Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots to get to this morning, including
Speaker 1: new footage from our RFK junior focus group. You guys
Speaker 1: seem to really be interested in what they had to
Speaker 1: say yesterday. Today they are tackling some of us more
Speaker 1: controversial positions with regard to Ukraine and also with regard
Speaker 1: to Israel.
Speaker 4: You definitely are going to want to see that.
Speaker 1: We also have Kamala Harris saying that she is ready
Speaker 1: to serve as this comes amid heightened concerns about Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's age, of course, and also the return of John.
Speaker 4: Stewart to the Daily Show. We watched it this morning.
Speaker 1: We were both but by that boy last night, but
Speaker 1: he had some comments about Biden's age as well, which
Speaker 1: I think you will.
Speaker 4: Want to take a look at.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump meanwhile, has a big week in court. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about the possibility
Speaker 1: of kicking him off the ballot. That did not seem
Speaker 1: to go too well for those who do want to
Speaker 1: kick him off the ballot. But Trump has some difficulties
Speaker 1: facing him this week, so we'll break all of.
Speaker 4: That down for you.
Speaker 1: Israel is saying that we should be the ones to
Speaker 1: pay to shelter Palestinians who they want to move and
Speaker 1: displace out of Rafa and begin this overwhelming offensive, so
Speaker 1: we'll tell you about that. We also have a democratic senator.
Speaker 1: This was a big surprise that sort of just like
Speaker 1: standard run of the mill, Senator Van Holland from Maryland
Speaker 1: actually saying Israel is committing war crimes, but it didn't
Speaker 1: change his vote on shipping billions in weapons to Israel,
Speaker 1: So break all of that down for you. I'm also
Speaker 1: taking a look at a six year old who was
Speaker 1: killed by Israel in Gaza alongside her would be rescuers,
Speaker 1: breaking all of that down for you and also what
Speaker 1: it means for our participation in this war.
Speaker 4: So a lot to get to.
Speaker 1: This morning before we jump into any of that, though,
Speaker 1: thank you so much to all of those who helped
Speaker 1: to make this RF Junior focus group happen, because I
Speaker 1: think it has been really interesting.
Speaker 4: It's sightful to see their comments.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, I found this group in particular to be
Speaker 2: very interesting. As you guys know, if you're signing up
Speaker 2: for our premium membership Breakingpoints dot Com, you're supporting our
Speaker 2: ability to do these. They do cost quite a bit
Speaker 2: of money, but they're worth it and we put a
Speaker 2: lot of production value the travel, you know, all of
Speaker 2: our crew and everybody that has to be able to
Speaker 2: go there. So thank you so much for supporting that,
Speaker 2: and also for signing up yesterday to see a little
Speaker 2: bit of our takes on the Vladimir Putin interview. We're
Speaker 2: very very grateful to that and something will continue to
Speaker 2: experiment here. So again, Breakingpoints dot Com, you get the
Speaker 2: show an hour early. All of the benefits you can
Speaker 2: go and look at the website, but the major one
Speaker 2: is you're helping support our work here to continue to
Speaker 2: actually bring things that apparently the mainstream media doesn't want
Speaker 2: to do, especially.
Speaker 3: Here with RFK.
Speaker 2: So we have as a crystal alluded to a clip
Speaker 2: that we can now show you of the RFK Junior
Speaker 2: focus group sounding off on Israel and on Ukraine for
Speaker 2: both his positions. What they think about it, their reactions,
Speaker 2: some really interesting results. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Put your hand up if you think if you've got
Speaker 5: you think you've got a pretty good idea of what
Speaker 5: RFK Junior's views on Israel are.
Speaker 6: No idea.
Speaker 7: I haven't researched it halfway up.
Speaker 8: I think he's trying to straddle defense. My mom used
Speaker 8: to call it straddle in defence. He's kind of playing
Speaker 8: both sides.
Speaker 9: He wants to very clearly distinguish his dislike for certain
Speaker 9: policies versus their need to defend themselves and making it
Speaker 9: very clear that in that region they're not just our
Speaker 9: best style ally, but they're the best place for the
Speaker 9: people who live in that region in terms of rights
Speaker 9: and democracy.
Speaker 5: So I think r of Kjuni has been quite quite
Speaker 5: vocal in his support for Israel and for US government
Speaker 5: support of Israel. What do people think about what's going
Speaker 5: on out there? What should what should the US's position
Speaker 5: be I.
Speaker 6: Feel that the United States should concentrate as much on
Speaker 6: the United States. We have sought such a deficit here
Speaker 6: in the United States of helping our own people.
Speaker 10: They keep going to war, and it's like, what are
Speaker 10: they fighting for? Nobody know what they they are fighting for,
Speaker 10: So why do we keep going to war?
Speaker 11: There's a militant faction then there that needs to be
Speaker 11: taken here, but the innocent people always in war, they suffer,
Speaker 11: So it's it's a terrible thing.
Speaker 5: So should the US be funding is right on this
Speaker 5: issue or not?
Speaker 7: I think it's real gives back as much as it gets.
Speaker 7: I don't think that there. I don't feel like it's
Speaker 7: that they're takers. I mean, they're they that done so
Speaker 7: much for the military intelligence and they you know, I
Speaker 7: think there's so much that they give back.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Hurricane Katrin over here where they wiped out millions
Speaker 10: of people homes and they didn't even help them. So
Speaker 10: how could you go help another country when you can't
Speaker 10: help you all? I just don't get it.
Speaker 7: I just don't. I don't know.
Speaker 10: I stand for them today.
Speaker 9: If we are allocating money there, it should come with
Speaker 9: heavier stipulations on like, hey, maybe don't bomb residential areas
Speaker 9: just because you say that Hamas is hiding there using
Speaker 9: them as hostage. You don't shoot through the hostage to
Speaker 9: kill the person who's holding the message.
Speaker 5: Put your hand up if you do, think is right
Speaker 5: adacting too aggressively to quote definitely in this wall.
Speaker 11: I understand they have to come and try to get
Speaker 11: you the militants out, but do we need to level
Speaker 11: the entire area? And there's so many innocent people that
Speaker 11: are affected by that.
Speaker 3: What if this was happening here?
Speaker 8: I mean, these innocent people in these communities that they're
Speaker 8: going in and they're leveling cities that are no more.
Speaker 8: I think they need to take a step back and
Speaker 8: really evaluate their destruction.
Speaker 10: But just think about the people, the troops they got
Speaker 10: to go over there that's getting killed. It's the same
Speaker 10: thing for us.
Speaker 3: We're getting killed too.
Speaker 10: It's not just like they're just going over and they surviving.
Speaker 5: As I said, Eardie, you know he's got a strong
Speaker 5: view on this. Put your hand off if that makes
Speaker 5: you less likely to vote for him, and the hand
Speaker 5: if it makes the difference.
Speaker 7: I mean the fact that I'm very.
Speaker 8: For that, it would not persuade me not to vote
Speaker 8: for him because of his other amazing outlook on.
Speaker 4: The world.
Speaker 9: If he's one hundred percent good in my mind, then
Speaker 9: he's now like eighty five or ninety and that's miles
Speaker 9: above the rest.
Speaker 5: What about with the war in Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine?
Speaker 5: Where is he on that if you've got a sense
Speaker 5: of his position that.
Speaker 11: What's negotiate and let get peace?
Speaker 5: And how do we feel about that war?
Speaker 9: That's also something that we're spending way too much money
Speaker 9: on when the Ukrainians are obviously losing. When you take
Speaker 9: into account what happened in Ohio and East Palestine and
Speaker 9: what happened in Lehina in Maui, that money could have
Speaker 9: gone to those places to help those people who are Americans.
Speaker 5: So hands up if you think the US couple of
Speaker 5: it should be sending money to Ukraine to help them
Speaker 5: in that war. And hands up if you want the
Speaker 5: US government to send money to Israel to help them.
Speaker 8: I mean I want them to help help, but there's
Speaker 8: got to be a cutoff because we got people starving here,
Speaker 8: We've got you know, not wars, but we have you know,
Speaker 8: some detrimental issues here.
Speaker 5: What makes Ukraine different, What makes what window hands for Ukraine.
Speaker 6: They equate Israel as Holy Land, and so people seem
Speaker 6: to gravitate toward the help for Israel.
Speaker 5: What do you think? RFK Junior is the mediator on
Speaker 5: Ukraine and Russia but supports Israel.
Speaker 9: He is acknowledging that Russia made a point that NATO
Speaker 9: should not expand into like add Ukraine into NATO, because
Speaker 9: it's inherently an advantageous organization to Russia.
Speaker 11: It seems like a proxy war over there. We've given
Speaker 11: a lot of aid already, so it's a long you know,
Speaker 11: long time span in Israel is more recent.
Speaker 5: If somebody stood up tomorrow, politician, you know Rfkjunial where
Speaker 5: he became president, sayah, anyone did and turned around and said,
Speaker 5: you know, tomorrow we're going to cut off that funding
Speaker 5: to Ukraine. How would it make you feel?
Speaker 7: It would make me feel much better. There's a way
Speaker 7: too much money going there.
Speaker 6: I think I would be okay with it as well.
Speaker 4: I think I would do.
Speaker 8: I think we need to support other countries with a
Speaker 8: cap you know, there's only so much we can do.
Speaker 8: Like you know, our parents have always said, you know,
Speaker 8: you got to help home first before we start going
Speaker 8: outside the House.
Speaker 11: I think they should cut it way back and that
Speaker 11: would force them to come to the negotiation table. It's
Speaker 11: time so many innocent lives, you know, destruction all of it,
Speaker 11: and they do have a vested steak in part of
Speaker 11: the Ukraine, the Russians. Do you know, do I condone
Speaker 11: that or not?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 11: But I mean it's the reality of the situation.
Speaker 3: Some very interesting results there. So what was my numbers?
Speaker 2: Six out of seven say that they believe that the
Speaker 2: Israeli military operation is quote over the top to borrow
Speaker 2: a phrase from our current president, not going to impact
Speaker 2: the votes for all of them makes sense. Something that
Speaker 2: our moderator James made yesterday is like, these are people
Speaker 2: who are going to vote for him, right?
Speaker 3: Is not nice there?
Speaker 2: In perspective, I do think you can see there though
Speaker 2: that there is definitely, you know, some mild incongruent. So
Speaker 2: I think that's a polite way to say it between
Speaker 2: some of the arguments that he says between Israel and
Speaker 2: between Ukraine.
Speaker 3: But I think what it comes.
Speaker 2: Back to is the practicality for so many of these
Speaker 2: voters in the way that they feel about how much
Speaker 2: they hate Joe Biden and Donald Trump. That for them,
Speaker 2: even though you know, at what would the guy say.
Speaker 2: He's like, look if it was one hundred percent for me,
Speaker 2: now it's like eighty five percent. Yeah, but he's like,
Speaker 2: but I still trust him more than I trust the
Speaker 2: other two. And that's you know, that's a very powerful
Speaker 2: pragmatic way for people to look at voting and one
Speaker 2: that many Biden voters, many Trump voters, will have in
Speaker 2: their calculus as well. So if anybody wants to denigrate them,
Speaker 2: just be honest, like most people do that when you're
Speaker 2: in a locked into a two party or in this
Speaker 2: case of three candidate system.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there were a few things about this
Speaker 1: that were really fascinating. First of all, basically none of
Speaker 1: them really had a growd grasp of what his Israel
Speaker 1: policy even is when at the beginning. And I love
Speaker 1: that James started out this way. And by the way,
Speaker 1: shout out to Jail Partners. They always do a fantastic
Speaker 1: job with these focus groups. But I love that he
Speaker 1: started out with just like, who even knows what RFK
Speaker 1: Junior's foreign policy position on Israel is? And you heard
Speaker 1: one lady, she was like, no idea. You did have
Speaker 1: two people who raised their hands who tried to articulate something.
Speaker 1: I didn't feel like either one of them really fully
Speaker 1: articulated what his actual position is. So there's clearly a
Speaker 1: lot of uncertainty there about what even is his position
Speaker 1: visa the Israel, which there's no judgment here. These are
Speaker 1: regular people living their lives, going about their business. They
Speaker 1: don't have time to follow all the ins and outs
Speaker 1: of every single RFK junior comment interview, et cetera on
Speaker 1: the issue. I found that interesting, But then very clearly,
Speaker 1: with the exception of one woman who you know, I
Speaker 1: think it was pretty clear from yesterday's comments in the
Speaker 1: focus group as well, she tends to have more of
Speaker 1: the sort of like conservative positions. My suspicion, I'd be
Speaker 1: interested to check with jameson this is my suspicion. And
Speaker 1: she was probably a prior Trump voter. She seems to
Speaker 1: fit more consistently in that lane. She was the one
Speaker 1: who was most comfortable with Israel's response, who was most
Speaker 1: certain about, you know, shipping them more aid and more weapons,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 4: Everybody else was somewhere in.
Speaker 1: The context of either no, we shouldn't send them at all,
Speaker 1: or there should be a cap they very much had
Speaker 1: the attitude of listen, we got a lot of problems here, Yes,
Speaker 1: what are we doing in all these wars? And many
Speaker 1: of them brought up, hey, these innocent civilians are suffering greatly. Okay,
Speaker 1: I get it go and get hamas there's you know,
Speaker 1: an issue there a militant group, but all of these
Speaker 1: innocent civilians. You have to wipe out the entire residential area.
Speaker 1: So clearly amongst this group there was a lot of
Speaker 1: upset about what's going on, but they hadn't necessarily connected
Speaker 1: it to whatever Rfk's you know, very very very pro
Speaker 1: israel stance is, and also when asked about it, ultimately
Speaker 1: it was not the you know, a game changing issue
Speaker 1: for them, even after they learned more about what his
Speaker 1: stance is. Countrast that with I felt like they had a.
Speaker 4: Lot more clarity about where he stands on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well he's been talking, he's.
Speaker 1: Been talking about it longer, and you know, so that
Speaker 1: may have been part of the appeal for them that
Speaker 1: he clearly stood out, especially from Joe Biden, with regards
Speaker 1: to how he talks about Ukraine and how he wants
Speaker 1: to move forward on Ukraine, his ideology and positioning there
Speaker 1: seemed to be much more consistent with the instincts of
Speaker 1: this group overall, and so I thought that was really
Speaker 1: fascinating as well. But their logic, in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: it's actually more consistent than our off K Junior's logic
Speaker 1: of like all of these wars, all of this foreign
Speaker 1: funding for these countries. Listen, we feel bad for these people,
Speaker 1: but we also have to deal with problems here at home.
Speaker 1: Seemed to be the sort of overwhelming sentiment of all
Speaker 1: seven individuals in the group.
Speaker 2: I mean, these people are all speaking my language because
Speaker 2: I think that way they can see through it very clearly.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow Counterpoints will break down the full Ukraine vote and
Speaker 2: all of that. But I would be remiss if I
Speaker 2: did not mention a line from Senator Romney last night,
Speaker 2: which is really, you know, encapsulates this type of thinking.
Speaker 2: He said when he voted for the Ukraine aid package
Speaker 2: and the Israel package. Quote most this is the most
Speaker 2: important vote we will ever take as US senators. This
Speaker 2: is a United States Senator who believes that shipping money
Speaker 2: to Ukraine into Israel is the most important vote that
Speaker 2: he will ever take, you know, in his years in
Speaker 2: the body just think about that, not you know, anything
Speaker 2: to do with helping us with our country. It's about
Speaker 2: shipping weapons into a protracted proxy conflict of which there
Speaker 2: is no hope of victory, especially in the case of
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian side. How can you possibly think that unless
Speaker 2: you have some warped, crazy idea that you think it's
Speaker 2: like September nineteen thirty nine. But as we've said many
Speaker 2: times here on this show, not everything is hitler. You know,
Speaker 2: we don't always have to default to the Munich Conference
Speaker 2: and the subsequent things.
Speaker 3: Sometimes things are regional.
Speaker 2: Wars, and the way that we handle those, and the
Speaker 2: way that we approach our own conflicts and our own
Speaker 2: problems here at home maybe should have supremacy. And I
Speaker 2: think at the very least, what I'm happy about with
Speaker 2: these voters and in general with the majority of the
Speaker 2: American public, is that they see through a lot of this,
Speaker 2: even if they might have fallen for some of it
Speaker 2: in the initial days.
Speaker 4: Not everything is hitler. Sometimes it's your slot. The wise
Speaker 4: contains the.
Speaker 1: Real lines, unlocking the understanding of this Gonplin. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: what is fascinating to me also is this group very diverse, diverse, racially, gender,
Speaker 1: age wise, they I'm sure get their news from a
Speaker 1: variety of different elements. I mean, this is a very
Speaker 1: ideologically diverse group in a lot of ways, because you
Speaker 1: have people who voted for Biden, you have people who
Speaker 1: voted for Trump, and you have people who voted third party.
Speaker 4: And now they're saying, you know what, I'm done with
Speaker 4: all of them.
Speaker 1: I'm done with both of the two major parties. I'm
Speaker 1: all in for RFK Junior, because I'm just disgusted with
Speaker 1: what the other options are that are on the table.
Speaker 1: And yet they have, even with their disparate news consumption,
Speaker 1: they have come to similar conclusions about what's going on.
Speaker 1: And they've seen through a lot of the propaganda and
Speaker 1: a lot of the bullshit, and you just can't hide
Speaker 1: any more. Like with regard to the you know, Israel's
Speaker 1: war on Gasa, you just can't hide anymore the images
Speaker 1: of the horror that is being inflicted upon these innocent civilians.
Speaker 1: They've seen it, you know, whether they're getting their news
Speaker 1: from US or from the New York Times or CNN
Speaker 1: or wherever that has broken through, and they've seen it
Speaker 1: and they've made their own judgments about it, separate apart
Speaker 1: from whatever the political class wants them to believe.
Speaker 4: And you can see the same thing with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They have made their own judgments, separate and apart from
Speaker 1: whatever it was the news media wanted them to take
Speaker 1: away and whatever the you know, two parties want them
Speaker 1: to take away from that conflict. They've made their own
Speaker 1: judgments about what the priority should be for this country
Speaker 1: and they don't buy and large see that reflected in
Speaker 1: either one of the two parties right now, and so
Speaker 1: they're looking for an alternative now clearly on Israel, RFK
Speaker 1: Junior's ideas and position. I mean, first of all, it's
Speaker 1: just basically the same as Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: So you really have no choice in terms.
Speaker 1: Of Israel policy vis of the Israel amongst these three candidates.
Speaker 1: Clearly there's a dissonance there, but they see enough in
Speaker 1: him as just an alternative vote, someone other than these
Speaker 1: terrible two choices that I have that even though they're
Speaker 1: realizing there's some dissonance between how they feel about that
Speaker 1: conflict and how he does, they're still sticking with him.
Speaker 1: And it is almost just, you know, a sort of
Speaker 1: default protest vote of these two suck.
Speaker 4: He's at least something different. Let's give it a shot.
Speaker 2: You know, I think the point just made is pretty good.
Speaker 2: If there's not that much daylight between the three of them,
Speaker 2: then you might as well pick the best one. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's one that makes sense for a lot of people,
Speaker 2: I think. So anyways, that's look, it's always best to
Speaker 2: hear from the voters themselves about their priorities, about the
Speaker 2: way they're assessing. What I'm most heartened by is you've
Speaker 2: got people here all across age spectrum, news, consumption, voting,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And you know what it is they buy
Speaker 2: in the line of the mainstream media or of the
Speaker 2: political class. And to me, that is just such such
Speaker 2: a victory to even be in a place where you
Speaker 2: could have something like that regardless, you know, we never
Speaker 2: I don't want to tell anybody what to think. It's like,
Speaker 2: all we can do is to try and help give
Speaker 2: them the information that other people are not. That's really
Speaker 2: the most pernicious form of censorship. Yeah, you know, you've
Speaker 2: covered it here before on the Israeli military campaign. Will
Speaker 2: be like twelve thousand people died today, and it's like, yeah, how.
Speaker 3: Through what right?
Speaker 4: You know, it's mysteriously dropped that question.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, what happened here? Or it's like where they murdered?
Speaker 3: How are they murdered? How did this happen?
Speaker 2: It's like it was like, well, some people were you know,
Speaker 2: treated some way and the other's like, oh, all most
Speaker 2: people want is fairness and equal treatment whenever they're looking
Speaker 2: at something, And the blessing of the Internet is that,
Speaker 2: in general they can see through that for all of
Speaker 2: the you know, the for all of the rabbit holes
Speaker 2: and selective coverage and all that that exists there, I
Speaker 2: think we're in a better and.
Speaker 3: More form place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, last thing on this focus group, and this is
Speaker 1: going to be relevant to the something we're about to
Speaker 1: cover about the DNC coming for RFK and trying to
Speaker 1: make sure that he is unable to get ballet access.
Speaker 1: It's very clear to me, and it should be clear
Speaker 1: to absolutely everyone that there is a huge appetite for
Speaker 1: just anyone other than Trump and Biden. Yes, I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, the Super Bowl ad from RFK Junior was
Speaker 1: very smart.
Speaker 4: I thought it hit exactly the right notes, you.
Speaker 1: Know, putting forward the Kennedy name as just like listen,
Speaker 1: you don't have to pick from these two dudes, there
Speaker 1: is another person out here.
Speaker 4: He has a lot of money in the bank.
Speaker 1: I think one of the biggest obstacles for him is
Speaker 1: just going to be is he literally able to obtain
Speaker 1: ballot access. Because there is a huge appetite out there
Speaker 1: for an alternative and I think that is reflected very
Speaker 1: much in the focus group participants. And thank you to them,
Speaker 1: by the way for participating, because it really was interesting.
Speaker 3: It takes courage.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not always fun, you know, you and
Speaker 2: I It's not like it's always picnic to voice your
Speaker 2: opinions in a day to day news cycle. These are
Speaker 2: just people living their lives and to appear on camera,
Speaker 2: you know, be broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 2: to hear their views. It really really does, you know,
Speaker 2: for not just them, the Trump people, the Biden people
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 3: It's not always a good easy position to take.
Speaker 2: So I really applaud them, and I encourage more people
Speaker 2: to participate in these types of things, especially the ones
Speaker 2: that we're going to be continuing to do in the future.
Speaker 2: Let's move to the next part. As you referenced about
Speaker 2: that Super Bowl ad, there is definitely a lot of
Speaker 2: consternation inside the Kennedy family after that RFK Junior Super
Speaker 2: Bowl ad ran let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This came RFK tweeting almost immediately, saying, quote, I'm so
Speaker 2: sorry if the Super Bowl advertisement caused any way family pain.
Speaker 2: The ad was created and aired by the American Value
Speaker 2: super Pac without any involvement or approval from my campaign.
Speaker 2: NBC rules prohibit super Paction from consulting with me or
Speaker 2: my staff.
Speaker 3: I love you all, God bless you.
Speaker 2: He's still though, how however, it does have the ad
Speaker 2: pinned to his profile.
Speaker 4: That's so smart. Sorry not sar, I guess, yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean I don't think he should be sorry.
Speaker 2: I mean it's like, I'm sorry, do you have a
Speaker 2: freaking monopoly on the Kennedy family name?
Speaker 3: There's like over what, there's like two hundred of you
Speaker 3: now at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: For example, like Bobby Shriver, who is the son I
Speaker 2: believe of Huge Okay, Eunice Kennedy and Sergeant Shriver, who
Speaker 2: was Eunice Kennedy was JFK's sister. He tweets out, my
Speaker 2: cousin's super Bowl ad used our uncle's faces and my mother's.
Speaker 2: We would be appalled by his deadly health care She
Speaker 2: would be appalled by his deadly healthcare views, respect for science, vaccines,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Our equity were in her DNA, she strongly
Speaker 2: opposed that and supported my healthcare work at the one
Speaker 2: campaign and read which he opposes where it's like, Okay, dude,
Speaker 2: now you're using your mom's family name to support the
Speaker 2: work that you're doing. It's like, would anybody care about
Speaker 2: Bobby Striver if his last name wasn't Shriver? Sorry, you know,
Speaker 2: in the same thing, like that one of his cousins
Speaker 2: chimed in in the same way. RFK alone had like
Speaker 2: eleven kids eleven JFK what he had two If you
Speaker 2: could include the Shriver's Maria Shriver and you got the
Speaker 2: Schwarzenegger's and all that, who has claim at this point
Speaker 2: to the Kennedy family name. I'm just like, listen, if
Speaker 2: your last name is Kennedy, if we've got what three
Speaker 2: now us congressman who have grifted off the Kennedy name
Speaker 2: to be mediocre ones, Bobby can do whatever he wants anything.
Speaker 2: He has probably more of a claim to the legacy
Speaker 2: than like a great great uncle son or whatever who
Speaker 2: has been some random congressman from Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: So I was very annoyed by it. I'm curious what
Speaker 3: you well.
Speaker 4: Okay, so first of all, the second I saw.
Speaker 1: That ad, Yeah, I said to Kyle, like, the family's
Speaker 1: going to be furious. Yes, they're going to be furious because,
Speaker 1: I mean that ad is for political nerds, It's an
Speaker 1: iconic ad. I mean knows is this nostalgia throwback? And
Speaker 1: then for him to be superimposed on the ad and
Speaker 1: really be claiming like I am the legacy, I am
Speaker 1: the heir apparent, I am the Kennedy brand.
Speaker 4: I knew they were going to be pissed off.
Speaker 1: And it's not the first time that the family has
Speaker 1: put out statements condemning him, condemning his positions, saying we
Speaker 1: absolutely do.
Speaker 4: Not support him. We one hundred percent are behind Joe Biden,
Speaker 4: and I think that's their right too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they can do like they you know, I understand
Speaker 1: their upset of like this direction for the Kennedy brand
Speaker 1: is not at all what we want, what we see,
Speaker 1: what we identify with, and so I don't It doesn't
Speaker 1: like upset me that they put on statements, but it
Speaker 1: does get to this.
Speaker 4: A couple of things.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, I think this comes out in
Speaker 1: our focus group. It is really clear that he would
Speaker 1: not be where he is politically if his name was
Speaker 1: not rfk Jing or the Kennedy name. The Kennedy name
Speaker 1: is a huge part of his appeal. That's why back
Speaker 1: when he was in the Democratic primary, the moment he
Speaker 1: jumped in, you know, all of a sudden, he's at
Speaker 1: twenty percent or so in the polls, just because of
Speaker 1: that nostalgia of that association. And there's an irony to it,
Speaker 1: because you know, this is a country that you know
Speaker 1: famously threw off a king right doesn't like supposedly political dynasties,
Speaker 1: and yet on the other hand, they're clearly is deep
Speaker 1: affinity and association for certain political dynasties. And you know,
Speaker 1: we've had the Clintons for better and mostly worse, are
Speaker 1: sort of political dynasty, the Bushes for a long time
Speaker 1: political dynasty. We sort of have pushed those big brand
Speaker 1: names back into the past. And yet here you have
Speaker 1: people who are reaching for an alternative, who are just like,
Speaker 1: let's go back even further to this longer term American
Speaker 1: political dynasty, which is the closest thing we've had to
Speaker 1: like political royalty in this country is the Kennedy family,
Speaker 1: So there is a lot going on here. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I knew instantly when I saw the ad that his
Speaker 1: family is going to be really pissed. And it is funny. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't think he should have apologized because it is
Speaker 1: one of the things that the Folks Group participants told
Speaker 1: us is they love his authenticity, the sense that he
Speaker 1: just like says what he thinks. And this is not
Speaker 1: a big thing, but it is sort of indicative. You
Speaker 1: can't be like, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. This
Speaker 1: ad was like really hurtful, and I apologize for it,
Speaker 1: but then also be like, and I'm pinning that ad
Speaker 1: a's the top of my Twitter profile because I love
Speaker 1: it and I want everybody to see it. Like just say, listen,
Speaker 1: you can disagree with me.
Speaker 4: It's fine. You don't have to embrace my campaign. I
Speaker 4: get it.
Speaker 1: You have your own views, but you know, this is
Speaker 1: what I believe is best for the country, rather than
Speaker 1: doing this kind of two faced thing which lands very poorly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think you should have apologized period.
Speaker 2: Like I said, he does not know none of these
Speaker 2: people have monopolies JFK's grandson. Yet you think anybody would
Speaker 2: care about freaking Jack Sloshburg if he wasn't JFK's grandson.
Speaker 3: He's my age. He doesn't even have a real job.
Speaker 12: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like all of these Caroline Kennedy are great ambassador
Speaker 2: to Japan, It's like, oh, yeah, you're totally a great
Speaker 2: or was an ambassador Japan. It's like, you definitely would
Speaker 2: have gotten that diplomatic post if it wasn't for your
Speaker 2: last name. And look, it's not just her wealth Chelsea Clinton. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Ted Kennedy and how many of his screw up relatives.
Speaker 2: You know, if we all had to endure in American
Speaker 2: politics in the last couple of days or in the
Speaker 2: last couple of years. I just think it's one of
Speaker 2: those where you guys are all doing it. Don't complain,
Speaker 2: nobody has a monopo on this. But to go back
Speaker 2: to the important point, which is what we were originally
Speaker 2: talking about with the DNC, is this ad and the superpack.
Speaker 3: And more they really realize.
Speaker 2: How much trouble they're in. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. The DNC has now filed an official
Speaker 2: complaint alleging that the RFK Junior super Pac is working
Speaker 2: too closely with the campaign. They say that it is
Speaker 2: a quote ballot access scheme and argues that it constitutes
Speaker 2: illegal coordination with the super pac supporting the independent bid
Speaker 2: for the White House. The committee is alleging that the
Speaker 2: American Values twenty twenty four, while working to collect signatures
Speaker 2: to ensure he's on the ballot, will have to quote
Speaker 2: integrate their expenses with the campaign in ways that violate
Speaker 2: federal election rules in order to do so. Christal, you've
Speaker 2: had more experience in the political realm, can you explain
Speaker 2: this so called firewall between super packs and campaigns, because
Speaker 2: I honestly still don't fully.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's very simple. You just can't coordinate.
Speaker 1: You cannot coordinate, and so there are legal argument here
Speaker 1: is basically like, because the super pack is doing all
Speaker 1: this work to try to get him on the ballot,
Speaker 1: and it's actually the candidate who has to submit the signatures,
Speaker 1: that inevitably they're going to have to coordinate at some point.
Speaker 1: As a legal argument, I have no idea whether it
Speaker 1: has merit as a philosophical argument. This is total, incomplete bullshit,
Speaker 1: and it's obvious what's going on here. They do not
Speaker 1: want him on the ballot. They don't want people to
Speaker 1: have that choice. They want to force a choice that
Speaker 1: is only between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, because they
Speaker 1: know in another contest where people have other options, they
Speaker 1: are completely screwed.
Speaker 4: Their only hope is.
Speaker 1: To try to keep the quote unquote anti Trump coalition
Speaker 1: together that got Joe Biden barely over the finish line
Speaker 1: last time.
Speaker 4: And if you have any.
Speaker 1: Divergence from that whatsoever, whether it's from RFK Junior, Cornell
Speaker 1: West or Jill Stein or anybody else, they are completely screwed.
Speaker 1: The polls have showed at this point. You know, the
Speaker 1: original theory, which I was always a little skeptical of.
Speaker 1: You can go back and watch the coverage at the time.
Speaker 1: The original theory was that, but oh May rf K
Speaker 1: Junior is probably going to take more from Trump.
Speaker 4: He's going to appeal to more Trump voters because a
Speaker 4: lot of the positions that.
Speaker 1: He leaned into were more right wing coded, including his
Speaker 1: position with regard to Ukraine. The polling is not born
Speaker 1: that out, and it's partly because you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of dissatisfied former Democratic voters. It's partly because Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's support is incredibly soft. People, even his supporters are
Speaker 1: not particularly enthusiastic about him, and so at best RFK
Speaker 1: Junior seems to take equally from both candidates, and plenty
Speaker 1: of polls have shown the opposite, that he actually seems
Speaker 1: to take more from Joe Biden. So they are launching
Speaker 1: an all out war on democracy. Let's be honest to
Speaker 1: try to keep RFK Junior from even appearing as a
Speaker 1: choice on the ballot. Now, we when we interviewed r
Speaker 1: K Junior last time, we asked him, you asked him
Speaker 1: very directly, are you going to be on the ballot?
Speaker 1: He said, one hundred percent, I'm going to be on
Speaker 1: all fifty states. I honestly don't know how you can promise.
Speaker 1: You can't promise that at this point. That's not his fault. Well,
Speaker 1: that's the fault of both of the parties collaborating effectively
Speaker 1: in every state in the country post ross pure to
Speaker 1: make it as difficult as possible for an independent party
Speaker 1: candidate to gain ballot access. It is wildly unfair, it
Speaker 1: is wildly anti democratic. Again, it's not r f K
Speaker 1: Junior's fault, but there are no guarantees that he is
Speaker 1: going to actually be on the ballot in any of
Speaker 1: these states. And it's entirely possible that lawsuits like this,
Speaker 1: and this i'm sure is the first of what will
Speaker 1: be many lawsuits against him in all of these various states,
Speaker 1: and some of them are very likely to succeed because
Speaker 1: a lot of the judges adjudicating them and a lot
Speaker 1: of the law itself was written in a very partisan manner.
Speaker 1: So in that way, that is in some ways the
Speaker 1: biggest obstacle to him. Now he has the other challenges. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of partisan sentiment in the country. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who just are diehard Democrats,
Speaker 1: a lot of people who just are diehard Trump supporters.
Speaker 4: But I do think that there is.
Speaker 1: A large sentiment also in favor of an alternative. The
Speaker 1: question is whether or not there will be any alternatives
Speaker 1: for Americans that even appear on the ballot, and I
Speaker 1: think that.
Speaker 4: Is the biggest challenge.
Speaker 1: The other thing is, and I do want to always
Speaker 1: make this clear. You know, even this group of focus
Speaker 1: group voters who are with RFK and want to support him,
Speaker 1: even them when they were really pushed on Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if it's very clear he's not going to win. And
Speaker 1: you know, you either have Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, are you one hundred percent going to vote
Speaker 1: for RFK? And even some of them were not one
Speaker 1: hundred percent clear. We see this a lot of the
Speaker 1: times with third party cannonates that people are excited about it,
Speaker 1: but when it comes down to and it's like, but
Speaker 1: I don't really think they're gonna be able to win
Speaker 1: the day. So really I'm kind of throwing my vote
Speaker 1: away if I don't vote for one of the two parties.
Speaker 1: Oftentimes there's support ebbs when it comes down to and
Speaker 1: even Ross Perol. Let's remember you didn't win a single
Speaker 1: electoral college vote, so the system is really rigged and
Speaker 1: stacked against you. And part of that rigging is what
Speaker 1: we're seeing here from the DNC. We're going to tie
Speaker 1: you up with legal challenges in every way you possibly can.
Speaker 1: We're going to make sure that instead of you know,
Speaker 1: focusing one hundred percent on campaigning, how to focus on
Speaker 1: ballid access, you're having to fight these challenges in court.
Speaker 1: And so even though you guys know I'm not an
Speaker 1: rfkjunior fan, you know I've got a lot of issues
Speaker 1: with him, Israel being one of those issues. Of course,
Speaker 1: I have that same issue with Joe Biden and Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: but look up at that aside. But even though I'm
Speaker 1: not a fan, like I am a fan of democracy,
Speaker 1: I believe people should have choices.
Speaker 4: And this is complete and utter bullshit from the dumcrat.
Speaker 3: It's complete beer exactly right. I mean, it's just like
Speaker 3: a project.
Speaker 2: And you know, I'm on RFK Junior's website where they're
Speaker 2: talking specifically about ballid access. The number of signatures that
Speaker 2: you need in some of these states is just completely insane.
Speaker 2: Like in California you need some twenty two thousand, five hundred.
Speaker 2: They say here that thirty nine states require ten thousand
Speaker 2: or fewer, but tech California and Florida and Texas require more.
Speaker 3: Than one hundred thousand signatures.
Speaker 2: And again it's if it was just a matter of
Speaker 2: just getting normal people to just sign it would be fine.
Speaker 2: But there comes down to like legibility, and they can
Speaker 2: challenge the validity if you can't read it properly.
Speaker 3: There's like address verification.
Speaker 2: These are all dirty tricks that people have been using
Speaker 2: in politics now for decades, not only to just keep
Speaker 2: opponents off, but specifically third party ballots. So, as you said,
Speaker 2: the more that he appears to be a threat, but
Speaker 2: even the more that they are going to go after
Speaker 2: him for ballot access and they are going to legally
Speaker 2: try and make his life a nightmare. The key victory
Speaker 2: for him will be if he can get on in
Speaker 2: the swing states and in the big ones California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: But that in and of itself, as I just laid out,
Speaker 2: is such an immense project.
Speaker 3: It's gonna cost millions of dollars. So it's what Also
Speaker 3: what the DNC doesn't use super packs.
Speaker 2: They've got you know, they can have just as many
Speaker 2: as the Republic. They've got a billion dollars in funding
Speaker 2: on their side. Like the things they're slinging here is
Speaker 2: just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: They make it also so that if you are one
Speaker 1: of the candidates for one of the two major parties,
Speaker 1: obviously you're wait flier to get on the ballot. And
Speaker 1: I think it was Calvern I looked this up a
Speaker 1: while ago. I think it was California that was like,
Speaker 1: not only did you have to get this massive number
Speaker 1: of signatures, but you had like this very limited.
Speaker 4: Timeframe or to obtain them.
Speaker 1: I know Bobby has been looking at potentially running a
Speaker 1: Libertarian Party ticket to try to get BALLID access or
Speaker 1: even he's He and Cornell West have both talked about
Speaker 1: forming their own parties because in some states that makes
Speaker 1: it easier to obtain BALLID access. But it is an
Speaker 1: insane threshold that has been set here and insane obstacles
Speaker 1: just to the basic functionings of democracy. It really is
Speaker 1: truly outrageous. And I don't care what you think of
Speaker 1: RFK Junior. Like I said, I have my own thoughts
Speaker 1: about him. You should support democracy, You should support the
Speaker 1: right of people in this country to have actual, real choices.
Speaker 3: Totally.
Speaker 2: I could not agree more. Let's move on to the
Speaker 2: next part here. Just some funny continuing fallout from Joe
Speaker 2: Biden the Special Council that concluded he is too old,
Speaker 2: infirm and not does not have enough mental acuity to
Speaker 2: stand trial. Official position of the Department of Justice. Well,
Speaker 2: who's the number two, Kamala Harris, And they're trotting her out,
Speaker 2: you know, trying to make it so that she very
Speaker 2: much could be presented as an alternative figure should you
Speaker 2: be uncomfortable voting for Biden, you can be rest solid
Speaker 2: that she is there right behind him. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. So the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: did an interview. Interestingly, this actually was two days before
Speaker 2: the actual Special Council report on board Air Force two,
Speaker 2: in which she says, quote, I am ready to serve.
Speaker 3: There's no question about that.
Speaker 2: Everyone who sees her on the job, Harris says, has
Speaker 2: walked away fully aware of my capacity to lead. So,
Speaker 2: according to her, everyone that has seen her on the
Speaker 2: job has walked away with a full awareness of her
Speaker 2: capacity to lead. Throughout much of this really what comes
Speaker 2: across Crystal. I think both with the headline of this,
Speaker 2: the interview, and even the questions that were being presented
Speaker 2: to her, it's obvious that for a lot of people
Speaker 2: they're very understanding. Even now the press, which really was
Speaker 2: tight lipped up until the point of the Special Council report,
Speaker 2: they're like, we need to seriously prepare ourselves to the
Speaker 2: fact that if this man wins reelection, he's gonna die.
Speaker 3: He's going to die in office, very very possible.
Speaker 2: You can go Whi's my monologue in the past about
Speaker 2: life actuarial tables and how the odds are and they're
Speaker 2: not good for him making it all the way to
Speaker 2: the end. But what comes across to me is the
Speaker 2: impossible position that the Biden Harris ticket is quote unquote
Speaker 2: because for all of the approval rating problems of Biden,
Speaker 2: he's in Jimmy Carter territory thirty nine percent, all of that,
Speaker 2: hers is worse.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like she has a worse approval rating than he does,
Speaker 2: and we barely see her, and it's because anytime that
Speaker 2: we do, she just makes the most. She has the
Speaker 2: most bizarre, you know affect. She's always, as Marshall has
Speaker 2: said at our live shows, reaching for an Aaron sorkinescaring
Speaker 2: and it comes out garbled. I mean, to me, she
Speaker 2: is like the absolute worst of the opportunists, the empty shell.
Speaker 2: And I mean we've seen also the ego maniac that
Speaker 2: she is as well, with the massive level of staff
Speaker 2: turnover under her and the clashes with the White House
Speaker 2: and the West Wing which disdain her ability to quote
Speaker 2: unquote lead as well. And apparently, according to this article,
Speaker 2: she did refuse on Sunday to actually go on the
Speaker 2: shows to defend Joe Biden or at least, you know,
Speaker 2: she said she had a scheduling conflict or something, which
Speaker 2: I find incredibly extraordinary.
Speaker 1: I'm not what you think, Well, what you thought of
Speaker 1: what they said is that the Biden people had asked
Speaker 1: her to go on the Sunday shows to defend him,
Speaker 1: and instead she was so anxious to go out and
Speaker 1: defend him right away that she decided to give comments
Speaker 1: that day or the next day.
Speaker 3: I can remember, after both.
Speaker 1: After one of her events, Yeah, yessah, is the question.
Speaker 3: You're so busy on Sunday? What are you freaking doing
Speaker 3: on Sunday?
Speaker 1: The other thing with Kamala Harris, though, is that, and
Speaker 1: this goes back to her days as a senator. She
Speaker 1: has always been very camera shy and very uncomfortable in interviews.
Speaker 1: You know, she doesn't like to have things coming at
Speaker 1: her that she's not prepared for. She doesn't do particularly
Speaker 1: well in those settings. You will call that lesser whole
Speaker 1: interview that she did early on with regard to the border,
Speaker 1: you know where he was pros. They're like, why haven't
Speaker 1: you gone down there? And she was like, well, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of places. I can't remember what she said, like, well,
Speaker 1: I was in Europe or something like that.
Speaker 3: It was like, I went to the border. I was
Speaker 3: at the border. I was in Europe, and I was like, wait,
Speaker 3: what which border.
Speaker 4: She I mean? You know, she doesn't say.
Speaker 1: She just laughs when she's uncomfortable too, which is very
Speaker 1: off putting. So I think part of the potentially avoidance
Speaker 1: of the Sunday Shows wasn't so much that she didn't
Speaker 1: want to defend Joe Biden, because her ticket to relevance
Speaker 1: it runs directly through Joe Biden, and the only reason
Speaker 1: that she is vice president.
Speaker 4: Obviously is because he decided he.
Speaker 1: Made this commitment to James Clyburn and whatever, and so
Speaker 1: she ends up in there.
Speaker 4: The only way that she'll ever become.
Speaker 1: President of the United States is potentially through him dying
Speaker 1: in office or just being propped up again by the
Speaker 1: political establishment and the powers that be. So I think she,
Speaker 1: you know, she's very determined to support him however she can.
Speaker 1: So my read of the Sunday Show avoidance was more
Speaker 1: her own discomfort in front of the cameras and fear
Speaker 1: of making her own mistakes as it was about any
Speaker 1: sort of rift with her and the president. But just
Speaker 1: to back up what you're saying about her delivery. It's
Speaker 1: not just even the things she says that are so
Speaker 1: head scratching, like you read the transcript and you're like what, but.
Speaker 4: Also the way she delivers things is so strange.
Speaker 1: And for some reason, I don't even know why, this
Speaker 1: old clip of her at some like swearing in ceremony
Speaker 1: just went viral on left Twitter because of how strange
Speaker 1: and bizarre her delivery of this line is. Just so
Speaker 1: you guys know what we're talking about. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to that.
Speaker 13: You think you just fell out of a coconut tree.
Speaker 13: You exist in the context of all in which you
Speaker 13: live and what came before you.
Speaker 4: Now what's right?
Speaker 3: Okay, what's the context here?
Speaker 12: Okay?
Speaker 3: So what is so?
Speaker 1: Actually, people I'm back about she's actually quoting her mother,
Speaker 1: and her mom and dad were both like Marxists basically,
Speaker 1: and so people were, you know, reading into this. This
Speaker 1: is some like accidental Marxism that she's sort of imbibed,
Speaker 1: and I think that's part of why it went viral
Speaker 1: on left Twitter. But then the other reason is because
Speaker 1: again the delivery is just so strange and like her
Speaker 1: mannerisms and why are you saying that set this swearing
Speaker 1: in ceremony for I think some people in the Education
Speaker 1: department or something like that, this is just like run
Speaker 1: of the mill, you know, bureaucracy swearing in ceremony situations.
Speaker 1: So I got to tell you, though, Sagar, the more
Speaker 1: that I see Joe Biden, the more ready for Kamala
Speaker 1: I am. I you know how I feel about this
Speaker 1: woman and all that I've said about her, And I
Speaker 1: would take Kamala Harris over Joe Biden at this point
Speaker 1: between his age and between his support for Israel, which
Speaker 1: is like totally totally in, unmovable, unshakable, locked in in
Speaker 1: like nineteen seventy three. Yes, Kamala Harris like moves with
Speaker 1: the winds. The winds are blowing against what Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is doing right now, and that he will not move
Speaker 1: because his brain is stuck in like I said, like
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three. So listen, I'm not saying it's great.
Speaker 1: I'm saying the bar is on the fricking floor. And
Speaker 1: if I had a choice between Joe Biden and Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris at this point, it's not even questioned my mind.
Speaker 1: I would take Kamala Harris all day long at least
Speaker 1: her synapses are firing in some direction, at least when
Speaker 1: I'm watching her, I'm like, what is she saying? But
Speaker 1: I'm not like, is she even going to be able
Speaker 1: to complete this sentence or find this word that she's
Speaker 1: searching for?
Speaker 4: So that's where I am at this point.
Speaker 3: I just can't get there.
Speaker 4: So you would take Biden over Kamala.
Speaker 3: I don't know I would. I'd rather shoot myself in
Speaker 3: the head, like this is what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: But these are the choices we have on the table.
Speaker 2: It's like, to me, Crystal, I genuinely believe she would
Speaker 2: be the worst president since Andrew Johnson. And you can
Speaker 2: call me hyperbolic if you want. I think she's a
Speaker 2: race huckster. I think she is a opportunist. I think
Speaker 2: she is one of those people who wear the wind
Speaker 2: blows as you say, look, maybe go in the right
Speaker 2: direction on Israel, look at the way that it's blowing
Speaker 2: within the blob on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Should this lady will end up with us?
Speaker 4: That's exactly what Joe Biden. It's not like it's different.
Speaker 3: It's an impossible choice.
Speaker 4: I just feel it.
Speaker 1: So with regard to Israel, there is at least a chance,
Speaker 1: and the leaks behind the scenes or that she has been,
Speaker 1: you know, uncomfortable with some of the direction of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, and just by dint of her being younger,
Speaker 1: there is at least a chance she would be marginally
Speaker 1: better there. So, and like I said, at least the
Speaker 1: brain is somewhat functional, even though it functions in a
Speaker 1: very bizarre way at many times. This is so I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's great, but yes, I would take Kama
Speaker 1: Harris over Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: That's a recency thing because right now Israel is quote
Speaker 2: unquote the most important thing. But like, you don't know,
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, if she if the whole George Floyd
Speaker 2: thing happened while she was president, we'd have freaking Ibrahim
Speaker 2: Kenny in the Department of Anti Racism under this lady.
Speaker 3: For me, it's just too existent. I don't know.
Speaker 14: Though.
Speaker 3: At the same time, with Biden, like I think he's
Speaker 3: gonna die, I was.
Speaker 1: Like locking up, yeah, rest, yeah, you should love her
Speaker 1: for that.
Speaker 3: I do love her for that. But then she turned
Speaker 3: her to she was a little girl.
Speaker 1: But parents in prison for like their kids being true.
Speaker 1: So the idea that she's going to put EBERMX Kennedy
Speaker 1: in some anti racism department.
Speaker 3: That's the problems.
Speaker 2: She was hard on crime whenever it was good politically
Speaker 2: advantage then she was like pro defund the police whenever
Speaker 2: that was politically advantageous.
Speaker 1: She saying she support of the police doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: I can go deep and show you even more how
Speaker 2: like at her personal level, how much she desires attention,
Speaker 2: if people want to go back and look at some
Speaker 2: of her early career, which was allegedly called sexist and
Speaker 2: all that at the time. To me, she's just an
Speaker 2: empty shell. Look, this is the problem. Like you're saying,
Speaker 2: you're putting me in an impossible position.
Speaker 3: Like I don't know. I honestly don't know.
Speaker 2: Any other day, I could argue both sides on Biden
Speaker 2: on Israel, yeah, he probably seems to be more pro Israel.
Speaker 2: On Ukraine, he probably, I mean think has been very
Speaker 2: pro Ukraine. But the thing is with Biden is every
Speaker 2: once in a while when he's hopped up on the
Speaker 2: right stuff, you can see flashes of some of his
Speaker 2: caution everyone you know that we've seen in the past.
Speaker 2: He refused to give him f sixteens or whatever. But
Speaker 2: then Neill eventually okay with Kamala. I think she would
Speaker 2: just I think she would have gotten us into a
Speaker 2: no fly zone nuclear conflict in the early days. I
Speaker 2: don't trust her judgment at all. And that's really what
Speaker 2: it comes down to.
Speaker 3: I don't think you could. It's a horrific opportunists.
Speaker 1: I don't think you could have had a worse Ukraine
Speaker 1: policy than what we have. I think we have the
Speaker 1: worst of all worlds Ukraine policy where on the one hand,
Speaker 1: we're like, no, we want you to fight this war.
Speaker 1: We're going to blow up this potential negotiated piece. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, we are going to like, you know,
Speaker 1: slow drip the military aid to you, so you have
Speaker 1: no prayer of actually winning and you're gonna like just
Speaker 1: destroy entire multiple generations of Ukrainian men on a hope
Speaker 1: and a prayer that we're actually going to be Like,
Speaker 1: I don't think you could do the Ukrainian policy worse.
Speaker 4: So listen, it's horrible.
Speaker 1: The one I'll put I'll put one point in the
Speaker 1: favor of Joe Biden. I don't think Kamla would have
Speaker 1: gone out of Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Yes, no, there's no.
Speaker 4: I don't think she would have done.
Speaker 1: And that was where you know, his sort of like
Speaker 1: hardened old man ossified views worked out out. But weighing
Speaker 1: that against you know, just consistently supporting a genocide in
Speaker 1: Israel indefinitely to the end of time, I got a
Speaker 1: side with Gomala at this point.
Speaker 3: I don't know Christal. I just I think that she
Speaker 3: would rip this country apart if.
Speaker 2: There was any sort of genuine like domestic crisis. I
Speaker 2: cannot imagine her at the helm. I just again, I
Speaker 2: think you would just gribe her.
Speaker 4: More like courage to actually do something provocative that.
Speaker 3: It would be worse. It wouldn't even be provocative.
Speaker 2: It would just be like rhetorical without backup by action.
Speaker 2: There's no ability to unite. She has no confidence. I mean,
Speaker 2: look like I said, I think it's Johnson level. That's
Speaker 2: how bad that I think it would be.
Speaker 3: But you know, we got through Johnson's Where are we
Speaker 3: with Joe Biden?
Speaker 2: No Grant got us out at the end of the
Speaker 2: day from Johnson, So what do I know. John Stewart
Speaker 2: made his big debut last night, I guess return debut,
Speaker 2: and he did it very much. In John Stewart Fashion
Speaker 2: Indecision twenty twenty fourths, but a long.
Speaker 3: Time since we've heard words like that.
Speaker 2: But he also did it with a scathing look at
Speaker 2: both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the subject of age,
Speaker 2: going after the media in their treatment, and the surrogates
Speaker 2: that support both of these individuals.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to.
Speaker 15: Say, Welcome to the Daily Show, my Joe Stuart.
Speaker 3: Now where was I These two candidates.
Speaker 15: They are both similarly challenged, and it is not crazy
Speaker 15: to think that the oldest people in the history of
Speaker 15: the country to ever run for president might have some
Speaker 15: of these challenges. Now, Democrats will say that any criticism
Speaker 15: like this, especially if Biden, is unfair because you just
Speaker 15: don't know Biden like they know Biden.
Speaker 13: I was in almost every meeting with the president, and
Speaker 13: the President was in front of and on top of
Speaker 13: it all coordinating and directing leaders who are in charge
Speaker 13: of America's national security not to mention our allies around
Speaker 13: the globe.
Speaker 12: Did anyone film that.
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to be cruel.
Speaker 12: I didn't want to. I don't want to have to
Speaker 12: do this on my first day. Come over here, look
Speaker 12: at me. Look what time hath wrought.
Speaker 15: The response in Gaza has been over the top. You know,
Speaker 15: I like how Biden describes Israel's incessant bombing of civilians
Speaker 15: the same way my mother talks about the Super.
Speaker 12: Bowl halftime show.
Speaker 3: It was a little much. Did they need to.
Speaker 4: Be unrolling skins?
Speaker 3: Whatever happened?
Speaker 15: In music, you sing the song and people be love it, but.
Speaker 3: With the abs and the dwirling.
Speaker 2: All right, So we added a little bit of Israel
Speaker 2: commentary though, Look best John at his best, you know,
Speaker 2: at his best, he's somebody who's able to skewer like
Speaker 2: and you know, it's interesting Crystal. Already this morning, I'm
Speaker 2: seeing Keith Olberman and some others attack him quote unquote
Speaker 2: both siding the issue.
Speaker 3: It's like, it's not a both sides issue.
Speaker 2: He made a great point also in his monologue, if
Speaker 2: you watch the full thing, He's like, the only record
Speaker 2: for the two oldest candidates before this are the ones
Speaker 2: that they set before in the previous selection.
Speaker 3: Right, He's like, we've got no.
Speaker 2: More age milestones to break here, fellows, like we broke
Speaker 2: the gray ceiling or whatever it is that's.
Speaker 3: There at the top. So anyway, I thought he did
Speaker 3: a great job.
Speaker 2: But he'll only be with us once a week, once
Speaker 2: a week, so I'm not sure who's going to be
Speaker 2: in the rest of the rotating cast.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's instantly made the Daily Show ir relevant again.
Speaker 4: That's been irrelevant for quite.
Speaker 1: Some time now, and he's back and form. His timing
Speaker 1: is fantastic. I thought he had some great lines there.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a great first downing, big week
Speaker 1: for millennials between John Stewart's return halftime show. So I'm
Speaker 1: pretty excited about all of those things. And I do
Speaker 1: think also, you know, a couple other things to say
Speaker 1: about it. The fact that he worked intentionally, very intentionally
Speaker 1: worked Israel and what he describes as their incessant bombing
Speaker 1: of civilians, and critiques Joe Biden's incredibly meek, sanitized language
Speaker 1: about it being over the top, and the way that
Speaker 1: the media was like, oh my.
Speaker 4: Gosh, I can't believe he said that. That's such as
Speaker 4: shift and tone, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The fact that he works that in I think also
Speaker 1: shows his continued courage and principle that he's not going
Speaker 1: to be afraid to go places that are uncomfortable. Because
Speaker 1: even though that seems like an incredibly obvious statement to make,
Speaker 1: it's the sort of thing that can get you even
Speaker 1: the fact that you know he's Jewish can still get
Speaker 1: you branded as antisemitic or self loathing or whatever. So
Speaker 1: I was glad to see that he made sure to
Speaker 1: include that commentary in his comments. The other thing that
Speaker 1: is worth noting is apparently the break with Apple was
Speaker 1: over censorship, and you know, that was something that we
Speaker 1: had predicted early on. We had said from the launch
Speaker 1: of that show, which I do think had some you know,
Speaker 1: had some great moments and some trench commentary, etc. That
Speaker 1: was worth checking in with. But you know, it was like,
Speaker 1: why don't you just do this on your own? Then
Speaker 1: you don't have anyone looking over your shoulder. And Apple
Speaker 1: obviously has all kinds of conflicts of interest and are
Speaker 1: inevitably going to assert, you know, put pressure on you
Speaker 1: where those conflicts of interest come into play, because they
Speaker 1: have much bigger fish to fry than the success of
Speaker 1: your one show on their platform. So that rubber eventually
Speaker 1: hit the road, And good for him for saying, no,
Speaker 1: screw you, I'm not doing it.
Speaker 4: I'm not putting up with the censorship.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm at a point in my life where
Speaker 1: I don't have to, and I don't want to, And
Speaker 1: so I'm going to go back to the Daily Show
Speaker 1: and offer my commentary there at least once a week,
Speaker 1: and hopefully he doesn't get face any sort of similar
Speaker 1: censorship concerns from the folks at Comedy Central.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 2: I mean, so if people don't remember he had top
Speaker 2: disagreements with them for wanting to do episodes on China
Speaker 2: Ai and then the upcoming twenty twenty four election. Obviously,
Speaker 2: for Apple it's like, yeah, they manufacture all their stuff
Speaker 2: in Shanghai and chin Jin and Guangzhou, like they can't
Speaker 2: be having they can't be having delays over here because
Speaker 2: of the subsidized Apple TV product, which barely was working
Speaker 2: and bringing them any money. It's like a lost leader
Speaker 2: for them. So it didn't make any sense for Comedy Central.
Speaker 2: I hope it works out. I'm curious just to see
Speaker 2: whether he'll have the staying power. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: he probably will because he's so famous.
Speaker 3: If he keeps this up.
Speaker 2: You know, kind of going in areas where if he
Speaker 2: keeps it up in terms of going in areas which
Speaker 2: most of the mainstream media is not going to touch,
Speaker 2: then he's going to find the same second life that
Speaker 2: he was already beginning to have in twenty fifteen and
Speaker 2: more on the internet.
Speaker 3: Because that was another big thing.
Speaker 2: I don't know if people remember Comedy Central clips and
Speaker 2: the Daily Show was incredibly hard to find back in
Speaker 2: the day.
Speaker 3: They were very restrictive in terms of their streaming service.
Speaker 2: But this one they tweeted it out, they put it
Speaker 2: out on YouTube.
Speaker 3: I'm hoping they.
Speaker 2: Don't try and copyright like this video for example. And
Speaker 2: I think that's a smart play because in the modern aids,
Speaker 2: that stuff really does not work with trying to keep
Speaker 2: you know, trying to keep people from being able to
Speaker 2: see anything except in a certain place. It really is
Speaker 2: you have to kind of have to be everywhere, and
Speaker 2: this is, you know, as you said, this is the
Speaker 2: first time I felt like The Daily Shows relevant since
Speaker 2: he left and Trevor knowing all that the only time
Speaker 2: I've paid attention when Trevor no Will left and that
Speaker 2: was it, or.
Speaker 1: When he did something that was like particularly cringe and
Speaker 1: embarrassing for himself. I'm just looking on YouTube right now
Speaker 1: that opening that we played you a bit of. They
Speaker 1: titled it on YouTube. John Stewart tackles the Biden Trump
Speaker 1: rematch that nobody wants. True, it has one point four
Speaker 1: million views and ten hours, so that's.
Speaker 3: Quite a bit real numbers, like two point five million.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because just so you guys have, the front end
Speaker 1: always lags what you can see on the back end.
Speaker 1: So clearly that is getting a lot of traction. And
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if the clips on Twitter are
Speaker 1: even more viral. So it's obviously a very different game
Speaker 1: from when he left, with the pre eminence of social
Speaker 1: media in a YouTube and these alternative platforms, and so
Speaker 1: as long as they're leaning into that and unafraid of
Speaker 1: people sharing the content, of putting the clips up on YouTube,
Speaker 1: of not copywriting people like us who want to play
Speaker 1: a bit of it and give people a taste of it,
Speaker 1: I think it will be successful.
Speaker 4: I think it'll be relevant.
Speaker 1: I think it'll be you know, another important voice to
Speaker 1: have that frankly has been really sorely missing. Because the
Speaker 1: thing with John Stewart is like, yes, obviously he's like
Speaker 1: liberal these his politics are pretty standard issue liberal honestly,
Speaker 1: but he's also not afraid, as is evidenced in this clip,
Speaker 1: to go after the Democratic party, or to go after
Speaker 1: CNN like he used to always that some of his
Speaker 1: best work was the media commentary, just completely mocking CNN.
Speaker 1: You know, while he was off of The Daily Show
Speaker 1: when he remember when he went on with Colbert and
Speaker 1: did his whole bit about the lably.
Speaker 4: It was freaking hilarious. And that was at a time
Speaker 4: when it was still like, oh, you can't.
Speaker 1: Really say this, You still can't really go there, and
Speaker 1: he went there and was completely unapologetic about it. And
Speaker 1: so that type of fearlessness is, you know, something that
Speaker 1: is welcome and always a good addition. And he's just
Speaker 1: funny and has good timing and is good comedic writer
Speaker 1: and has a good team around him.
Speaker 4: So excited to see what he has for us in
Speaker 4: the future.
Speaker 1: Even I mean again, some of his politics are like
Speaker 1: cringe lib stuff that we're.
Speaker 3: Not going to go with Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Things that John has done, they're questionable some stage time
Speaker 2: that he's taken up with certain people and including some
Speaker 2: people that he had on the show yesterday.
Speaker 3: But you can't you're not always going to agree.
Speaker 1: With at least it's not just like DNC brain worms
Speaker 1: all day every day.
Speaker 4: So I will take it all.
Speaker 2: It's not Rachel Maddow saying, well, he can ride a
Speaker 2: bike and that means that he's not too old to be.
Speaker 3: John should play that one.
Speaker 1: Actually, Johnson, John should actually run for president. I would
Speaker 1: take definitely him over by yeah, I mean better than
Speaker 1: the options we've got.
Speaker 3: Let's move on.
Speaker 2: We've got the update on the Supreme Court case. This
Speaker 2: happened a couple of days ago. We wanted to pair
Speaker 2: it with some of the more latest legal Trump developments.
Speaker 2: There's been some major things happening, but the major headline
Speaker 2: really from the last few days was the Supreme Court, Really,
Speaker 2: how do you say this defense straighting defenestrating the Colorado
Speaker 2: Secretary of State and their legal team who were trying
Speaker 2: to block Donald Trump's name from the ballot.
Speaker 3: We have a mash up here of.
Speaker 2: Bipartisan justices really just skewering their defense of the law
Speaker 2: for the interpretation that they tried.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 16: I think the reason it's been dormant is because there's
Speaker 16: been a settled understanding that Chief Justice Chase, even if
Speaker 16: not right in every detail, was essentially right, and the
Speaker 16: branches of the government have acted under that settled understanding.
Speaker 16: For one hundred and fifty five years, and Congress can
Speaker 16: change that. And Congress does have Section twenty three eighty three,
Speaker 16: of course, the Insurrection Act criminal statute, but Congress could
Speaker 16: change it, but they have not in one hundred and
Speaker 16: fifty five years in relevant respects for what you want
Speaker 16: here today, at least no Justice Kavanaugh.
Speaker 17: The reason why it's been dormant is because by eighteen
Speaker 17: seventy six, essentially all former Confederates had received amnesty, and
Speaker 17: we haven't seen anything like an insurrection since then.
Speaker 14: Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order
Speaker 14: from in your view, the former president.
Speaker 17: I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president
Speaker 17: was you know, a president was elected and they were
Speaker 17: twenty five and they were ineligible. No overtheless, they.
Speaker 14: Were known about all we're talking about Sections three. Please
Speaker 14: don't change the hypothetical. Okay, I please don't change the hypothetical.
Speaker 14: I know I like doing it too, but please don't
Speaker 14: do it.
Speaker 3: The point I'm trying to make is he's disqualified.
Speaker 14: From the moment he committed an insurrection. Whoever it is,
Speaker 14: whichever party that happens, boom it happened, What would compel
Speaker 14: and I'm not going to say it again, so just
Speaker 14: try and answer the question. If you don't have an
Speaker 14: answer fair enough, we'll move on.
Speaker 18: And I read your opening brief to accept that those
Speaker 18: events counted as an insurrection, but then your reply seemed
Speaker 18: to suggest that they were not.
Speaker 3: So what is your positions that we.
Speaker 19: Never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this
Speaker 19: was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief
Speaker 19: was President Trump did not engage in any act that
Speaker 19: can plausibly be characterized as insturrect.
Speaker 3: Right, So why would that not be an incant? What
Speaker 3: is your that it's not?
Speaker 18: Your reply brief says that it wasn't because I think
Speaker 18: you say it did not involve an organized attempt to
Speaker 18: overthrow the government.
Speaker 3: So that's one of many reasons.
Speaker 19: But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized,
Speaker 19: concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States
Speaker 19: through violence.
Speaker 18: And this sorry point is that a chaotic effort to
Speaker 18: overthrow the government is not an insurrection.
Speaker 19: But we didn't con see that it's an effort to
Speaker 19: overthrow the government either. Justice Jackson, Right. None of these
Speaker 19: criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not
Speaker 19: an insurrection.
Speaker 2: So what we included there at the end was actually
Speaker 2: Katanji Brown Jackson, who was speaking against the Trump people. Now,
Speaker 2: if you know, listen, in terms of our legal analysis,
Speaker 2: we're not lawyers and Supreme Court laws like a whole other.
Speaker 2: One one of the comments I found most noteworthy was
Speaker 2: from Neil Katyal.
Speaker 3: I think you've done a monologue on him before, Crystal.
Speaker 2: This is like a died in the role, like a
Speaker 2: you know, classic MSNBC Russia Gate type democrat. But he's
Speaker 2: one of those lots of corporate connections, et cetera. But
Speaker 2: MSNBC relies on him for legal analysis, which is fair
Speaker 2: because he's actually argued quite a few cases before the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: Here was on behalf of like really terrible process, but.
Speaker 2: Here was his assessment of the Colorado case and their
Speaker 2: defense before the court.
Speaker 20: I've watched over four hundred Supreme Court arguments. I've done
Speaker 20: fifty myself. I would tell you this argument did not
Speaker 20: go well for the Trump challengers. And that's to put
Speaker 20: it mildly. I probably have some other adjectives that I
Speaker 20: won't say on air.
Speaker 3: There you have.
Speaker 2: It didn't go so well, and people are expecting either
Speaker 2: it could be nine to zero or possibly eight to one,
Speaker 2: depending on how Katanji, John Braxton or Sonya Sotomayo war
Speaker 2: end up ruling in this case.
Speaker 3: Any reaction Crystal before we move on to the next
Speaker 3: legal development.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not surprising whatsoever because it was an
Speaker 1: you know, it's a sort of unprecedented situation, aggressive reading
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. There were other states in the country
Speaker 1: that went in the opposite direction of what Colorado did.
Speaker 1: In the Supreme Court is fundamentally and I don't mean
Speaker 1: this on like the typical political spectrum, but just as
Speaker 1: like a descriptor, it's a fund only conservative body that
Speaker 1: is loath and sort of cowardly but loath to really like,
Speaker 1: you know, insert themselves in the political process in this way. Now,
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, that's going to be sort
Speaker 1: of unavoidable. As we're about to discuss, they are going
Speaker 1: to have to decide whether they're going to take up
Speaker 1: an appeal from Trump with regards to whether he should
Speaker 1: have blanket immunity for basically anything that he did in
Speaker 1: the context of the presidency. They're to have to decide
Speaker 1: whether to let the Appeals Court ruling on that stand
Speaker 1: or take that up. They're going to be possibly a
Speaker 1: number of other things that come before them. So they
Speaker 1: are going to be central to this election, whether they
Speaker 1: want to or not. And obviously not going in the
Speaker 1: direction of Colorado is also a decision and also consequential.
Speaker 4: But this is not surprising. This is what everybody was
Speaker 4: effectively predicting from them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, just it was such a novel interpretation
Speaker 2: quote unquote, and it was just one of those where
Speaker 2: it obviously jumped the gun too, especially because it was
Speaker 2: prior to a trial. But that gets us to the
Speaker 2: real part, and this is where the Supreme Court case
Speaker 2: could be a lot more interesting and actually could very
Speaker 2: much turn on Trump. Let's put this next one up
Speaker 2: on the screen. Donald Trump actually asked the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: late last night to pause the ruling that was denying him, quote,
Speaker 2: absolute immunity. So this is a little bit complicated, but basically,
Speaker 2: there was a previous appeal in which the President said
Speaker 2: that the election interference trial, which is currently trying to
Speaker 2: have a court date and all of that set One
Speaker 2: of the challenges that Trump in his team issued in
Speaker 2: the appeals court, the DC Court of Appeals, was that
Speaker 2: that was subsequently rejected was that the president has quote
Speaker 2: absolute immunity from criminal prosecution from while he is president.
Speaker 2: According to them, quote without immunity from criminal prosecution, the
Speaker 2: presidency as we know it will cease to exist.
Speaker 3: These were according to the Trump lawyers.
Speaker 2: Like I said, this has been rejected now by two
Speaker 2: subsequent appeals courts. Noteworthy though, that these appeals courts are
Speaker 2: far more liberal.
Speaker 3: I guess in terms of their appointments.
Speaker 2: I'm not making a partisan judgment or even really a
Speaker 2: frankly ad judgment on the case itself, but more so
Speaker 2: just setting it up for what the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: now going to have to consider. He is now by
Speaker 2: asking the Court to have this consideration, it will then
Speaker 2: trigger the process on their part of whether they're going
Speaker 2: to accept the case or not. If they don't accept
Speaker 2: the case, and it will default crystal to the lower
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals as opposed to having something that they
Speaker 2: would rule on. And now whether they take it, as
Speaker 2: I said, is up to It's up to the court
Speaker 2: on which of the three justices Amy Coney, Barrett Neil Gorsich,
Speaker 2: and Brett Kavanaugh as of how to whether they will
Speaker 2: take the court they will take that case before them,
Speaker 2: apparently just in terms of the way that the swing votes.
Speaker 3: And all of that currently lie.
Speaker 2: But it's one of those where I'm actually not really
Speaker 2: outside of Kavanaugh and Alito, who I believe have more
Speaker 2: of an interpretation on the executive power. This is even
Speaker 2: the type of thing where Clarence Thomas, who there's a
Speaker 2: major case going on right now by administrative law, he's
Speaker 2: more libertarian than others.
Speaker 3: I would not.
Speaker 2: Expect them, at least according to the people I've spoken
Speaker 2: to Fedsock others, that this would be a case that
Speaker 2: Trump is going to win even if it did get
Speaker 2: accepted by the court, and they may just punt and
Speaker 2: not take it because that's probably the easiest political cos
Speaker 2: for them as.
Speaker 1: Well, especially because the appeals court ruling was quite clear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was just like, that's not.
Speaker 1: Quite aggressive, and even you know, it's the appeals court panel.
Speaker 1: It was three judges, two Democratic appointees, one Republican appointee.
Speaker 4: It was unanimous.
Speaker 1: We played if you guys will recall a little bit
Speaker 1: of the oral arguments where they were pretty scathing. They
Speaker 1: were basically like, also the president could just like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can direct the seal team six to murder his
Speaker 1: political rival and then effectively, if he resigns before he's impeached,
Speaker 1: he can just get away with that. They were highly
Speaker 1: scathing and skeptical of this. Obviously they ruled against the
Speaker 1: Trump team. I think this is one of these where
Speaker 1: the Trump team didn't really expect to succeed, but this
Speaker 1: is part of their stress strategy of drawing the sound
Speaker 1: as much as possible, and so you know, the outcome
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court is uncertain. I think it's unlikely
Speaker 1: to go in Trump's direction, but probably the bigger question
Speaker 1: is just how long do they take to make a
Speaker 1: decision here? The try for this case, this is kind
Speaker 1: of the central one. This is the election subversion one
Speaker 1: Jack Smith in DC. It's you know, the center of
Speaker 1: like what happened in twenty twenty and stop the Steal
Speaker 1: and all of that stuff.
Speaker 4: That's this case.
Speaker 1: So it's really the one that is most central to
Speaker 1: the concerns that so many Americans have about Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the discuss that they felt for what they watched
Speaker 1: unfold on January sixth and also leading up to January sixth.
Speaker 1: So in a lot of ways, this case is kind
Speaker 1: of the main event whether or not it is the
Speaker 1: most likely to succeed as a different question. So in
Speaker 1: any case, this was originally scheduled to begin on March fourth,
Speaker 1: So we were very close on the precipice of this
Speaker 1: bad boy starting up and you know, really taking over
Speaker 1: news coverage and being the center of our sort of
Speaker 1: political universe, and at a very early date in which
Speaker 1: you know, is very very likely that this would be
Speaker 1: concluded even before you get to the RNC, that original
Speaker 1: date has been taken off the schedule while this appeals
Speaker 1: process plays out, and as Soccer was indicating a bunch
Speaker 1: of different options. Number one, a Supreme Court could just say, no,
Speaker 1: we're not the appeals court rolling stands, We're not taking
Speaker 1: it up. You can proceed, and then that's that, and
Speaker 1: you would think that the trial would then commence, probably
Speaker 1: pretty shortly.
Speaker 4: They could take it up.
Speaker 1: In an expedited process so they consider the appeal, but
Speaker 1: they do it in a more timely fashion, or they
Speaker 1: could do it in their sort of like ordinary course
Speaker 1: of what their normal schedule is, which of course is
Speaker 1: what the Trump team is pushing for, in which case
Speaker 1: you would not have this trial then starting till late
Speaker 1: in the general election.
Speaker 4: Process most likely.
Speaker 1: So the stakes here in terms of whether Supreme Court
Speaker 1: even decides to take up the appeal are pretty significant
Speaker 1: separate and apart from what they ultimately end up deciding, which,
Speaker 1: like I said, I think most legal observers feel like
Speaker 1: this is not going.
Speaker 4: To go in Donald Trump's direction.
Speaker 1: It's more important for what the timing is and how
Speaker 1: much he's able to delay before this trial actually begins.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's all very well said.
Speaker 2: And as we come back to it, just wanted to
Speaker 2: continue to highlight for people that there are still more
Speaker 2: cases that are not even at the Supreme Court level
Speaker 2: which could be consequential for Trump to actually this week.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen, two cases,
Speaker 2: two judges, as they highlight, we're facing a potential ruling
Speaker 2: in that civil fraud case that we've talked about previously,
Speaker 2: which costs Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, which, on
Speaker 2: top of the aging Carrol verdict, could be very consequential
Speaker 2: to him personally. And as we said, he could also
Speaker 2: receive that court date on his actual trial. For the
Speaker 2: first criminal trial of the former US president. This one
Speaker 2: would go back to this one would go back to
Speaker 2: some of the New York It is.
Speaker 4: The storm of Daniel's money situation.
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg situation, which we have all laid out.
Speaker 2: So I know it can be tedious to try and
Speaker 2: go through the arguments and all this, but it's just
Speaker 2: so consequential Cristal to the ability literally his ability to run.
Speaker 2: Because let's say he is convicted, you know, on January sixth,
Speaker 2: the elected that election interference trial, Well, we may have
Speaker 2: to go through an entire three cycle of the Colorado
Speaker 2: ballot access thing where we'd have a new interpretate whe
Speaker 2: they're like, well, now he's been convicted of this, and
Speaker 2: even though it's not technically an instruction, we may have
Speaker 2: to have the appeals court PROCESCTY have a Supreme Court
Speaker 2: that have to weigh in again and then say, whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to his money, is literal ability to fund
Speaker 2: his life and you know, his legal bills and whether
Speaker 2: he'd have to ask his supporters, and then coming back
Speaker 2: to the criminal prosecution in the state of New York
Speaker 2: and what the actual impact of that would have for him,
Speaker 2: not just for his business, his ability to appear on
Speaker 2: the ballot in the future, not like he needs New Yorker.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not like he's going to win the
Speaker 3: State of New Yorker anyway.
Speaker 2: But the point is is that that then links back
Speaker 2: to a little Georgia case, which we haven't even added
Speaker 2: in here with all the developments of Fanning Willis, so
Speaker 2: it's a huge mess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And actually there's a hearing in Georgia this week
Speaker 1: presenting evidence to a judge about the romantic relationship that
Speaker 1: Fanny Willis was having with the dude that she appointed.
Speaker 4: So that's a whole other situation.
Speaker 1: But just to go back to these two New York
Speaker 1: cases and their significance on the civil fraud piece, this
Speaker 1: could be a lot of money, even for someone as
Speaker 1: incredibly wealthy as Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a lot
Speaker 4: of money. So that one is.
Speaker 1: Significant just in terms of his part wealth business status.
Speaker 1: He may be barred from doing business in the state
Speaker 1: of New York. That's where some of his most iconic
Speaker 1: properties are, around which the Trump brand has been built.
Speaker 4: So that's significant from that perspective.
Speaker 1: The other one that Alvin Bragg won, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is seen as sort of like the stepchild, the least
Speaker 1: significant of the criminal charges against Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: And this is.
Speaker 1: Where the delay on the immunity question that we were
Speaker 1: just talking about with regards to the actual election subversion case,
Speaker 1: this is where this becomes really significant, because if it
Speaker 1: weren't for that delay, that would have been the case
Speaker 1: that went first, which again is the one that is
Speaker 1: much more central to people's concerns about Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: even for him to have the timing be that the
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg case starts first and that's American's first taste
Speaker 1: of you know, Trump on trial, that's sort of the
Speaker 1: narrative that sets in, and it's a much easier case
Speaker 1: for him to make that that one is you know,
Speaker 1: politically charged and these are old allegations and it's a
Speaker 1: witch hunt, et cetera, than it is to make that
Speaker 1: same charge against the election subversion case, which again many
Speaker 1: Americans have deep concerns about.
Speaker 4: So I think it is a tactical win for him.
Speaker 1: That the Alvin brad case is the first one to
Speaker 1: launch here. Most likely that's the first one where the
Speaker 1: trial date is going to be the earliest, and where
Speaker 1: we're hearing evidence in all of those things. So in
Speaker 1: any case, it's still a real guessing game how the
Speaker 1: timing on all of these things is going to play out.
Speaker 1: But this is what we know at this point, to
Speaker 1: the best of our ability.
Speaker 3: I think you are very right in raising that