaker 1: how differently those voters are viewing what is happening here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can we go to the next one please and
Speaker 2: put it up there on the screen because a lot
Speaker 2: of the breakdowns are actually very important. It says Americans
Speaker 2: are divided over whether Biden is striking the right balance,
Speaker 2: and quote percent who say Joe Biden is favoring Israeli
Speaker 2: is too much amongst Democrats, that's a full thirty four percent,
Speaker 2: striking the right balance is twenty nine percent, not sure
Speaker 2: thirty three percent, and favoring Palestinians too much you have
Speaker 2: three percent. So I think really what you are seeing
Speaker 2: here is a major and consolidated shift. The next one
Speaker 2: also seems very very important to me, which is about
Speaker 2: the US military aid, because again you know you have
Speaker 2: in there you the number on lean Democrats, and you
Speaker 2: see that the majority are not really in favor of
Speaker 2: sending aid to Israel and or or not sure, but
Speaker 2: you also see I think some major changes kind of
Speaker 2: in the overall view of the US electorate on Israel.
Speaker 2: And I think that's actually what's most important. It's not
Speaker 2: just about Democrats. We're talking here about military aid to
Speaker 2: what was previously one of the most popular countries, you know,
Speaker 2: in the entire United States, and when we look at
Speaker 2: some of that loss and some of that breakdown, I
Speaker 2: think that that has been a societal wide shift for
Speaker 2: which Israel is really going I think to pay the consequences.
Speaker 2: A lot of that started with BB's speech, you know,
Speaker 2: before Congress, with Obama back in twenty fifteen, but this
Speaker 2: has really made it so that I think Israel has
Speaker 2: now basically allied itself with an explicit political party in
Speaker 2: the US, and we're about to get to that too
Speaker 2: with Trump, where Trump can be all over the map
Speaker 2: on policy, is probably going to be very very pro Israel.
Speaker 2: That said, you know, that's a very very bad strategic
Speaker 2: way to align yourself because previously they really did have
Speaker 2: a lot more bipartisan consensus than I think where we're
Speaker 2: headed right now. I think ten fifteen years from now,
Speaker 2: the current status quo is unimaginable. Yeah, with the current.
Speaker 1: Amount of well, Trump makes some interesting comments about that,
Speaker 1: but because you're you're gonna they're just the most Trumpian
Speaker 1: comments on the subject you can possibly imagine. You know,
Speaker 1: there was also a real commentary if you dig into
Speaker 1: this data on the media coverage, because first of all,
Speaker 1: only about half of US adults could even correctly answer
Speaker 1: the question of whether Israelis or Palestinians had suffered more deaths.
Speaker 3: Think about that, only half.
Speaker 1: Of the US public thought that they could answer that
Speaker 1: question correctly. They did not know that the toll on
Speaker 1: the Palestinian side has been multiples of times greater. And
Speaker 1: then they also tracked so the people who said they
Speaker 1: weren't sure and didn't know which side had suffered more
Speaker 1: casualties and more deaths, they had a very different opinion
Speaker 1: of this conflict. They were much more in general sort
Speaker 1: of pro Israel and subject, you know, like likely susceptible
Speaker 1: to accept the Israeli propaganda, the Biden administration propaganda with
Speaker 1: regards to what's happening here. So I'll give you some
Speaker 1: of those numbers. They say, those that were aware that
Speaker 1: more Palestinians have died are about twice as likely to
Speaker 1: say Biden is favoring Israeli's too much as to say
Speaker 1: he's favoring the Palestinians too much. Among those who do
Speaker 1: not know that more Palestinians have died, you have fifteen
Speaker 1: percent saying Biden is favoring the Palestinians too much, and
Speaker 1: only nine percent say that he's favoring the Israelis too much.
Speaker 1: By sixty nine to sixteen, Those who know that more
Speaker 1: Palestinians have died favor the US providing humanitarian aid, but
Speaker 1: those who don't know the balance of casualties, only twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent favor providing aid and twenty three percent oppose it.
Speaker 1: So I mean There's a few things to say here.
Speaker 1: First of all, you can see why they're so upset
Speaker 1: about TikTok and why this has, you know, really reignited
Speaker 1: this whole conversation about and a lot of political momentum
Speaker 1: around banning TikTok, because it breaks up some of the
Speaker 1: consistent propaganda that you get across mainstream media outlets to
Speaker 1: the you know, that is so fulsome that most Americans
Speaker 1: don't even know the very basic numbers around which side
Speaker 1: has suffered more casualties, and that dramatically impacts the way
Speaker 1: that they're viewing this conflict.
Speaker 3: I thought that was really no worthy.
Speaker 2: I thought it was noteworthy. But I'm going to say,
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's just TikTok. You know, I
Speaker 2: don't spend any time. I don't literally don't even have TikTok.
Speaker 2: But I'm on the internet, you know, I'm on Twitter.
Speaker 2: I think that's it's not just TikTok. That's what I mean.
Speaker 2: It's being on the internet.
Speaker 3: They think TikTok is sort of like weekly.
Speaker 2: I don't just you know that said. I mean, I
Speaker 2: go on my Instagram reels and even there I get
Speaker 2: served up. You know, some palastinian content or whatever. I
Speaker 2: follow a couple of guys, people who are like military
Speaker 2: analysts and others who are relatively dispassionate. More So, I
Speaker 2: would just say, if you are not consuming mainstream media,
Speaker 2: which is the vast majority of people under the age
Speaker 2: of fifty five, you are. I mean, this is a
Speaker 2: key theme of our show, right, you are living literally
Speaker 2: in an entirely different world than if you're just getting
Speaker 2: everything served up on CNN or MSNBC. I also think
Speaker 2: some of it comes down to moral weight. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is something we balance here on our show in
Speaker 2: terms of programming and all that. But if you do
Speaker 2: spend any time Crystal looking at the vast majority of
Speaker 2: coverage that these people spend their time on, like the
Speaker 2: Trump trial and the im minutia of Stormy Daniels or
Speaker 2: MSNBC yesterday, every single hour of their show issued a
Speaker 2: segment including Rachel maddout, dedicated to speaking out against Ron
Speaker 2: and McDaniel, like that's what they think is important, and
Speaker 2: it almost gaslights like boomers and other people in this
Speaker 2: country and too thinking you're like, yeah, you know what,
Speaker 2: these are the trend setting issues of our day. I mean,
Speaker 2: here's again look, I get it. It is a bet
Speaker 2: they're going against Nicole Wallace right exactly. Now the reason,
Speaker 2: you know, for today, we can lead our show here
Speaker 2: with Israel, which I don't see a lot of people
Speaker 2: in cable or other doings because we're like, wow, this
Speaker 2: is a breakdown in the US Israeli relationship. At the
Speaker 2: same time exposes a lot of stuff. It was major
Speaker 2: headline news, you know, all across Washington, and I just
Speaker 2: don't see a lot of seriousness in the way that
Speaker 2: they have coverage. So it's a there's a fulsome conversation
Speaker 2: where I still come down on the people of the
Speaker 2: young actually know what's up, because they really they have
Speaker 2: better prioritization of what's really important and what's not than
Speaker 2: the people who are the so called program.
Speaker 1: Absolutely the case, and there's it's not an accident that
Speaker 1: they fall back to their like you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying these things are like not important, what's going on
Speaker 1: with Trump?
Speaker 2: Right, We're going to come back.
Speaker 1: To right, But they fall back to that because that's
Speaker 1: very easy and very safe for them.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: No one's losing their job over at MSNBC by saying
Speaker 1: Trump is bad or Trump is a criminal or whatever.
Speaker 1: But you could ask Mehdi Hassan how it went for
Speaker 1: him at MSNBC when he was not only critical of
Speaker 1: Israel but also was willing to really aggressively challenge Israeli
Speaker 1: spokespeople who would come on his show. Guess what, you
Speaker 1: don't have a job there anymore. Now you can read
Speaker 1: into that what you will. But he's not the first either,
Speaker 1: asked Mark Lamont Hill how that went for him over
Speaker 1: at CNN.
Speaker 3: True, So these people are not stupid.
Speaker 1: Their career is they want to keep their job, they
Speaker 1: want to keep their platform. They can justify that in
Speaker 1: their minds. However they want, you know, well, at least
Speaker 1: I can be here and say a little bit of
Speaker 1: something about something true and something real and something important.
Speaker 1: And if I'm gone, then you know, the next person
Speaker 1: may not even do that. But they understand what line
Speaker 1: they need to walk and where the safe spaces for
Speaker 1: them in terms of their career. And so all of
Speaker 1: the incentives are in the opposite of direction of actually
Speaker 1: covering this conflict in a way just that is factual
Speaker 1: and honest as what is actually happening on the ground.
Speaker 1: And so as a result of that, you end up
Speaker 1: with a population where a majority do not even know
Speaker 1: the basic fact that Palestinians have suffered multiples more losses
Speaker 1: during this conflict than Israelis, and you end up with
Speaker 1: the views that boomers have in this conflict, and you
Speaker 1: can see consistently the generational conflict. The one other things
Speaker 1: Sager that I thought was really interesting noteworthy is they
Speaker 1: asked about how people felt, and these are all Americans,
Speaker 1: right about the Israeli government approved disapprove the religious group
Speaker 1: that had the highest approval rating for the net Nyahu government,
Speaker 1: You're going to.
Speaker 2: Guess evangelical absolutely, of course.
Speaker 1: Way higher than Jewish Americans. They had much higherupprow rating
Speaker 1: of bb Neatna, Who's government. So I thought that was
Speaker 1: an interesting note from this poll.
Speaker 2: If you ever get if you are ever on a
Speaker 2: plane to Tel Aviv, you're going to find it's going
Speaker 2: to be like a ten to one ratio of church
Speaker 2: groups to actual Jews who are going to Israel.
Speaker 3: So that's where the strongest support is. That's the bedrocker.
Speaker 2: That's actually where the Israeli government and Israeli groups spend
Speaker 2: a lot of money cultivating that because they know, you
Speaker 2: know how powerful that is.
Speaker 3: Look at the House speaker.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it works, Yeah, right, the investments correct, it's not wrong.
Speaker 1: First thing he did when it became speaker, he passed
Speaker 1: a resolution for Israel called.
Speaker 3: Bbnatna who, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And it's you know, partly I wouldn't just say partly,
Speaker 1: it's almost wholly because of his ideological relation.
Speaker 2: Well, I remember walking around Jerusalem and just seeing you know,
Speaker 2: you see like all of these church groups literally everywhere
Speaker 2: I was. I mean, you heard American English almost everywhere
Speaker 2: you went, and it really hit home for me. I
Speaker 2: was like, Wow, this is a real, like well funded
Speaker 2: operation that's happening out here. And it's only opened my
Speaker 2: eyes ever since.
Speaker 1: Yes, Donald Trump gave an interview to a right wing
Speaker 1: leaning Israeli news outlet.
Speaker 3: He was at Mar A Lago.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 1: he had to say, and then we'll read you some
Speaker 1: of the additional quotes that weren't included in the video portion.
Speaker 3: Take a lesson.
Speaker 8: They would have never done that because they knew there
Speaker 8: would have been very big consequences.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 8: That being said, you have to finish up your war.
Speaker 8: You have to finish it up. You got to get
Speaker 8: it done, and I'm sure you'll do that, and we
Speaker 8: got to get to peace. You can't have this going on.
Speaker 8: And I will say, Israel has to be very careful
Speaker 8: because you're losing a lot of the world, You're losing
Speaker 8: a lot of support. You have to finish up. You
Speaker 8: have to get the job done, and you have to
Speaker 8: get onto peace. You have to get onto a normal
Speaker 8: life for Israel and for everybody else here. They say,
Speaker 8: if I ran for if I ran for office in Israel,
Speaker 8: i get ninety eight percent of the vote. I'm not Jewish,
Speaker 8: and yet Israel to me is very important. That's why
Speaker 8: I did. Goal on heights. Goal on heights is worth
Speaker 8: trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars.
Speaker 3: Okay. He goes on, by the way, to say, what
Speaker 3: are you.
Speaker 2: Talking about with the goal on heights?
Speaker 3: I don't even know.
Speaker 1: But he goes on to say, like I asked, my ambassador,
Speaker 1: give me a history lesson. Make it five minutes or less,
Speaker 1: he said, And then based on that five minute conversation,
Speaker 1: he did whatever this thing is with the goal on
Speaker 1: he that.
Speaker 2: He did recognize the goal on heids.
Speaker 3: Okay, got that, Yeah.
Speaker 2: But of course, in his way, he's like, it's worth
Speaker 2: trillion with the real estate value of the land, very much.
Speaker 1: Echos Kushner's comments right about how Gossa look at this
Speaker 1: amazing waterfront property for development. Isn't this fantastic? Like the
Speaker 1: way these people think is really something else. Obviously people
Speaker 1: picked up on the fact that he says here multiple
Speaker 1: times he said this throughout the interview. You have to
Speaker 1: finish up, you have to get the job done, and
Speaker 1: you have to get to peace. So he'll say things
Speaker 1: like that. Then he'll also say things that are just
Speaker 1: wholly like, well, of course I'll be great. I'll give
Speaker 1: you everything that you want. And we know from the
Speaker 1: last time that he was in office he did exactly that.
Speaker 1: He did give them everything that they wanted, everything that
Speaker 1: they asked for the Abraham Accords. You know, we're part
Speaker 1: of the context that Hamas says was what motivated them
Speaker 1: to commit their atrocities and attacks on October seventh. Does
Speaker 1: not to justify Hima's actions, as just to explain to
Speaker 1: you the way that they were thinking about this and
Speaker 1: how they felt that their back was up against the
Speaker 1: wall because this normalization of relations was happening. That made
Speaker 1: them feel like the whole world is moving on and
Speaker 1: they're forgetting about us, and we're losing any sort of
Speaker 1: window to do anything at all. So Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: says his typical thing about oh, this never would have
Speaker 1: happened under me, blah blah blah. I think that's nonsense.
Speaker 1: First of all, you can't prove a counterfactional. But second
Speaker 1: of all, his administration was a key part of creating
Speaker 1: this context, and that was continued by the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: They were pushing for normalization with Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 3: So both of.
Speaker 1: These administrations and many more besides complicit in creating the
Speaker 1: context for October seventh.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I have the thing about Trump, though, is he can't
Speaker 2: help but strike to at least some directional truth. And
Speaker 2: that's what I really found in some of these comments.
Speaker 2: Let's put it up there on the screen. Of course,
Speaker 2: the Israeli outlet didn't cut the video of this, but
Speaker 2: we do have the text quote, if you were president,
Speaker 2: how would you counter the wave of anti Semitism in
Speaker 2: the wake of war's outbreaks? He says, well, that's because
Speaker 2: you fought back, and I think Israel made a very
Speaker 2: big mistake. I wanted to call and say, don't do it.
Speaker 2: These photos and shots, I mean moving shots of bombs
Speaker 2: being dropped into buildings in Gaza, and I said, oh,
Speaker 2: that's a terrible portrait. It's a very bad picture for
Speaker 2: the world. The world is seeing this every night. I
Speaker 2: would watch buildings pour down on people. I would say
Speaker 2: it was given by the Defense ministry, and Sue said,
Speaker 2: whoever's providing that is a bad image. And the Israeli
Speaker 2: newscaster says, but terrorists are hiding in those buildings. He says,
Speaker 2: go and do what you have to do. But you
Speaker 2: don't do that. And I think that's one of the
Speaker 2: reasons there has been a lot of kickback if people
Speaker 2: didn't see that. Every single night, I've watched every single
Speaker 2: one of those, and I think Israel wanted to show
Speaker 2: it's tough, but sometimes you shouldn't be doing that.
Speaker 3: So this one, do what you have to do, but
Speaker 3: you don't do that.
Speaker 2: This is the most revealing. Look, this is my always
Speaker 2: my big defense to Trump. He at least can smell
Speaker 2: where things are in the media, and he has an
Speaker 2: uncanny ability through his like pr perception of the world,
Speaker 2: to be like, Look, on a policy level, you know,
Speaker 2: I support you guys, He's like, but don't do that,
Speaker 2: maybe you know, in his own very Trumpian way, but
Speaker 2: do what you'd have to do, but don't do that.
Speaker 2: I thought about calling him, say don't do it. It's
Speaker 2: a very bad picture to the world. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is the like the savant ish aspect of Trump's character
Speaker 2: where you can't see any other Republican ever saying anything
Speaker 2: like that because they have to stay within a consistent prism.
Speaker 2: But for him, he's like, I can see that this
Speaker 2: is going to be a real problem for me. So
Speaker 2: it's not that politically he's positioning himself differently, but he's
Speaker 2: almost offering messaging advice. I would also say, he said,
Speaker 2: what did he say? I think they've made a bus mistake.
Speaker 2: They shouldn't do it. It's like people were like, oh
Speaker 2: my gosh, is Trump calling for an unconditional easquire without
Speaker 2: the release of hostages in Israel. That's certainly one way
Speaker 2: you could actually read it, which is the hilarious thing
Speaker 2: about him and the way that he can put himself.
Speaker 1: That is part of Trump and what is like, you know,
Speaker 1: incredible and maddening about him is you could read into
Speaker 1: these comments basically anything that you want because the comment
Speaker 1: of like, oh, you have to finish the job. I mean,
Speaker 1: that sounds really horrifying them, and he's like, you have
Speaker 1: to get to peace. The piece that this right wing
Speaker 1: outlet picked up on was like, you'd be crazy not
Speaker 1: to do what Israel did after October seventh, and that's
Speaker 1: what they use for their headline because that's what fits
Speaker 1: what they wanted to hear from this conversation. There was
Speaker 1: another piece that I wanted to read you, and he
Speaker 1: does throughout this whole interview, which I encourage you to
Speaker 1: read because it is interesting. He keeps coming back to,
Speaker 1: you know, the assault on Gaza and the buildings pouring
Speaker 1: down on people, as he said, is like a PR
Speaker 1: problem for Israel. You heard him say, like you're losing
Speaker 1: all this support around the world. You know, you shouldn't
Speaker 1: do that, et cetera, etc. He keeps coming back to
Speaker 1: it as like a messaging and PR problem, not like
Speaker 1: a reality problem for Israel. But he got asked about
Speaker 1: the Chuck Schumer comments calling for a new government to
Speaker 1: be elected after the war is over, and let me
Speaker 1: reach you this because he gets into the Israel lobby
Speaker 1: and it's again one of these things that like, you
Speaker 1: can't imagine really any other Republican politician exactly saying these
Speaker 1: particular things. So he says, I think it's a terrible
Speaker 1: thing to do with regard to Schumer because it takes
Speaker 1: all of your momentum away because they watched and they
Speaker 1: watched the government, they watch the people what's going on.
Speaker 1: It shows great division in the United States. You have
Speaker 1: to have support, and you don't have the support you
Speaker 1: used to have. Some fifteen years ago, Israel had the
Speaker 1: strongest lobby. If you were a politician, you couldn't say
Speaker 1: anything bad about Israel. That would be like the end
Speaker 1: of your political career. Today it's almost the opposite, not true,
Speaker 1: but anyway, put that aside, I'm never seen you have
Speaker 1: AOC plus three these lunatics. Frankly goes on like random
Speaker 1: rave about AOC and Rashida Tuli. Then he goes on
Speaker 1: to say, and fifteen years ago that would have been
Speaker 1: unthinkable to be doing that. So Israel has to get
Speaker 1: Israel has to get better with the promotional and with
Speaker 1: the public relations because right now they're in ruin. They're
Speaker 1: being hurt very badly, I think in a public relations sense.
Speaker 3: So anyway, some opinions.
Speaker 1: Offered there about the importance and strength of the Israel
Speaker 1: lobby from mister Trump.
Speaker 2: He knows, right, this is what I mean about it.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the thing is he just is looking
Speaker 1: out for I don't think Trump is ideological about Israel.
Speaker 1: I think it's purely transactional.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: You know, he got a lot of money from Sheldon
Speaker 1: Nodelson last time around their other influential donors who for
Speaker 1: whom this is a really key issue. He sees where
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is and it's like, all right, well
Speaker 1: this is just where I'm going to be. But to
Speaker 1: your point, there's I think two other pieces going on.
Speaker 1: First of all, he has a personal grievance with nan
Speaker 1: Yahoo because he accepted the legitimacy of Joe Biden's.
Speaker 2: Election, says one of the first. That's right, Yeah, so he.
Speaker 1: Has a personal grievance with Naaniaho. And second of all,
Speaker 1: I think you're right that he sniffs out you know
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden has a real problem on this issue
Speaker 1: with regard.
Speaker 3: To his base.
Speaker 1: So he feels like if I can even gesture it,
Speaker 1: like we need to end this.
Speaker 3: This is too much.
Speaker 1: There needs to be a piece that that can help
Speaker 1: to drive that divide in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: But you know, I mean I.
Speaker 1: Also think I was even as these comments were all
Speaker 1: over the map, and like I said, I think you
Speaker 1: can kind of take from them whatever you want. To
Speaker 1: the extent that Nan Yahu was thinking, you know, I
Speaker 1: just need to keep this going, and Donald Trump's going
Speaker 1: to get elected and he's just gonna let me do
Speaker 1: whatever I want. You have to at least call into
Speaker 1: question whether that would actually be the case based on
Speaker 1: these comments that.
Speaker 2: Bass no loyalty, is no ideology, And this was a
Speaker 2: major problem during the administration. We never knew what we
Speaker 2: were going to get. On the one hand, we're pulling
Speaker 2: out Afghanistan. The other hand, we're hiring John Bolton, So
Speaker 2: which is it right? You know, so we never really know.
Speaker 2: I really didn't care about policy, But what he does
Speaker 2: care about is bad headline. And there are several moments
Speaker 2: I'll never really forget from interviewing and meeting Trump. But
Speaker 2: I can't go into too much detail. But there was
Speaker 2: one instance where we're insinuating something that would have caused
Speaker 2: him a bad headline, and he freaked out at a
Speaker 2: personal level that I had never seen him react before,
Speaker 2: and it was really in some of those moments kind
Speaker 2: of covering him up close, that you could just see like,
Speaker 2: this is what makes him tick. And so to the
Speaker 2: extent that he's quote unquote loyal to Israel, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe from a campaign perspective, but if he gets into
Speaker 2: office and you're bb and you said the wrong thing
Speaker 2: about Biden, or if he can sense that this is
Speaker 2: going to be bad for him politically, he's going to
Speaker 2: cut you loose no matter what. And that's why I
Speaker 2: think you are correct. I mean, the Trump is simply
Speaker 2: the master of saying everything to everyone. That's part of
Speaker 2: the reason why he is as successful as he is.
Speaker 2: That's why people often articulate his meandering rhetoric that is
Speaker 2: all over the place. But I've often found it's actually
Speaker 2: a major strength for him because his supporters can see
Speaker 2: be like no, no, no, he's the candidate of peace, or
Speaker 2: he's a candidate of strength. Neo cons and you know,
Speaker 2: isolationists alike can find whatever they want in some of
Speaker 2: his rhetoric, and I think that's how he's going to
Speaker 2: continue on this issue. He'll never come down as stridently
Speaker 2: as a Tom Cotton or any of these other folk
Speaker 2: because he doesn't believe it. He really doesn't well.
Speaker 3: And in that way, I mean Biden is deeply ideal.
Speaker 2: He is very ideological. I think Deathe's.
Speaker 1: Locked in ideological pro Israel Zionists on this issue, which
Speaker 1: is why he's been willing to I mean, he's risking
Speaker 1: his entire reelect over this issue. If you just look
Speaker 1: at the numbers, how important this has become for young voters,
Speaker 1: for Arab America, for Muslim Americans, for Black Americans. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is the core of the Democratic base is there.
Speaker 3: There is a significant.
Speaker 1: Portion that is deeply distraught over what is happening and
Speaker 1: what this president is not just sitting back and watching happen,
Speaker 1: but is shipping the weapons for and supporting diplomatically and
Speaker 1: you know, enabling in every way that he possis can't
Speaker 1: So he is actually willing to risk Trump getting re
Speaker 1: elected for his ideological zeal and commitment on the issue.
Speaker 1: Trump is just purely transactional. Now within the Republican Party context,
Speaker 1: it has always been the case. I shouldn't say always,
Speaker 1: because actually if you go back to George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush and Reagan, they were definitely better on this issue
Speaker 1: than Joe Biden and willing to stand up to Israel
Speaker 1: in certain instances, but in the modern Republican Party context,
Speaker 1: that transactional math has always landed you on the side
Speaker 1: of let me just do you know whatever Israel wants,
Speaker 1: let me back them at every turn, et cetera.
Speaker 3: I don't really expect that to be.
Speaker 1: Different, but you know, it's classic Trump just to embody,
Speaker 1: the way that he can say two things basically at once.
Speaker 1: You know, he says, go and do what you have
Speaker 1: to do, but you don't do that. So which is it?
Speaker 1: Do you do what you have to do from their
Speaker 1: perspective or do you not do that? And again, you
Speaker 1: can kind of read into that whatever you want to
Speaker 1: read into that. I actually when I that, I just
Speaker 1: burst out laughing because it is so classic classic Trump.
Speaker 1: It's like Trump AI. If you asked Trump AI to
Speaker 1: respond to this question, that's what they'd say.
Speaker 2: I just realized Trump AI is almost literally impossible because
Speaker 2: he's so all over the map. You could never program
Speaker 2: that level of randomness into Trump's Trump is always going
Speaker 2: to have a job, and he's also really old, so
Speaker 2: he probably won't live to see it. All right, let's
Speaker 2: move on to the legal front regarding mister Trump, There's
Speaker 2: been some major developments on the money side. A huge
Speaker 2: victory for him yesterday and Court, let's go and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. Court has agreed to
Speaker 2: pause that collection of the four hundred million dollar judgment
Speaker 2: against Trump if he is able to put up a
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy five million dollar bond within ten days. Quote.
Speaker 2: If Trump does it, it will then stop the on
Speaker 2: collection and prevent the state from seizing presumptive assets while
Speaker 2: he appeals. The appeals Court has also halted other aspects
Speaker 2: of the trial judges ruling that had barred Trump and
Speaker 2: his son Eric and Don Junior from serving in corporate
Speaker 2: leadership from years, so they will retain leadership over their
Speaker 2: current business assets. Quote. In all, the order was a
Speaker 2: significant victory for Trump as he defends the real estate
Speaker 2: empire that vaulted him into public life, and it came
Speaker 2: just after Letitia James was expected to then initiate the
Speaker 2: effort to collect the judgment. So Crystal a much more
Speaker 2: manageable amount of money at one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 2: million dollars, especially whenever you combine it with some of
Speaker 2: the windfall that he's just received in his Truth Social
Speaker 2: IPO that is expected. Actually, Trump just yesterday, if everybody
Speaker 2: wants to know, officially cracked the top five hundred richest
Speaker 2: Americans with his network, getting six billion dollars according to
Speaker 2: Forbes magazine. So he's actually richer than ever today. Then
Speaker 2: he was previously expected one hundred and seventy five million. Previously,
Speaker 2: you and I had discussed he had a line on
Speaker 2: a possible one hundred million dollar bond, So he was
Speaker 2: able to get a bond, and he could come up
Speaker 2: with some seventy five million dollars, then he might be
Speaker 2: able to stave off of this. That's him. He still
Speaker 2: has got ten more days. But this is a far
Speaker 2: far cry from the bankruptcy in the asset seizure which
Speaker 2: we all expected previously.
Speaker 3: For sure.
Speaker 1: For Trump's part, he insisted on truth Social back on
Speaker 1: Friday that he does have almost five hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: in cash. He wants to be able to use some
Speaker 1: of that on his presidential run, which is nonsense. Even
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, remember those he promised to put a
Speaker 1: bunch of his own cash in his presidential campaign never
Speaker 1: came anywhere. Close to what he said he was going
Speaker 1: to do. But he's saying that, you know, the judge
Speaker 1: doesn't want me taking cash out to use it for
Speaker 1: the campaign. So that's why the half a billion dollars
Speaker 1: was assessed. So anyway, he's he's sticking to the line, Oh,
Speaker 1: I actually have the money, is not really a problem,
Speaker 1: but I just don't really want to use it for
Speaker 1: this regard. So we'll see what happens here in terms
Speaker 1: of yeah, I mean, it's still a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but he probably can more easily come up with us one.
Speaker 2: That's the irony if you had half a billion dollars
Speaker 2: in cash here, freaking idiot, even no financial advisor whatever
Speaker 2: to do that. Imagine if that segment about of your
Speaker 2: net worth was a liquid cash. That's incredibly foolish from
Speaker 2: a financial perspective. But he's so concerned with the bravado
Speaker 2: and the appearance that he has to pretend that that
Speaker 2: is the case. Let's go to the next part. This
Speaker 2: is also very very important. The New York hush money
Speaker 2: case now officially has a trial date set for April fifteenth,
Speaker 2: also known as tax Day, coincidentally, tearing quote into the
Speaker 2: presidential Foreign president's lawyers for what he said were unfounded
Speaker 2: claims that the hush money case had been tainted by
Speaker 2: prosecutorial conduct. The judge now officially set the case, despite
Speaker 2: defense's calls to continue the delay and to throw it
Speaker 2: out entirely from a last minute document dump, so they say,
Speaker 2: barring now perhaps another delay, which is on the horizon,
Speaker 2: the presumptive Republican nominee will be on trial as a
Speaker 2: criminal defendant in just three weeks. And the trial, though,
Speaker 2: is of course going around the Stormy Daniels hush money
Speaker 2: case payment, a very novel legal interpretation under New York
Speaker 2: state law hasn't happened before. Even if convicted Crystal, it's
Speaker 2: very likely to go to appeals and actually, you know,
Speaker 2: set some standard as to whether this was even allowed. Uh,
Speaker 2: definitely the weakest of all of the criminal cases against Trump.
Speaker 2: But of course, anytime you find yourself in the jaws
Speaker 2: of the criminal justice system, it's not great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean it is a Tawdrey yeah situation. Sure,
Speaker 1: if it wasn't Trump, this would be a career ender
Speaker 1: for pretty much any politician, right, I mean it's kind
Speaker 1: of like John Edwards esque.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, but which Edwards was. Edwards was not
Speaker 2: a billionaire playboy, but he he was like supposedly.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm just saying that Trump gets away with
Speaker 1: shit that nobody else of course, Yeah, but I mean
Speaker 1: it's destroyed, destroyed John Edwards political career.
Speaker 3: It was over.
Speaker 2: That was it.
Speaker 3: Even though jury ultimately you know what they identify.
Speaker 2: I think it was either a mistrial or are they yeah.
Speaker 1: They he didn't wasn't found guilty. Something happened in the trial.
Speaker 1: I don't remember exactly, but anyway, he wasn't found guilty.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it is that type of like Tawdrey
Speaker 1: sordid cover we were up using campaign funds, etc. So,
Speaker 1: you know, just to play devil's advocate here, I don't
Speaker 1: want to discount that this could actually be potentially impactful
Speaker 1: for the public and to you know, offer that side
Speaker 1: of the case. We can put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen for whatever reason. Biden does seem to be having
Speaker 1: a little bit of a polling bounce right now, so
Speaker 1: he for the first time in quite a while, has
Speaker 1: now surged past Trump in the This is the Economist
Speaker 1: average of polls. So we've got Biden at forty five,
Speaker 1: Trump at forty four. I just saw some swing state
Speaker 1: polling this morning that actually looked decent for Biden, had
Speaker 1: him tied in a few key swing states. We haven't
Speaker 1: been seeing that for a little while, so there's enough
Speaker 1: of a trend now that it does seem like he's
Speaker 1: getting a little bit of a bounce. There's a variety
Speaker 1: of reasons that could be the case. One it could
Speaker 1: be that people were so impressed with his incredible.
Speaker 3: State of a Union performance.
Speaker 1: Can you tell him being a little sarcastic here that
Speaker 1: they But I genuinely think he outperformed the very very
Speaker 1: very low expectations of like can you walk up to
Speaker 1: the stage and like not have a visible health event
Speaker 1: while you're delivering the speech. He did that, and so
Speaker 1: it could be That's part of why I do think
Speaker 1: it's possible that. Another reason is potentially that, you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump legal issues have been more in the news
Speaker 1: and more front and center, and that would be taking
Speaker 1: a toll on Trump. So I just want to hold
Speaker 1: out the possibility that even though this trial is seen
Speaker 1: as like the lesser of all of the various criminal
Speaker 1: charges that he's facing, the details are in some ways
Speaker 1: the most and are relatable. They're the most scandalous, you know,
Speaker 1: And just the idea of him being a criminal defendant
Speaker 1: and being in front of a jury and the case
Speaker 1: being made and all these allegations being put against him,
Speaker 1: it could have a public impact. I don't want to
Speaker 1: totally dismiss that out.
Speaker 2: Let's not dismiss it. You're right, and let's be fair
Speaker 2: that Trump's you know, personality and stop the steal and
Speaker 2: the madness and all of that. It had a huge
Speaker 2: impact in twenty twenty two. Yeah, so we can't discount.
Speaker 2: That's the reason I'm willing to discount this one a
Speaker 2: little bit is this is so baked into the original
Speaker 2: twenty twenty thesis and didn't have any impact then. I mean,
Speaker 2: when I think Stormy Daniels, what am I thinking? Michael
Speaker 2: Abnatti freaking CNN and all the other media madness that
Speaker 2: we had to live through. I would say was washed
Speaker 2: for everybody involved. Now, when I'm thinking January sixth, criminal tryal,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking a very different story. When I'm thinking criminal documents,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking a different story, Georgia, I'm thinking of different story.
Speaker 2: So I think there are gradations within this this one
Speaker 2: in particular, I think it's so baked in. Stormy Daniels
Speaker 2: had her moment, you know, Avanati had his moment. This
Speaker 2: is all people know, everything there is to know about
Speaker 2: this case already, and the whole case Crystal was made
Speaker 2: prior to the twenty twenty election, Michael Cohen pleading guilty,
Speaker 2: et cetera. That's the only reason on this one specifically,
Speaker 2: I'm saying I don't think so as much.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm genuinely fifty fifty because.
Speaker 1: The other possibility is that just that normally reaction of
Speaker 1: like there you are facing criminal, like you're a potential criminal, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: felon you charged you? Okay, they don't you know, the
Speaker 1: no legal application or whatever. They're looking at this and like,
Speaker 1: you know, this was a messed up situation, you handled
Speaker 1: it in a disgusting way and probably in a legal
Speaker 1: way as well. And now your ass has been dragged
Speaker 1: in front of a trial jury to answer these criminal charges.
Speaker 3: So I could see it just there's.
Speaker 1: Also just that Trump has benefited I think from the
Speaker 1: fact that he has been for a while he was
Speaker 1: a little bit.
Speaker 3: On the back burner in terms of a public person.
Speaker 1: He wasn't in people's faces every single day, and so
Speaker 1: there was an ability for some of the memories of
Speaker 1: what it's like with Trump, what he's all about, all
Speaker 1: these various scandals and things from the past, and so
Speaker 1: for people to have a reminder of that, of his character,
Speaker 1: of this just messiness that constantly surrounds him, it can't
Speaker 1: be a good thing for him. You know, I certainly
Speaker 1: don't think if you're thinking that, oh, this is going
Speaker 1: to in or to his benefit with the general public
Speaker 1: in order to benefit with Republican base. Fine, but he's
Speaker 1: already won the Republican nomination with the general public, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to be a benefit for him.
Speaker 3: And I could.
Speaker 1: Easily see it being an actual somewhat of an issue
Speaker 1: for him. And I'm just talking about, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: a few points in the polls which could make the difference.
Speaker 3: So who knows. Very gotcha unfold?
Speaker 2: All right, So, we did have a pre recorded segment
Speaker 2: that we did with Matt Stoler yesterday about the Boeing
Speaker 2: CEO stepping down and so some of the problems they're
Speaker 2: getting into it. Matt gave us some really really insightful analysis.
Speaker 1: So let's take a listen to that, all right, guys,
Speaker 1: we have some big breaking news with regard to Boeing. This,
Speaker 1: of course in the wake of major safety issues and
Speaker 1: huge questions, especially surrounding the death of a Boeing whistleblower.
Speaker 1: Can put this up on the screen from CNN. So
Speaker 1: Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun is going to step down. This
Speaker 1: is part of a larger shakeup of the company's leadership.
Speaker 1: Apparently Boeing's chairman and the head of the commercial airplane
Speaker 1: unit are also leaving. The CEO will not be out immediately,
Speaker 1: but he is planning to leave what they describe as
Speaker 1: the beleaguered company by the.
Speaker 3: End of the year.
Speaker 1: And just so happens, we have a great guy here
Speaker 1: to talk about all of this. Matt Stoler is the
Speaker 1: author of Goliath. He also works at the American Economic
Speaker 1: Liberties Project and writes at the Substack Big and he
Speaker 1: is here to react to this news.
Speaker 9: Great to have you met, Thanks, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Of course, so are Boeing's problems overall. But they fixed.
Speaker 9: It's fixed. It's great.
Speaker 10: No, I mean, there's a lot to say about this,
Speaker 10: but Boeing has a history of having their CEOs resign
Speaker 10: and being like, oh, you know, everything is fixed. So
Speaker 10: I think this happened in like two thousand and three,
Speaker 10: It's happened at other you know, and also high level executives.
Speaker 10: Oh we're caught for bribery, like whoa, whoops, because they
Speaker 10: have a big defense unity. They just what they do
Speaker 10: is they if you are the one who gets caught,
Speaker 10: then they will then you'll say, resign, will pay you.
Speaker 9: Off and you go away.
Speaker 10: But the rule at Boeing is don't get caught, not
Speaker 10: like let's hit your stumps, right, So it's it's also
Speaker 10: he's not resigning. He's going to stay there until twenty
Speaker 10: you know, for the rest of the year. Yeah, which
Speaker 10: is it's you know, it's it's March. Like that's a
Speaker 10: lot of that's like a baby, right, that's a whole bit.
Speaker 10: I mean like go away, right, like it can't either
Speaker 10: your take responsibility for it and you resign tomorrow or
Speaker 10: you're not. And like this is it's like classic you know,
Speaker 10: halfassing it right. No, Boeing needs to be nationalized. It
Speaker 10: is a disaster. It's not a viable enterprise right now.
Speaker 10: They're not making safe planes.
Speaker 2: Take us back to how this all happens. So everything
Speaker 2: January five, The door plug blows off seven thirty seven
Speaker 2: Max nine. David Calhoun specifically was brought in to fix
Speaker 2: the problems of the updated software system that leads to
Speaker 2: the death of some five hundred people previously. That's his
Speaker 2: entire plan. But what really gets revealed is like the
Speaker 2: rot of Boeing itself, which you've done a lot of work, right,
Speaker 2: So give us the backstory about the you know about
Speaker 2: airline deregulation, Boeing financialization, spinning off Spirit error Systems, which
Speaker 2: coincidentally is now involved you know here, and now they're
Speaker 2: buying it back. Well, how the hell did this happen?
Speaker 10: Yeah, so Boeing was a crown jewel of American air engineering. Right,
Speaker 10: It's one of the best companies we've ever created. So
Speaker 10: to understand how it got ruined, you have to start
Speaker 10: with the customers. So the airlines. Boeing has a big
Speaker 10: defense arm that's always been corrupt and terrible. But this
Speaker 10: is a company that they designed the B fifty two
Speaker 10: in like a weekend. They made amazing flying machines. They
Speaker 10: also were always disciplined by competition. Okay, but in the
Speaker 10: nineteen seventies we decided to deregulate airlines. And what's important
Speaker 10: about airline deregulation is that before deregulation, airlines were public utilities,
Speaker 10: and so if you had cost right as an airline,
Speaker 10: the government would say, all right, you have a certain
Speaker 10: amount of cost, we're going to say you make ten
Speaker 10: percent on that right. And that's just the way it works,
Speaker 10: and so there's no incentive to skimp. There's no incentive
Speaker 10: skimp on customer like service, on flights, on anything you
Speaker 10: serve people's stake, you make a ten percent profit on that.
Speaker 10: So there are problems with the public utility model because
Speaker 10: it leads to inflating costs, but you're never incentivized to
Speaker 10: screw people over, screw workers over because.
Speaker 9: You make less money.
Speaker 10: Deregulation flipped that, and deregulation said, now we're going to
Speaker 10: move to a system where you're just trying to take
Speaker 10: cost out to make things more efficient.
Speaker 9: So what happens, well, they break their.
Speaker 10: Unions, they start to screw their customers, they find all
Speaker 10: sorts of ways to do junk fees. They're not actually
Speaker 10: more profitable, like airlines periodically have to be built out,
Speaker 10: but they cut service to lots of regional cities, so
Speaker 10: the air grade is different today than it used to be.
Speaker 10: But they also start negotiation negotiating much more aggressively with
Speaker 10: aerospace producers like Boeing, and Boeing starts to change the
Speaker 10: way that they that they price. So, for example, Boeing said,
Speaker 10: when they developed the seven three seven Max, will give
Speaker 10: you a rebate of a million dollars if you have
Speaker 10: to change the way you train pilots. So they one
Speaker 10: of the reasons the reason that they screwed up the
Speaker 10: seven three seven Max design is because they were like,
Speaker 10: we don't want to change all the airport infrastructure. We
Speaker 10: don't want to have to train on We're going to
Speaker 10: tell all our clients they don't have to get their
Speaker 10: pilots retrained on new hardware. This is going to be
Speaker 10: the same thing. But of course it was designed poorly
Speaker 10: because the engines were too big for the body of
Speaker 10: the airplane. Now one of the so the airline deregulation
Speaker 10: was part of a whole financialization of the American economy.
Speaker 10: So in the nineteen nineties it finally slams into Boeing,
Speaker 10: and there's only one other commercial aerospace maker by the
Speaker 10: nineteen nineties aside for Boeing, that's McDonald douglas, and the
Speaker 10: government says, we love efficiency and we love monopolies. And
Speaker 10: Boeing is a super high tech, awesome company run by
Speaker 10: very sophisticated people. They make the best stuff in the world.
Speaker 10: Very similar to Apple, very similar to Google, very similar
Speaker 10: to Amazon. So they said, you know what, by McDonald
Speaker 10: douglas's commercial aerospace unit, even though that will clearly reduce competition,
Speaker 10: it will create a domestic monopoly and the only other
Speaker 10: competitor will be Airbus. So the government pushed Boeing do this.
Speaker 10: Boeing didn't need a lot of pushing. Boeing also pushed
Speaker 10: the government to let them do it, and when that happened,
Speaker 10: Boeing flipped and financialized. So this was this was this
Speaker 10: a clin administration. So this is nineteen ninety six, ninety seven, ninety.
Speaker 2: Eight, right, it's like peak nineties. Yeah, it's like you know, yeah,
Speaker 2: like Mockerine is on the stage, yeh.
Speaker 10: The you know, Jennifer Anderston haircut, yeah, thing right, Yeah,
Speaker 10: that's right. And so Boeing merges with McDonald douglas. There's
Speaker 10: no more domestic competition. So if you're an aerospace engineer,
Speaker 10: you don't like Boeing too bad, nowhere else to work.
Speaker 10: If you're a supplier and you're supplying bowing too bad,
Speaker 10: nowhere else, like you have one option maybe too right,
Speaker 10: and you know Aeros Airbus it's European right, so they
Speaker 10: take forever to do things. I'm and no, I mean today,
Speaker 10: if you want to get a jet from Airbus, it's
Speaker 10: twenty twenty seven or twenty twenty eight until you can
Speaker 10: deliver because there's so much demand.
Speaker 9: So okay, So.
Speaker 10: What starts to happen in almost immediately when the mergers,
Speaker 10: when the merger happens is there's a fight between the
Speaker 10: NBA Wienies, the being counters and the engineers.
Speaker 9: And the engineers have always had a lot.
Speaker 10: Of power at Boeing because they go to the NBA
Speaker 10: whenies and they say, give us a bunch of money,
Speaker 10: we'll design a cool plane.
Speaker 9: And it always worked before, so usually they said yes.
Speaker 10: But in nineteen ninety six seven eight, they were like, no,
Speaker 10: we are now going.
Speaker 9: To offshore things.
Speaker 10: We are going to do things in a completely different way,
Speaker 10: and we're going to you know, you guys are no
Speaker 10: longer an advantage for the company. You're a cost center.
Speaker 10: These are the engineering people, right, the workers, the people
Speaker 10: that make the planes and have the embedded knowledge to
Speaker 10: actually construct these things. And so they go after them,
Speaker 10: and the end the being counters win and they start
Speaker 10: to cut safety, they start to you know, there's the
Speaker 10: first strike of the engineers. Ever like it was a
Speaker 10: white collar union. There was more like a debating society
Speaker 10: or a club. And then they actually go on strike
Speaker 10: in the in the early two thousands. And the first
Speaker 10: plane that's built with the new outsourcing model is the
Speaker 10: seventy to seven Dreamliner.
Speaker 9: It's sort of a disaster. Yeah, Boeing moves.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Boeing moves their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago so
Speaker 10: they don't have to be near the people they're laying off.
Speaker 10: They move a lot of work to South Carolina because
Speaker 10: it's because it's non union. And now they move their
Speaker 10: headquarters to DC because for lobbying purposes, and so it
Speaker 10: just gradually and the seventy seven max is that was
Speaker 10: the culmination where they decided to make explicitly unsafe, bad
Speaker 10: engineering decisions for financial reasons. And they haven't really fixed it.
Speaker 10: I mean, the software patch is better, but that needs
Speaker 10: to be completely re engineered, and that's why they also
Speaker 10: didn't fix any of the I mean the door blowout
Speaker 10: with Alaska Air.
Speaker 9: That's not some big engineering thing.
Speaker 10: That's just like the dudes just didn't put these crews
Speaker 10: in right, Like that's like, that's like very very bad, right,
Speaker 10: just they were not doing quality checks.
Speaker 9: So it's embarrassing.
Speaker 10: But also that whole culture that was put in there
Speaker 10: in the nineties of being counters who are super hostile
Speaker 10: to safety, to consumers, to customers, to workers.
Speaker 9: They need to be removed. They need to be pulled
Speaker 9: out of that institution.
Speaker 10: I think it needs to be nationalized and the company
Speaker 10: needs to be restructured. Otherwise, we have all of these
Speaker 10: planes that are Boeing planes and people are terrified to
Speaker 10: fly on.
Speaker 2: Them, as they should be, and that I mean, how
Speaker 2: many billions of dollars we build these people out right?
Speaker 2: I mean that's what people would be like, Oh, you're
Speaker 2: messing with private enterprise. I'm like, okay, but you know
Speaker 2: how many fifty billion, one hundred billion just in the
Speaker 2: last decade or so if we go back to to
Speaker 2: the two thousand and one is probably even more a
Speaker 2: term number of taxpayer dollars that we've used to prop
Speaker 2: up the Boeing company.
Speaker 10: Yeah yeah. In the Cares Act right during the during
Speaker 10: the pandemic, they put a twenty five billion dollar line
Speaker 10: item for like it was not They.
Speaker 9: Didn't say Boeing. They were like for a national security
Speaker 9: aerospace company that rhymes with shmowing.
Speaker 10: Yeah, and you know, and then they didn't have to
Speaker 10: take the money because they could just borrow money at
Speaker 10: preferential interes states because everyone knew, okay, Boeing is.
Speaker 9: A federal taking care of Yeah.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so you can't you can't even measure it right
Speaker 10: because everybody you know Boeing is too big to fail.
Speaker 10: It's it's essentially a government. When I say nationalized, I
Speaker 10: don't mean you know, we need to take it over
Speaker 10: like we it is, we own it. I mean we've
Speaker 10: been backstopping it for a long time as you owe it,
Speaker 10: so like we should just formally take it over, restructure it,
Speaker 10: probably break it up so that you know, you have
Speaker 10: the defense arm and then maybe you create a couple
Speaker 10: of civilian aerospace makers, reintroduce some competition, and that's that's
Speaker 10: the way that you definancialize this industry.
Speaker 1: How does the FAA fit into this picture where their
Speaker 1: failures there as well. Is that also part of this
Speaker 1: deregulatory train t.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so so it's a great question. So this gets
Speaker 10: to like a question of political economy. Right prior to deregulation,
Speaker 10: because costs are not a problem but a benefit, they
Speaker 10: didn't want to get. They didn't want to gut their regulators.
Speaker 10: Regulators were fine if regulators imposed costs on them. Cool,
Speaker 10: that's just more money, right, that's another ten percent a profit.
Speaker 10: Right after deregulation, all of a sudden, the airline industry
Speaker 10: and Boeing and the aerospace makers are lobbing to gut
Speaker 10: the FAA, and so you see this systemic reduction in
Speaker 10: funding and ultimately Boeing is they they're doing voluntary like
Speaker 10: self regulation because there just aren't even enough inspectors. And
Speaker 10: the political economy, there's no political support to actually regulate
Speaker 10: the industry, either the airlines or Boeing. Now under Trump,
Speaker 10: and this was a real embarrassment to the FAA and
Speaker 10: to frankly, the America when the Max crashed right for
Speaker 10: the second time. America is renowned for having the best
Speaker 10: aviation regulators in the world. People followed us, right because
Speaker 10: we were really good.
Speaker 2: And care about safety.
Speaker 9: Trump was the last.
Speaker 10: This was I think a under Trump, America was the
Speaker 10: last country to ground the MAX, which was awful.
Speaker 9: I mean there, it was just awful.
Speaker 10: Right and under Biden, and I'm not a Biden partisan.
Speaker 10: There are a lot of parts of the bidenmistration that
Speaker 10: have been really problematic. But the FAA, first of all,
Speaker 10: has the first has a full time administrator. It's always
Speaker 10: been acting because they never send an never bothered confirmator.
Speaker 10: They actually have one, and they've been very aggressive. They've
Speaker 10: put caps on the number of planes Bowing can produce,
Speaker 10: which hits their cash flow, which hurts.
Speaker 9: It hurts.
Speaker 10: They have inspectors on the ground actually looking at the
Speaker 10: safety systems. They're being very aggressive. They also are thinking
Speaker 10: of putting a cap on the growth of United Airlines,
Speaker 10: which is super aggressive because of safety problems there. And
Speaker 10: so what you're seeing is actual governance from the FAA
Speaker 10: and the Department of Transportation.
Speaker 9: It's not enough, and.
Speaker 10: We have to restructure the political economy of the whole industry,
Speaker 10: but it is something, and that is more than we've
Speaker 10: had in a really long time.
Speaker 1: And lastly, Matt, what did you make of these specifics
Speaker 1: of the whistleblower who was found dead in the middle
Speaker 1: of his deposition. But what did you make of the
Speaker 1: specifics of the allegations he was making about Boeing and
Speaker 1: what they had to lose with this individual who by
Speaker 1: all accounts was very credible, who was billing the tea
Speaker 1: about their production, especially in South Carolina.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean what I from what I understand, I mean,
Speaker 10: he was saying things that were pretty extraordinary about the
Speaker 10: particularly the seventy seven Dreamliner, and you know, things like
Speaker 10: how they would the managers would like steal defective parts
Speaker 10: from the closet where they kept them, saying don't use
Speaker 10: these parts.
Speaker 9: They would steal them and then put them on the planes.
Speaker 10: So like, you know, stuff like that, and it was
Speaker 10: very you know, they had he had been a whistleblower
Speaker 10: for seven years, but the stuff that he had been
Speaker 10: he was deposed that day that he died was pretty
Speaker 10: incendiary and he was going to do more. And so
Speaker 10: you know, look, I'm not saying that Boeing killed him, right,
Speaker 10: Like it's weird that he would be found dead, but
Speaker 10: they totally killed him.
Speaker 9: Like why are.
Speaker 2: You covering your asposes?
Speaker 10: I mean, yeah, I'm just kidding, but I'm not kidding.
Speaker 1: Well, there's there needs to be a fullsome investigation and
Speaker 1: Boeing out a lot to lose from this man's allegations.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, look, they don't deserve the benefit of
Speaker 10: the doubt. That's like, the bottom line here is that
Speaker 10: they clearly the company. You know, there were when the
Speaker 10: first Max crashed, Okay, that's a tragedy, but then they knew, right,
Speaker 10: the board knew that there were safety issues and they
Speaker 10: didn't do anything about it, and then the second one crash.
Speaker 10: So this is a company willing to kill people, right,
Speaker 10: we know that.
Speaker 9: I don't.
Speaker 10: You know, obviously I have no idea what happened, right,
Speaker 10: But like by all accounts, the guy was not suicidal.
Speaker 10: He told friends, you know, if I die, it's not suicide.
Speaker 10: And like, I think the most telling thing is that
Speaker 10: his last meal was Taco Bell, and no one's last
Speaker 10: meal Taco Bell.
Speaker 9: So like, I don't if.
Speaker 3: I agree with that that analysis, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not going to stand for that. I like Taco Bell
Speaker 2: too much. Well, that said, I think your point is
Speaker 2: taken is that, look, this is a company again that
Speaker 2: was criminally negligent, that avoided criminal charges. By the skin
Speaker 2: of their teeth last time around. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: people with a lot to lose on this when there's
Speaker 2: no reason for the DOJ not to give that, you know,
Speaker 2: not to give throw the book at him at least
Speaker 2: this time around. And so man has been making very
Speaker 2: credible allegations, well very inconvenient timing.
Speaker 1: You know, for them, really very fortunate for them that
Speaker 1: he's taken out of the picture. I'll just say that, Matt,
Speaker 1: thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Great to have you, appreciate it, apsure you.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, our pleasure.
Speaker 2: Major news yesterday federal authorities reading the homes of Sean P.
Speaker 2: Diddy Combs. Let's go and put some of this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. So here we have video from
Speaker 2: the sky of Los Angeles where you have Homeland Security
Speaker 2: investigators dragging individuals outside of a home that was that
Speaker 2: was linked to mister Shawn Combs. You can see that
Speaker 2: there are investigators that are on site. They appear to
Speaker 2: be both executing a search warrant and searching all throughout
Speaker 2: the house or evidence for what appears to be tied
Speaker 2: to a sexual misconduct investigation, even possibly involving minors with
Speaker 2: the most noteworthy part of this crystal is that they
Speaker 2: were simultaneous raids, both on homes in Los Angeles and
Speaker 2: in Florida. In Miami, there was video that appeared to
Speaker 2: show federal investigators and authorities on some of his personal
Speaker 2: assets like boats and others. There's also been a video
Speaker 2: that has now surfaced of showing mister Combs at the
Speaker 2: Miami Airport just like kind of pacing aimlessly. He has
Speaker 2: not yet been arrested by federal authorities and they haven't
Speaker 2: really issued any details such and so forth. But a
Speaker 2: lot of this just comes on the heels of what
Speaker 2: have been stunning allegations against mister Combs. Let's go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen from the Los
Speaker 2: Angeles Times. They do a decent job here of writing
Speaker 2: up some of the recent shakeups that have happened. Quote.
Speaker 2: Four separate plaintiffs have now filed civil lawsuits against Combs
Speaker 2: in the last month, accusing him of rape, sex trafficking,
Speaker 2: a minor assault, and a litany of other alleged abuses,
Speaker 2: imperiling his empire and sending shockwaves through the music industry.
Speaker 2: These include his former girlfriend Cassandra Ventura known as Cassie
Speaker 2: accusing him of rape and forcing her to have sex
Speaker 2: with male prostitutes in front of him, along with repeated
Speaker 2: physical assault. Mister Combs actually settled that suit. You have
Speaker 2: another woman who is accusing Combs in a suit of
Speaker 2: drugging and raping her in nineteen ninety one, recording the
Speaker 2: attack and then distributing that footage without her consent. A
Speaker 2: third woman filed a third suit in which she claimed
Speaker 2: that Combs and Guy singer Aaron Hall sexually assaulted her,
Speaker 2: and the most recent suit says that Combs and former
Speaker 2: Bad Boy label president Harve Pierre gang raped and sex
Speaker 2: trafficked a seventeen year old girl. Pierre said in a
Speaker 2: statement the allegations were discussing false and a desperate attempt
Speaker 2: for financial game. To be clear, Combs is denied all
Speaker 2: of this. But you know, anytime that the FEDS are
Speaker 2: raising two of your houses in connection with an investigation
Speaker 2: like this, it's clearly that there is something serious going
Speaker 2: on latest that we.
Speaker 1: Know on the raids of both the Miami and the
Speaker 1: California homes. A Homeland Security investigation spokesperson said the raid
Speaker 1: was executed as part of a quote ongoing investigation. Law
Speaker 1: enforcement sources told ABC News that the search warrant was
Speaker 1: being executed in La. Combs's sons were detained outside the home,
Speaker 1: as is customery in such circumstances, and then released without charges.
Speaker 3: We have an official statement, they say.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, Homeland Security Investigations New York executed law enforcement
Speaker 1: actions as part of an ongoing investigation with assistance from
Speaker 1: HSI LA, HSI Miami, and our local law enforcement partners.
Speaker 1: We will provide for their information as it becomes available,
Speaker 1: and law enforcement sources also said to ABC News the
Speaker 1: searches are being carried out as part of a federal
Speaker 1: investigation led by the Southern District of New York into
Speaker 1: alleged human trafficking. No criminal charges, though, have been filed
Speaker 1: in the investigation. So that's the most of what we
Speaker 1: know about what's going going on here.
Speaker 3: But you know, this all started with Diddy.
Speaker 1: There had been rumors about him on different like hip
Speaker 1: hop podcasts and whatever, but this all really went mainstream
Speaker 1: when Cassie filed her suit against him, alleging years of psychological, physical,
Speaker 1: and sexual abuse. Just to give you some of her allegations,
Speaker 1: she accused him of rape and for forcing her to
Speaker 1: have sex with male prostitutes in front of him, along
Speaker 1: with repeated physical assaults. She claimed that in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: Combs told her that he was going to blow up
Speaker 1: the car of rap artist Kid Cutty, suspecting that Cassie
Speaker 1: and Cutty were dating. The suit alleges that around that time,
Speaker 1: Kid Cutty's car did in fact explode in the driveway,
Speaker 1: and Cutty told the New York Times quote, this is
Speaker 1: all true. In twenty fifteen, this is a different There
Speaker 1: were a variety of allegations against him, alleging physical assaults too,
Speaker 1: throughout his career. I was actually as I went through
Speaker 1: the timeline, I was sort of shocked. I didn't realize
Speaker 1: the number of actual physical assault allegations against him. Cassie
Speaker 1: also alleged years of physical, psychological, and emotional abuse. She
Speaker 1: claims Combs forced her to purchase and take illegal drugs
Speaker 1: like cocaine, ketamine, and ecstasy that he filmed her as
Speaker 1: he forced her to participate in sex with male sex
Speaker 1: workers in multiple cities for his own voyeuristic pleasure in
Speaker 1: a practice he called freak offs, and that he beat
Speaker 1: her on many occasions in retaliation for talking to other men,
Speaker 1: often with witnesses present. Some of the gruesome details of
Speaker 1: what Cassie alleged included that she was suffering severe memory loss,
Speaker 1: potentially from these routine alleged beatings from Diddy, and that
Speaker 1: he was so controlling that even when she sought medical
Speaker 1: help for that memory loss, again potentially resulting from these beatings,
Speaker 1: he got the x rays, he.
Speaker 3: Controlled the medical records. That was the level of.
Speaker 1: Total control he had over her, according to Cassie. Immediately
Speaker 1: after the charges come out, they settle. And this was
Speaker 1: the context we were talking before of that New York
Speaker 1: Survivor's Law. This is the law that was put through
Speaker 1: that gave basically a temporary window for any sort of
Speaker 1: sexual assault claims where the statute of limitations had expired.
Speaker 1: It allowed people to bring those claims in the context
Speaker 1: of a civil suit.
Speaker 3: So that was the.
Speaker 1: Context for actually a number of these claims against Ditty.
Speaker 3: And as I said.
Speaker 1: Before, there are a range of allegations against him, and
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, Sager, the most recent one having to
Speaker 1: do with allegations of sex trafficking a minor. So we
Speaker 1: can all guess that this investigation likely has to do
Speaker 1: with some of the allegations against him, and just to reiterate,
Speaker 1: he denies all of this and says that none of
Speaker 1: it happened.
Speaker 2: He denies everything. Yeah, I mean, we'll take it for
Speaker 2: what it's worth. I think the timeline, though, is pretty damning,
Speaker 2: and we can put that on the screen please from NPR.
Speaker 2: I encourage people to go through and read this. Look,
Speaker 2: I don't wasn't all that familiar, I guess with all
Speaker 2: of this details here about mister Combs. But when we're
Speaker 2: going back, you know, he started his music industry career
Speaker 2: here in nineteen ninety and according to this twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three suit, he actually in nineteen ninety to nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 2: then allegedly began to sexually assault this victim and a
Speaker 2: friend after a music industry event, where he beat her
Speaker 2: several days later, whenever he was confronted again in nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety one, immediately after beginning this, according to that lawsuit,
Speaker 2: allegedly drugs, sexual assault, videotapes nineteen year old after going
Speaker 2: on a date with him. Then you continue down the line.
Speaker 2: Nineteen ninety six, comes is found guilty of criminal mischief
Speaker 2: for threatening a photographer from the New York Posts with
Speaker 2: a gun. Then you see. In nineteen ninety nine, he
Speaker 2: has arrested charge with two felonies second degree assault criminal
Speaker 2: mischief in the beating of a record executive and two
Speaker 2: bodyguards who beat them with their fists, a telephone, a
Speaker 2: champagne bottle. He publicly apologized, he asked for the charges
Speaker 2: to be dismissed. He reportedly then paid the individual some
Speaker 2: five hundred thousand dollars in assault charges were dropped. It's
Speaker 2: like we continue down this road, Crystal, and every five
Speaker 2: years or so we see a pop up of a
Speaker 2: gun charge, a violence charge, an allegation. But it does
Speaker 2: seem to be that everything began a real crescendo with
Speaker 2: his cementing of social status through his all white party
Speaker 2: in the Hampton's, through networking and using his power, his influence,
Speaker 2: his money, just surround himself with some of these sycophans
Speaker 2: and to allegedly, you know, conduct, have some of the
Speaker 2: horrible conduct that is detailed here. You really just read
Speaker 2: like a timeline of somebody going completely out of control.
Speaker 1: Well, he became, I mean, this is an iconic figure, yeah,
Speaker 1: right in his own right in terms of being an artist.
Speaker 1: He became not only like a hip hop mogul, but
Speaker 1: also this sort of cultural mogul with you know, clothing
Speaker 1: line and all you know, an alcohol line and all
Speaker 1: sorts of other business deals. So he was is larger
Speaker 1: than life, and you know, that's part of what can
Speaker 1: allow this sort of culture to persist, because people feel
Speaker 1: that their whole career, their you know, entire paycheck, their
Speaker 1: entire life is dependent on staying quiet, on going along
Speaker 1: to get along and not unearthing these you know, longtime
Speaker 1: allegations against him. And so you know, Cassie is really
Speaker 1: the one who through that New York Survivor's Law, she
Speaker 1: really broke the seal on again a lot of rumors
Speaker 1: and there were certain things, as you mentioned, that were
Speaker 1: in the public record in terms of charges and things
Speaker 1: that he was found guilty of, but she really opened
Speaker 1: the door for these other you know, allegations to be launched.
Speaker 1: And it does make me think, you know, I was,
Speaker 1: I was a little unsure about the New York Survivor's Law,
Speaker 1: but in this context, like it does make me feel
Speaker 1: like this this made a lot of sense and did
Speaker 1: provide a window for justice for a lot of people
Speaker 1: who you know, back twenty thirty years ago, you probably
Speaker 1: felt like, especially when you're going up against a powerful person,
Speaker 1: you have no chance, like there's absolutely no chance that
Speaker 1: you can bring these allegations and be met with anything
Speaker 1: other than having your entire life completely destroyed and no
Speaker 1: one taking you seriously, and so providing this window where
Speaker 1: people could once again come forward. First of all, you know,
Speaker 1: the times have changed somewhat, but also it did he
Speaker 1: is also not quite the towering figure that he once was.
Speaker 1: Still incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful, all of those sorts of things,
Speaker 1: but maybe not quite at the pinnacle that he used
Speaker 1: to be, and so that provides the opening for these
Speaker 1: incredibly serious charges to be made against him. So, you know,
Speaker 1: that's what we know at this point. We'll see where
Speaker 1: the investigation leads.
Speaker 2: Oh, welcome the investigation. I think it's good. I think
Speaker 2: there's a lot of famous people who've been hanging out
Speaker 2: with him, I mean, succording to some of the allegations
Speaker 2: out there. I mean it was like a Signamo laer
Speaker 2: Epstein type situation. They've got Prince Harry now who's been
Speaker 2: named in a lawsuit. You've got a lot of celebrities,
Speaker 2: you got politicians and others, I mean socially he was
Speaker 2: a major and towering figure of New York and in
Speaker 2: Hampton's La Society Miami, you know, hanging out with the
Speaker 2: all these people, and I mean, this type of behavior
Speaker 2: does not happen in a vacuum. And in fact, these
Speaker 2: type of people who exhibit this type of behavior often
Speaker 2: enjoy and get off in flaunting it in other people's face.
Speaker 2: So it's like, well, how many people out there really
Speaker 2: knew about what was going on? Almost every single instance.
Speaker 2: You know, it was part of the power that you
Speaker 2: could get away with stuff like this. Yeah, continue to track.
Speaker 3: That between this and have you watched Quiet on set yet?
Speaker 2: I haven't watched it yet. It's four parts, which I
Speaker 2: did not realize. I thought it was a single one.
Speaker 3: They're each Yeah, you know, like fifty minutes or something. Okay,
Speaker 3: you're gonna get through it quickly on double speed.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's just made me really reflect on it.
Speaker 1: Seems like in literally every corner of the entertainment industry,
Speaker 1: you have some sort of like Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 2: Especially in the nineties, especially in the nineties when everything
Speaker 2: was so centrally powerful.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, that's true, Yeah, that's probably, that's probably very true.
Speaker 1: But because you have this dynamic of you know, you
Speaker 1: have so many people who are desperate for these slots.
Speaker 1: You have these massive power imbalance. Is you have a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are very vulnerable, who may not
Speaker 1: have a lot of money, who are just you know,
Speaker 1: depending on you, desperately hoping for their chance.
Speaker 3: They think this is their one opportunity.
Speaker 1: It leads to them, you know, let me stay quiet,
Speaker 1: Let me put up with these things that I think
Speaker 1: are unacceptable because I have to, because you know, I'm
Speaker 1: dependent on this and other people are dependent on me,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And it does create a climate that is
Speaker 1: very rife for abuse. You see it also with the R.
Speaker 3: Kelly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean similar, similar type of allegations you know
Speaker 1: here of that level of control, of control of partner's
Speaker 1: control of the psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Very similar type dynamics between these these cases
Speaker 1: as well. So anyway, we'll watch and see what unfolds.
Speaker 1: But if any fraction of the allegations against him are true,
Speaker 1: I hope that his ass pays for it.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 2: Especially the Feds here are now involved, and that shows
Speaker 2: you the seriousness with their taking that sex trafficking charge
Speaker 2: because that is as moving people across state lines for purposes,
Speaker 2: especially including minors. So definitely hope that.
Speaker 3: Justice is done here, Tager, what you're looking at?
Speaker 2: Well, before I get started, I want to get a
Speaker 2: few things out of the way. First, is I'm biased
Speaker 2: in the story I'm about to cover doctor Andrew Huberman.
Speaker 2: He's a personal friend to the point We've exchanged text,
Speaker 2: phone calls, we've met in person. A lot of my
Speaker 2: anger around this is of seeing my friend smeared. But
Speaker 2: I'm also going to try and fuse my personal outrage,
Speaker 2: add an injustice to a friend with some journalistic rigor,
Speaker 2: and expose what I believe to be a genuine hit
Speaker 2: job that has bigger cultural implications. Let's start with the
Speaker 2: smear job itself. New York Magazine, which is a subsidiary
Speaker 2: of Vox Media, published a front page story on Monday
Speaker 2: morning titled Falling for Doctor Huberman The private and public
Speaker 2: seductions of the world's biggest pop neuroscientists. Now, you might
Speaker 2: expect the story to detail perhaps some health lies or
Speaker 2: bad advice possibly that was proven from the most popular
Speaker 2: health podcast in the world. And you open up that story,
Speaker 2: you find eight thousand words. After reading them all, you
Speaker 2: will come away with this information doctor Andrew Huberman, who
Speaker 2: is unmarried, engaged in simultaneous relationships with up to six
Speaker 2: women according to his ex girlfriends and lovers. I'm not kidding,
Speaker 2: and if you want, you can read the entire piece
Speaker 2: for yourself. Is exhaustively details a lead up of how
Speaker 2: Huberman has self admitted to therapy and a tough childhood.
Speaker 2: Then immediately begins to parse in detail these scurrilous allegations
Speaker 2: of his ex girlfriends, who apparently have formed their own
Speaker 2: group chat to try and take him down. What is
Speaker 2: crazier is what I then found out by asking those
Speaker 2: behind the scenes. Now, according to those familiar with New
Speaker 2: York Magazine's of original reach out to doctor Huberman, the
Speaker 2: vibe started out quite a bit different the New York
Speaker 2: Magazine's original email, which I obtained, and is so unbelievable
Speaker 2: that I was given permission to read a few quotes
Speaker 2: for you here on the show is. In August of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, New York Magazine reporter Carrie Howley emailed saying, quote,
Speaker 2: I am writing in the hopes that one of my
Speaker 2: big stories this year might be the phenomenon of doctor
Speaker 2: Andrew Huberman. When my editor suggested I look into it him,
Speaker 2: I basically shot him down. It didn't seem like the
Speaker 2: kind of thing I would be into. I listened to
Speaker 2: a single episode. Predictably, months later, I'm fully addicted and devoted,
Speaker 2: she adds, continues due to some of the episodes that
Speaker 2: deal with stress, I'm taking care of my mental health.
Speaker 2: It was almost like I couldn't engage or become interested
Speaker 2: until doctor Huberman made it all profoundly concrete and chemical.
Speaker 2: I know I'm far from the only person to have
Speaker 2: experienced this change. She adds a few more buttery things
Speaker 2: about how much she loved the podcast, and she said
Speaker 2: and got no reply. Now the story should have died there, right, No, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: Suddenly the Huberman love affair turned into something very different.
Speaker 2: Months later, Those familiar say that Huberman's colleagues, his family,
Speaker 2: and his friends from high school began to be inundated
Speaker 2: with emails from New York Magazine requesting anonymous information on
Speaker 2: doctor Huberman. One of the emails reads as follows, subject
Speaker 2: line off the record conversation with New York mag email
Speaker 2: text quote. In the interest of transparency, there have been
Speaker 2: serious allegations made about Andrew as well as the academic
Speaker 2: work that he is up to these days. Now, hold
Speaker 2: on the second, what serious allegations that he was not
Speaker 2: faithful to his girlfriend? Why is that pertinent to speak
Speaker 2: to his colleagues about? And what about his work at Stanford?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about here? It turns out nothing.
Speaker 2: Despite the author's best efforts to smear Andrew Huberman's work
Speaker 2: at Stanford and presenting him with some no show at
Speaker 2: his own lab, insinuating that something was afoot because of
Speaker 2: its transition, Stanford itself stood up for him in the piece,
Speaker 2: saying his lab was fully operational. Nothing she was insinuating
Speaker 2: was true. As for these quote serious allegations, again, literally
Speaker 2: it is from his personal life. And where did these
Speaker 2: allegations come from? Well, it doesn't take a genius to
Speaker 2: see that the sources of the story are jilted lovers
Speaker 2: of Andrew Huberman's And it appears, based upon my conversations
Speaker 2: again with those familiar, that the reporter was able to
Speaker 2: make contact with them by literally trolling for negative comments
Speaker 2: on Reddit threads and Instagram comments. So the timeline is
Speaker 2: basically this, She asked for a profile and pretended to
Speaker 2: be a fan. He said no or basically didn't reply.
Speaker 2: Then she connects with these jilted lovers, leaving anonymous comments
Speaker 2: on the Internet. Then those claims, including incorrect ones about
Speaker 2: his work at Stanford, are presented to colleagues, friends, and
Speaker 2: family of Huberman's, including his own father, to react to.
Speaker 2: Any positive comments attesting to his character were not included
Speaker 2: in the story. The full allegations of the women were
Speaker 2: printed with complete credibility, even though many have exhibited some
Speaker 2: pretty crazy behavior in their retaliation against him. So those
Speaker 2: are the specifics of how this all came to be.
Speaker 2: But let me just put this aside right now and
Speaker 2: just say this. Let's say every word of it is true,
Speaker 2: every last word. What is the relevance of any of this?
Speaker 2: Not once in this story did they ever dispute a
Speaker 2: single word that Andrew Huberman ever said on his podcast.
Speaker 2: Not once did they prove that he is less than
Speaker 2: he says he is, including the fact that Stanford University
Speaker 2: publicly confirms that he remains not only a professor, but
Speaker 2: one who continues to publish research and teach students at
Speaker 2: this university. Not once were they able to prove misinformation, malinformation,
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call it. This is not a story.
Speaker 2: It is a character assassination of yes who a man
Speaker 2: who is my friend, but a man who I believe
Speaker 2: has changed millions of lives for the better. Andrew Huberman
Speaker 2: does not tell you to do anything. He gives you
Speaker 2: information that you can research and check for yourself. He
Speaker 2: gives you protocols like look in the sun in the
Speaker 2: morning if you want to sleep better, avoid alcohol, and
Speaker 2: by and large, to try and live a healthier lifestyle.
Speaker 2: Or he will interview a world renowned scholar on the subject,
Speaker 2: and he will draw out information that might be relevant
Speaker 2: to you if he want it to be. As far
Speaker 2: as I'm concerned, that's the only thing that's relevant about him.
Speaker 2: And if they could find anything he said regarding that
Speaker 2: which is wrong or was malicious, I'm all years and
Speaker 2: I wouldn't doing anything like this. They didn't. That's why
Speaker 2: I'm doing this monologue, because this was an attempt, for
Speaker 2: some reason or the other to take him down for
Speaker 2: just simply being the most popular health podcaster in the world.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have to rely on mainstream media to get
Speaker 2: this information, and I guess that alone is his crime.
Speaker 2: For which he has now been sentenced and convicted in
Speaker 2: the court of public opinion by New York Magazine. It
Speaker 2: is not right and if you ever benefited from his advice,
Speaker 2: you should share this with people you know so the
Speaker 2: actual truth gets out there. Crystal.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com. All right,
Speaker 1: we have one more important story we wanted to get to.
Speaker 1: We can go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Julian Assange has staved off extradition to the US, at
Speaker 1: least for now.
Speaker 3: This is breaking news just this morning. This according to
Speaker 3: a UK court. Let me read you a little bit
Speaker 3: of this.
Speaker 1: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has fended off the threat of
Speaker 1: immediate extradition to the US after the High Court in
Speaker 1: London asked the US for more assurances. US authority say
Speaker 1: Assange fifty two, put lives at risk by publishing secret
Speaker 1: military documents and have four years been seeking his extradition
Speaker 1: on espionage charges. Put aside the US nonsense story there.
Speaker 1: At a two day hearing last month, Assange sought permission
Speaker 1: to appeal the UK's twenty twenty two approval of his extradition,
Speaker 1: arguing the case against him was politically motivated and that
Speaker 1: he would not face a fair trial. In a ruling Tuesday,
Speaker 1: a panel of two judges said that Assange, an Australian citizen,
Speaker 1: would not be extradited immediately, and gave the US three
Speaker 1: weeks to give a series of assurances about Assange's First
Speaker 1: Amendment rights and that he would not receive the death penalty.
Speaker 1: The US fails to give these, Assagne would be allowed
Speaker 1: to appeal his extradition at a hearing in May. They
Speaker 1: go on to say the ruling potentially offers Assange an
Speaker 1: extraordinary lifeline in a year's long saga that saw him
Speaker 1: shoot to global prominence for revealing to CNN what he
Speaker 1: described to CNN what I think anyone would describe as
Speaker 1: war crimes. So you know, saga. Listen, it's a victory
Speaker 1: for Assange. He gets to live to fight another day.
Speaker 1: Of course, we should not lose sight of the fact
Speaker 1: that he continues to be held in detention at grave
Speaker 1: risk to his health, which according to his family, has
Speaker 1: severely deteriorated, and his legal prospects are still in complete.
Speaker 1: Limbo just to remind everybody, the Obama Biden administration had
Speaker 1: decided they could not charge Julie Assange without implicating core
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights, and in particular without implicating outlets like
Speaker 1: The New York Times. The Trump administration took a more
Speaker 1: aggressive approach. They even had reportedly Mike Pompeo and others
Speaker 1: were even floating plans for, Hey, maybe we should just
Speaker 1: assassinate this guy outright, which is complete insanity. That did
Speaker 1: not get nearly enough attention, by the way, from the
Speaker 1: US press, which supposedly cares so much about press freedom. Right,
Speaker 1: So Trump administration begins this prosecution. The Biden administration now
Speaker 1: has continued that prosecution and are seeking his extradition from
Speaker 1: the UK, where he has been held now for years,
Speaker 1: for seven years actually before that was hold up as
Speaker 1: a political refugee at the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK capital.
Speaker 1: So he's been five years in London's Bellmarsh Prison and
Speaker 1: before that's seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just insanity that is unfolding, and the reason we
Speaker 1: always want to update and keep an eye on it
Speaker 1: is not only because of the personal ramifications for Julian Assange,
Speaker 1: his young family, his brother and father who we've we've
Speaker 1: met and interviewed here on the show. He loves, appreciates him.
Speaker 1: This is a human being first and foremost, but also
Speaker 1: because of the way that this tramples on First Amendment
Speaker 1: rights and especially rights to publish information that implicates powerful people.
Speaker 1: And you know, as of now Collateral Marto, which got referenced,
Speaker 1: you know, in the show here yesterday with regard to
Speaker 1: the similarities to drone footage that came out of the
Speaker 1: Israel's assault on Gaza, incredibly impactful. But the individuals who
Speaker 1: were in collateral murder they never face charges. And Julian Assange,
Speaker 1: for releasing that information that was in the benefit of
Speaker 1: the public interest of exposing what was happening, has been
Speaker 1: locked up now four years, persecuted four years, and his life,
Speaker 1: according to his family, is literally on the line.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his family's been saying that here and anywhere else
Speaker 2: that you could find them. It's been fourteen years. Previously,
Speaker 2: did you mention this Crystal about the guilty plea previous
Speaker 2: or have you read those details, or if his family
Speaker 2: had explored possibly going through that, if this had gone through,
Speaker 2: but that's still very unfortunate because it sets the legal
Speaker 2: precedent for the prosecutorial direction of actual journalistic crimes. This
Speaker 2: was news that broke several days ago, and it does remain.
Speaker 2: It appears their backup plan, and it's one which would
Speaker 2: allow him to plead guilty and possibly either have time
Speaker 2: served or spend some five years behind bars and then
Speaker 2: eventually be released. But given what we and we know
Speaker 2: at a personal level of his mental state, given what
Speaker 2: his family has told us, including here in the studio,
Speaker 2: the guy needs to be let out almost immediately. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and you know the case needs to be dropped against him,
Speaker 2: but don't expect anything like that to happen.
Speaker 3: The Australian government agrees.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we had the there's two Australian MP's on our
Speaker 2: show who were from different sides of the aisle who
Speaker 2: talked about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're calling for his release, so in any case,
Speaker 1: you know, they've the US has got a few weeks
Speaker 1: to make these assurances and then we'll see what happens
Speaker 1: after that, if he's going to be able to have
Speaker 1: a full hearing appealing for extradition in May, or whether
Speaker 1: they decide at that point. Okay, the extradition process could
Speaker 1: move forward, and then we'll see what happens from there,
Speaker 1: but wanted to make sure to give you all the
Speaker 1: very latest in this very important case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go. All right, Thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for watching. We appreciate you. We'll see you all
Speaker 2: later