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. Hi.
Speaker 2: Everyone, we have some major breaking news. We just wrapped
Speaker 2: our show and of course we received the big news
Speaker 2: of the day. The Supreme Court has now ruled nine
Speaker 2: zero to reject the Colorado Supreme Court decision that would
Speaker 2: have held Donald J. Trump off of the ballot in
Speaker 2: that state. The Colorado Supreme Court affirming a Colorado Secretary
Speaker 2: of State decision ruling that Donald Trump was not allowed
Speaker 2: on the ballot because he had violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: In their estimation, the nine oz decision is a bit complicated, Crystal,
Speaker 2: and we can break it down for everyone.
Speaker 3: Let's put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: While they unanimously agree that that the Colorado Supreme Court
Speaker 2: went too far and the Colorasado Secretary of State in
Speaker 2: their disqualification of Donald Trump on the ballot. The majority opinion,
Speaker 2: which includes six out of the nine justices, effectively says
Speaker 2: that this was overstepping the role of Congress. The Congress,
Speaker 2: through its enumeration of the fourteenth Amendment, not only had
Speaker 2: to have that stand, but would have to pass a
Speaker 2: piece of legislation that specifically lays out which individuals and
Speaker 2: how were to be disqualified from office under the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 3: Three of the liberal.
Speaker 2: Justices Katanji, Bound Jackson, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice and Lena
Speaker 2: Kagan dissented from that majority opinion, but found with the
Speaker 2: nine to zero unanimous decision that they of Colorado had
Speaker 2: gone beyond.
Speaker 3: The terms of the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: So basically the majority opinion and where this justification now
Speaker 2: comes down is Colorado went too far, and that in
Speaker 2: the future that Congress itself must pass specifically which types
Speaker 2: of individuals, why, and how are disqualified from the ballot,
Speaker 2: and that the hodgepodge nature of allowing secretaries of state
Speaker 2: like Maine or Cholorado or others could not stand.
Speaker 3: This what they all.
Speaker 2: Unanimously found so very impactful case, probably the most significant
Speaker 2: one since Bush versus Gore in terms of that decision,
Speaker 2: but this one a little bit different in its finding.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeahs number.
Speaker 1: It wasn't surprising the direction that this went in. Just
Speaker 1: to emphasize one of the things you're saying there, that
Speaker 1: piece about the majority rule that Congress basically has to
Speaker 1: pass a law in order for this section of the
Speaker 1: Constitution to apply.
Speaker 4: My recollection from when.
Speaker 1: I was researching this previously is that would mean that
Speaker 1: this provision is not self executing.
Speaker 4: Some parts of the Constitution just.
Speaker 1: They are what they are, and they are available for
Speaker 1: enforcement as they are, and others actually require an Act
Speaker 1: of Congress. That's what the majority of saying is saying.
Speaker 1: That's the piece that a minority of the liberal justices
Speaker 1: are saying, Hey, we don't agree with that part. That
Speaker 1: part goes further than we need to in this decision.
Speaker 1: Just as a reminder, I want to read to people
Speaker 1: the text of Amendment fourteen, Section three, just so we
Speaker 1: have a recollection of what we're talking about here. So
Speaker 1: it says no person shall be a senator or representative
Speaker 1: in Congress, or elector of President and vice president, or
Speaker 1: hold any office civil or military under the United States,
Speaker 1: or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath
Speaker 1: as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
Speaker 1: the United States, or as a member of any state
Speaker 1: legislator legislature, or as an executive or a judicial officer
Speaker 1: of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States,
Speaker 1: shall have engaged an insurrection or rebellion against the same,
Speaker 1: or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Speaker 1: Congress may buy a vote of two thirds of each House,
Speaker 1: remove such disability. That last piece, the fact that it
Speaker 1: points in the amendment to Congress, was part of what
Speaker 1: they used as a justification for saying, well, that sort
Speaker 1: of indicates that what they really mean is Congress has
Speaker 1: the final say in how this provision is applied. One
Speaker 1: other thing that I wanted to note here is that
Speaker 1: they do not appear to have taken any stand or
Speaker 1: said anything about whether or not they believed that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump engaged in an insurrection or gave aid or comfort
Speaker 1: to an insurrection, And that was not actually even the
Speaker 1: focus of his team's argument in this case. They were
Speaker 1: focused more on these technical legal questions. Does the President
Speaker 1: of the United States count as a quote officer of
Speaker 1: the United States, a whole or as an office holder
Speaker 1: of the United States, who does this responsibility fall to?
Speaker 4: And I wanted to read a little.
Speaker 1: Bit of the liberals who had the dissenting view that
Speaker 1: they agreed that Colorado went too far. They agreed that
Speaker 1: they did not have the power to enforce this particular
Speaker 1: piece of the Constitution, but they said they should have
Speaker 1: had a more limited ruling. They say, if it is
Speaker 1: not necessary to decide more to dispose of the case,
Speaker 1: than it is necess sari not to decide more. That's
Speaker 1: from actually the Dobbs decision. That fundamental principle of judicial
Speaker 1: restraint is practically as old as our republic. This court
Speaker 1: is authorized to say what the law is only because
Speaker 1: those who apply a rule to particular cases much must
Speaker 1: of necessity expound and interpret that rule. That's Marbury versus Madison.
Speaker 1: Today the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not
Speaker 1: just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.
Speaker 1: In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may
Speaker 1: keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground
Speaker 1: that he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified
Speaker 1: from holding federal office under Section three of the Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment allowing Colorado to do so, would we agree create
Speaker 1: a chaotic state by state patchwork at odds with our
Speaker 1: nation's federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.
Speaker 1: Yet the majority goes further, and again they go on
Speaker 1: to point out this piece of their interpretation that the
Speaker 1: body that has the ability to enforce this provision is
Speaker 1: common That's the piece that they descend on, even as.
Speaker 2: They agree over all, Yeah, it's actually interesting too. Trump's argument,
Speaker 2: as I'm understanding here from what they write, was to
Speaker 2: hold that the section three disqualifies quote every oath breaking insurrectionist, except,
Speaker 2: as they write, the most powerful one, because he was
Speaker 2: arguing that the president was not in effect a quote
Speaker 2: unquote office holder of.
Speaker 3: The United States.
Speaker 2: He says, actually, though both of these results are inconsistent
Speaker 2: both Colorado and President Trump's argument about the highest office
Speaker 2: in the land. Thus, they then use the contextual point
Speaker 2: to Congress and say, both of the Trump argument and
Speaker 2: Colorado argument are inconsistent with the historical basis of section
Speaker 2: three of the fourteenth Amendment, and thus they're establishing this
Speaker 2: new standard for how this is going to work in
Speaker 2: the first place. So I know, it's kind of complicated
Speaker 2: Lee Lee's and all that, then that effect is obvious.
Speaker 2: It's Colorado loss, Maine and all these other states are
Speaker 2: not allowed to do this. I guess it invites an
Speaker 2: interesting question because one of the things that we had
Speaker 2: talked to here before is if they had ruled in
Speaker 2: the way that the liberals had wanted to them, then
Speaker 2: this would have been a different question post the conviction
Speaker 2: if it were to happen of January sixth on that case,
Speaker 2: because there's going to be a big argument there on
Speaker 2: a legal standard about free speech. But Supreme Court now
Speaker 2: making it so that even if any of that were
Speaker 2: to occur, Congress itself, by two thirds of have to
Speaker 2: pass a law being like, yeah, that qualifies as an
Speaker 2: explicit event under X, Y and Z, and that's how
Speaker 2: we are able to remove somebody from the ballot. So
Speaker 2: this is one setting a pretty high standard effectively politically
Speaker 2: impossible today, but you know, who knows what it would
Speaker 2: look like in the future that we as a Congress
Speaker 2: and of people are the only ones who will be
Speaker 2: able to establish some sort of law where states could
Speaker 2: act in this manner.
Speaker 1: After biden Mania sweeps the nation and They've got a
Speaker 1: seventy seat majority in the Senate and a majority, and
Speaker 1: I think they can pass this law and deeming that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is an insuractionist, just to underscore or give
Speaker 1: an example there. So if they had ruled in the
Speaker 1: more limited way that the liberal justices wanted them to
Speaker 1: and basically lived unresolved, Okay, they're saying Colorado can't do this,
Speaker 1: but we're not going to really say what the process
Speaker 1: would be that would meet our standards. Then if you
Speaker 1: had someone like Trump who was actually found guilty of
Speaker 1: insurrection through the criminal system, then you could have an
Speaker 1: argument again of like, okay, well, now does this supply
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? First of all, Donald Trump has not
Speaker 1: been charged with insurrection. I just want to be clear
Speaker 1: about this is and I'm just talking in hypotheticals here,
Speaker 1: but the Supreme Court has closed that door and said no, no,
Speaker 1: this has to be explicitly done through congressional legislation. But
Speaker 1: as I said, not making any sort of determination of
Speaker 1: whether or not in their view, donald Trump did insight
Speaker 1: or aid a bet, whatever the language, is an insurrection.
Speaker 4: So that's where we are.
Speaker 2: Just a reminder to you, there's still quite a few
Speaker 2: cases for Trump before the Supreme Court. We still have
Speaker 2: the immunity case where we heard some of the arguments
Speaker 2: around there that wasn't really expected today. This one, believe
Speaker 2: had to have an expedited opinion in order to resolve
Speaker 2: this before the election.
Speaker 3: And there may even be some more that come to
Speaker 3: the court.
Speaker 2: So all of that will affect the overall trial date
Speaker 2: for the eventual January sixth trial. So stay tuned. This
Speaker 2: is not the first breaking news segment that we're likely
Speaker 2: to do on the subject. We'll see you guys later.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do jam packed show this morning. So we
Speaker 1: got a lot of breaking news here with regards to Israel.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris meeting with Israeli Security Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz.
Speaker 1: This is over the objections of bb Net Yahoo, which
Speaker 1: is interesting and this comes of course as the US
Speaker 1: is dropping the teeniest, tiniest, most measly bit of aid
Speaker 1: on in Gaza in what is honestly a humiliating situation
Speaker 1: for the United States of Americas.
Speaker 4: Will break all of that down for you.
Speaker 1: We have more really bad polls for Joe Biden, both
Speaker 1: from the Wall Street Journal and from the New York Times.
Speaker 1: I feel like we say this every week, but I
Speaker 1: also feel like every week things just keep getting.
Speaker 3: For him, getty more data.
Speaker 1: The picture keeps becoming more clear, and we also have
Speaker 1: some specific numbers about just how unhappy the Democratic base
Speaker 1: is with his policy visa the Israel. Also, speaking of
Speaker 1: that Super Tuesday is tomorrow, will tell you what to expect,
Speaker 1: what states are set to vote, and also how you
Speaker 1: can register a protest vote if you live.
Speaker 4: In one of those states.
Speaker 1: One of Biden's favorite CNN anchors is roasting him also
Speaker 1: for his Israel policy. New York Times is in absolute chaos.
Speaker 1: As we have been tracking here. They're now being accused
Speaker 1: by the Union of racially profiling in a leak investigation
Speaker 1: that has to do with that supposed expose on sexual
Speaker 1: assault being weaponized by Hamas. On October seventh, the reporter
Speaker 1: who has been breaking a lot of these stories from
Speaker 1: the Intercept is going to join us to break all.
Speaker 4: Of that down for you.
Speaker 1: We also have a lot of answers now about that
Speaker 1: flower massacre that we covered last week. I'm going to
Speaker 1: break that down in my monologue and Sager's taking look
Speaker 1: at Elon's AI lawsuit, which has huge implications, and for
Speaker 1: once I am actually on team Elon on this one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I will convert everyone too pro Elon
Speaker 3: at least of this topic, this particular instance, on this
Speaker 3: very particular one.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. We have got a live stream that
Speaker 2: is coming for everybody on March seventh for the State
Speaker 2: of the Union. We will have an exclusive premium only
Speaker 2: live stream after the State of the Union where you
Speaker 2: guys get to ask questions live and the four of
Speaker 2: us will answer from here at the desk.
Speaker 3: So we'll have the Counterpoints crew with us.
Speaker 2: We'll preview, we'll lead into it, we'll watch it all
Speaker 2: live together, and then we will react on the other
Speaker 2: side before we go into premium content. So if you
Speaker 2: want to participate in that, Breakingpoints dot com to become
Speaker 2: a premium subscriber today.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's go ahead and get to the
Speaker 1: very latest with regards to Israel. Kamala Harris making some
Speaker 1: news yesterday. This's got a lot of attention. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about whether or not it should have gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of attention on the other side. But at Edmund Pettis
Speaker 1: Bridge commemorating historic civil rights event, she called for a
Speaker 1: temporary ceasefire and use some more I guess, strenuous language
Speaker 1: with regards to Israel's assault on Goazia.
Speaker 4: Let's take a look and what she had to say.
Speaker 3: And given.
Speaker 5: The immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be
Speaker 5: an immediate ceasefire or at least the next six weeks,
Speaker 5: which is what is currently on the table. This will
Speaker 5: get the hostages out and get a significant amount of
Speaker 5: aid in. This would allow us to build something more enduring,
Speaker 5: to ensure Israel is secure and to respect the right
Speaker 5: of the Palestinian people to dignity, freedom and self determination.
Speaker 1: So she says immediate ceasefire there, but what she's really
Speaker 1: talking about is just the same temporary ceasefire that they've
Speaker 1: been pushing for, which you know is unlikely to happen
Speaker 1: because Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire. So it was weird
Speaker 1: to meet Zagera because people were like making a deal
Speaker 1: on a gest yes, but.
Speaker 4: She's just actually backing the.
Speaker 3: Same I immediately pack on the.
Speaker 4: Biden administration policy for a while now.
Speaker 2: Right, So I saw all like everything, everyone and people
Speaker 2: They're like, oh my gosh, Kamala breaks with Biden.
Speaker 3: And I was like, well, did you listen?
Speaker 2: Because it says to build an enduring thing that leads
Speaker 2: to a release of hostages. I'm like, this is the
Speaker 2: current framework that has been put forth by the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: by the Egyptians, by the Qataris, by the Israelis and Hamas.
Speaker 2: Now let's be clear in terms of quote unquote agreement.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration claims that the Israelis have agreed to
Speaker 2: it quote unquote in principle, there has been no vote
Speaker 2: in the Israeli War Cabinet or acceptance by those cabinet officials.
Speaker 2: We have yet to hear word from hamasas to whether
Speaker 2: they would.
Speaker 3: Agree on it.
Speaker 2: As I understand the crystal, A lot of it comes
Speaker 2: down to they want an itemized list of the state
Speaker 2: of the hostages, which I'm not exactly sure that's what
Speaker 2: they claim. I'm not exactly sure what hamasas pushback is.
Speaker 2: As you said, they want a permanency spire. There could
Speaker 2: be a lot of posturing going on. We don't exactly
Speaker 2: know for sure. But for some reason this was interpreted
Speaker 2: as a departure in policy when sure, I mean, you
Speaker 2: can use rhetoric all you want. Yeah, it doesn't change
Speaker 2: anything at all in terms of where the ground is.
Speaker 1: The very most you can say is that the rhetoric
Speaker 1: was a little different here for her to talk about
Speaker 1: the immense scale of the suffering of Palestinians.
Speaker 4: That is a shift in tone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fair, And I do think that that shift
Speaker 1: in tone, as basically meaningless as it ends up being,
Speaker 1: is a direct result of the protest vote in Michigan.
Speaker 1: The immense amount of polling at this point that shows
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration has a huge problem, in particular
Speaker 1: with the base of their own party, and that it
Speaker 1: extends way beyond just Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, basically
Speaker 1: extends throughout the entire Democratic base. We're going to give
Speaker 1: you some polls in the next segment that back that up.
Speaker 1: But Sager, you know what I have really read into
Speaker 1: this along with let's put this next piece up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Kamala Harrison also meeting with Benny Gantz, he
Speaker 1: as a member of the Israeli security Cabinet in DC
Speaker 1: today they're going to talk about this temporary cease fire.
Speaker 1: They're supposed to talk about humanitarian aid and variety of
Speaker 1: other things. Noteworthy that Gans is seen as a potential
Speaker 1: opponent of BB Netanyaho, potential replacement. His approval rating much
Speaker 1: higher than net Nyaho. You know, he's sort of framed
Speaker 1: as a moderate. He's really not. This is a former
Speaker 1: IDF chief of staff. This is also a very hawkish guy.
Speaker 1: But the fact that he came here in that the
Speaker 1: US invited him here over the objections of Netnyahu, who
Speaker 1: did not approve this trip, which, by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: by Israeli law, you're supposed to have the approval Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: This is sort of seen as a you know, a
Speaker 1: slap in the face of BB, or a strong.
Speaker 4: Signal to BB or whatever.
Speaker 1: Again, it ends up being pretty meaningless because they're not
Speaker 1: actually changing the policy.
Speaker 4: But they have shifted.
Speaker 1: From just out and out we're defending Israel, We're defending
Speaker 1: everything they're doing, to trying to gaslight you into believing that, oh,
Speaker 1: we're doing everything we can and we really do want
Speaker 1: to cease fire, which is you know, these people they
Speaker 1: are obstinate. Can't we can't convince them. We can't persuade them,
Speaker 1: And for the millionth time, you have a million tools
Speaker 1: at your disposal if you actually wanted to use leverage
Speaker 1: to compel them to take a different course, but you
Speaker 1: remain unwilling to.
Speaker 4: Use those tools.
Speaker 1: So this is basically, you know, a different variety of
Speaker 1: all of those reports we're getting, you know, those leaked reports,
Speaker 1: always having tough conversations behind the scenes with Bbie. This
Speaker 1: is just basically the new phase. At this point, you
Speaker 1: can't really defend Israel the writings on the wall with
Speaker 1: regard to the Democratic base, so they have to shift
Speaker 1: postures and pretend like they're working really hard to change
Speaker 1: the outcome on the ground, even though the reality is
Speaker 1: very clear that the policy is the exact same of
Speaker 1: unconditional support and not using any leverage to try to
Speaker 1: change behavior.
Speaker 2: I read it as Biden can't meet with GANS because
Speaker 2: he's not ahead of state, so they had to send
Speaker 2: the number two. I also saw Ganz confirm that he'll
Speaker 2: be meeting with the National Security Advisor Sullivan. But I
Speaker 2: also see it similarly in terms of they think they
Speaker 2: have a bb problem as opposed to I mean, if
Speaker 2: we look at GANS I mean, this is when one
Speaker 2: of the people who has been the most vociferous and
Speaker 2: arguing for war with Lebanon and for the continuation and
Speaker 2: the expansion of the war.
Speaker 3: It's not just to Bbe's benefit.
Speaker 2: Right, There are some important domestic political differences between Gans
Speaker 2: and Nets and Yahu that matter in an Israeli context,
Speaker 2: but for our purposes, they're basically.
Speaker 3: United on the warfront.
Speaker 2: So in that then what we have to understand is
Speaker 2: what I think is happening is that they're trying to
Speaker 2: reframe it away from bib to try and send a
Speaker 2: signal that the US subtly supports Benny Gantz, where the
Speaker 2: policy though would not change. And you know, there's no look,
Speaker 2: as people you and I who have now followed this
Speaker 2: basically day in and day out, there is no substantive
Speaker 2: daylight at all really between these two men on the
Speaker 2: way that the war should be prosecuted. Furthermore, in terms
Speaker 2: of whatever some sort of future coalition would look like,
Speaker 2: there is no coalition in the future where Gance would
Speaker 2: be able to arise that does not also include many
Speaker 2: of the people who support Bebe right now. So it's
Speaker 2: not like a whole lot of things would change. I
Speaker 2: do think that there has been obviously some adjustment post
Speaker 2: Michigan and then attention for Super Tuesday and some of
Speaker 2: the fallout, which we will discuss, but substantively I don't
Speaker 2: see a single change right now in the policy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. Now.
Speaker 1: I mean the Biden administration both with the policy they
Speaker 1: announced these you know, the sanctions of these four violent settlers,
Speaker 1: and with their focus on the problems of Bibi net
Speaker 1: Yahoo or Ben Gevier or Smochrit specifically, they want to
Speaker 1: pretend like this is an issue of like a few
Speaker 1: bad apples versus, you know, a whole of government and
Speaker 1: the fact that all of Israeli society is basically behind
Speaker 1: the way this war has been prosecuted, with the exception
Speaker 1: of the coalition behind the hostage families who want a
Speaker 1: deal in order to secure the release of the hostages.
Speaker 1: I also want to say another thing about that potential
Speaker 1: hostage deal that has been driving me crazy, the framing
Speaker 1: in the Western press and coming also from the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, you even heard it a little bit there
Speaker 1: in the comments she played, is that if the deal fails,
Speaker 1: it's because Hamas is just being unreasonable. Well, I just
Speaker 1: want to be clear what Hamas is saying is effectively
Speaker 1: not that they're like good actors. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: or anything, guys, but just so we understand their position.
Speaker 1: They see that Natanyahu has said, listen, even if we
Speaker 1: secure this deal, afterwards, we're going into Rafa, where one
Speaker 1: point three million Palestinians have been pushed and are sheltering
Speaker 1: in absolutely, already dire and dangerous conditions. Okay, so they're saying, no,
Speaker 1: we don't want just a temporary pause in the genocide,
Speaker 1: we want it to stop completely, especially since this is
Speaker 1: hanging over all of the heads of the Palestinian civilians
Speaker 1: there in Rafa. So you know, to frame this is
Speaker 1: just like, oh, it's just the Palestinian side that's being unreasonable,
Speaker 1: I think is disingenuous, and negotiation requires both sides to you.
Speaker 4: Know, come to the table.
Speaker 1: And at this point it should be incredibly clear, and
Speaker 1: it would be consistent with what not only the Democratic base,
Speaker 1: but the overwhelming majority of Americans want to push for
Speaker 1: a permanent cease fire.
Speaker 4: Gaza is already all but destroyed.
Speaker 1: I mean the level of hunger starvation which we're about
Speaker 1: to get to is just horrifying. The medical system has
Speaker 1: completely broken down. Every civilian target you can imagine has
Speaker 1: been targeted and destroyed.
Speaker 4: Northern Gaza is like completely destroyed.
Speaker 1: There's nothing to go back to there, so the annihilation
Speaker 1: is virtually complete, and I guess they want to finish
Speaker 1: off the job in Rafin. That is effectively what the
Speaker 1: Palestinian side is objecting to with regard to that immense
Speaker 1: scale of suffering. The Biden administration has responded by dropping
Speaker 1: air dropping the teeniest, tiniest bit of aid that you
Speaker 1: can imagine. Go ahead and show these images. You can
Speaker 1: see sins some as many people online called it like
Speaker 1: hunger games ass humanitarian aid drop. Here you can see
Speaker 1: Palestinians running to the ocean to try to secure some
Speaker 1: food for their families.
Speaker 4: Which are you know, as we've reported.
Speaker 1: Babies now officially dying of starvation. Some of the images
Speaker 1: that are coming out of people who are children whose
Speaker 1: bodies are wasted is horrifying.
Speaker 4: There isn't a person in.
Speaker 1: The Gaza strip who has sufficient food at this point.
Speaker 1: The amount of aid trucks that have been allowed in
Speaker 1: by Israel has plummeted precipitously even after that ICJ ruling,
Speaker 1: those aid truck deliveries are down by forty percent. And honestly,
Speaker 1: Sagar the fact that the US has to resort to this,
Speaker 1: which it's thirty eight thousand meals, which is enough for
Speaker 1: one meal for two percent of the population, just so
Speaker 1: we understand the math here. Now, this is an attempt
Speaker 1: for them to solve their conscience, but it's also such
Speaker 1: a humiliation, Like we give Israel so much money, we
Speaker 1: give them total diplomatic cover at the UN, we backed
Speaker 1: them NonStop, and we can't even get our humanitarian aid
Speaker 1: trucks into.
Speaker 4: The Gaza strip. We can't do that.
Speaker 1: We have to you know, drop things in, you know,
Speaker 1: just this pitodly amount. It's absolutely embarrassing that this is
Speaker 1: what they have come to. But because they're not willing
Speaker 1: to use any sort of aid or leverage, this is
Speaker 1: where we are.
Speaker 2: No, I'm actually furious about it because number one, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen, as you can
Speaker 2: see up in front of you. Dropping aid from planes
Speaker 2: quote is expensive and inefficient.
Speaker 3: Why do it?
Speaker 2: Well, really, what they arrive at, and this again is
Speaker 2: why I'm furious, is that we are eating the cost
Speaker 2: here with the Royal Jordanians probably cost well into the
Speaker 2: millions of dollars to try and do something like this.
Speaker 2: It's incredibly inefficient, it's super expensive, and the solution is
Speaker 2: actually quite obvious.
Speaker 3: Just let the trucks that are already.
Speaker 2: Prepaid into the damn gaza strip, which are the ones
Speaker 2: which carry all.
Speaker 3: Of the food.
Speaker 2: But they won't do it, and then apparently we won't
Speaker 2: even ask them to do it, or we won't or
Speaker 2: I guess we've asked them and they said no. So
Speaker 2: it's like, well, this is what we're resorting to. What
Speaker 2: does exactly does this mean? What's a precedent?
Speaker 3: Are we going to now unilaterally air drop all of this?
Speaker 2: I mean, in my opinion, Israel should be paying for
Speaker 2: literally one hundred percent of all this. They're going to
Speaker 2: ones who create the entire situation, or we can bill
Speaker 2: them and you can take it out of the aid
Speaker 2: that we've been providing them by. It would be totally
Speaker 2: fine with something like that, But this is a humiliation
Speaker 2: in terms of we have to resort to these. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not even really fair to call it half ass,
Speaker 2: like you know what two percent to measure an ass
Speaker 2: to try and do something like this when the solution
Speaker 2: is just staring us right in the face, and you know,
Speaker 2: we all know what this is. It's basically a pr
Speaker 2: At this point, I actually think it's I actually don't
Speaker 2: think I think it's moral to be honest, because you're
Speaker 2: almost giving people hope that something like this will continue.
Speaker 3: I mean, think about any billions and billions.
Speaker 2: And trillions of dollars like it would cost if you
Speaker 2: want an amount to be able to supply the entire
Speaker 2: place the strip by eight. It's not gonna happen. And
Speaker 2: I don't think it should happen on Opera. I think
Speaker 2: they're the ones that should do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just like, it's just very obvious that
Speaker 1: the actual answer is a cease fire, not a six
Speaker 1: week and then you can get back to murdering civilians
Speaker 1: en mass a ceasefire and a massive influx of humanitarian age.
Speaker 1: Remember the Gaza Strip because of the long standing is
Speaker 1: really blockade has been dependent on aid far before October seventh,
Speaker 1: and now they're getting many fewer trucks in than they
Speaker 1: were before, and obviously their capability to produce their own
Speaker 1: food is completely ravaged. Bakeries have been destroyed, Obviously there's.
Speaker 4: No imports coming in.
Speaker 1: Farmland has been raised and destroyed, orchards have been destroyed,
Speaker 1: and there's no ability of Palestinians to move even within
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip without completely risking their lives. So it
Speaker 1: is a dire and desperate situation. The answer is very clear,
Speaker 1: which is a ceasefire and a massive surge of humanitarian aid.
Speaker 1: This does literally nothing except maybe like Joe Biden can
Speaker 1: sleep a little better at night because he feels like
Speaker 1: he did something. It is a total pr move and
Speaker 1: it fits again with the Kamala Harris comments, you know,
Speaker 1: a little more vociferous language with her meeting with Benny Gantz,
Speaker 1: and then you add this humanitarian aid drop. They are
Speaker 1: trying to change their image with regards to this conflict.
Speaker 1: They're not trying to change the policy, but they're trying.
Speaker 1: They think they have an image problem, and this is
Speaker 1: part of what came out to Saber after the uncommitted
Speaker 1: vote in Michigan last week. You saw a bunch of
Speaker 1: like Democratic flag types being like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they need to change the way they're being perceived on
Speaker 1: this issue. No, you need to change the policy, and
Speaker 1: then the perception will change along with it.
Speaker 4: But they're trying to trick people.
Speaker 1: And I'm seeing also, like all of their shills on
Speaker 1: Twitter and whatever also trying to say, don't you understand
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's working day and night to try to secure
Speaker 1: a ceasefire. So they're trying to change the messaging here
Speaker 1: without actually trying to change the policy, and these aid
Speaker 1: drops are just, you know, a pr stunt in an
Speaker 1: attempt to try to change that image. John Kirby was asked,
Speaker 1: you know, a very good question about, hey, why are
Speaker 1: we helping Israel star Palestinians effectively? And you'll see his
Speaker 1: response basically, but Hamas, it's all there followed, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Israel bears no responsibility ever for any of
Speaker 1: their actions in the Gaza strip because of October seventh, apparently.
Speaker 1: And then we've also got in there Joe Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: inspiring portrait of leadership, mixing up Israel and Ukraine multiple
Speaker 1: times as he announces this ad drop policy.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: Israel self has tried to help with the delivery of
Speaker 6: humanitarian assistants. As I said, they tried air drops themselves
Speaker 6: just a week or so ago on their own accord,
Speaker 6: we still start.
Speaker 3: We it's a war.
Speaker 6: Zone and they and there's nowhere else for them to go.
Speaker 6: It's not like in some other conflicts where they can they.
Speaker 3: Can easily flee.
Speaker 6: And and let's not forget how this started. Okay, there'd
Speaker 6: be no need for air drops if AMAS hadn't chosen
Speaker 6: to break what was a ceasefire in place on the
Speaker 6: sixth of October. So let's not forget how this started.
Speaker 6: If you haven't done it, I encourage you to go
Speaker 6: online and read the twenty seventeen manifesto with Hamas. I
Speaker 6: know you're smiling, but you should do it because if
Speaker 6: you don't have any wait, let me finish. Let me finish.
Speaker 6: This is an organization that has military capabilities and has
Speaker 6: every intent of wiping Israel and the Israeli people off
Speaker 6: the map. That has to be unacceptable to everybody. Mister
Speaker 6: Sinwar chose to start this war. There was a ceasfire
Speaker 6: in place, he broke it.
Speaker 7: Do you think that the Israelis were defending themselves legitimately
Speaker 7: when they killed?
Speaker 4: There had been.
Speaker 6: Too many people killed over the course of this conflict.
Speaker 6: The President has said that himself.
Speaker 8: In the coming days, we're going to join with our
Speaker 8: friends in Jordan and other some Friday air drops of
Speaker 8: additional food and supplies in the Ukraine and seek to
Speaker 8: continue open up whether I avn'ts this into the Ukraine,
Speaker 8: including possibility of a marine card, sol were large amounts
Speaker 8: of humanitarian assistance.
Speaker 1: So just to be really clear, I mean, this logic
Speaker 1: is so bankrupt it's unbelievable. Basically, you could defend literally
Speaker 1: anything being done by Israel and the Gaza strip based
Speaker 1: on this logic of welhamas started it, which you know,
Speaker 1: we'll leave aside the many decades that preceded October seventh,
Speaker 1: but one atrocity which was committed on October seventh, Without
Speaker 1: a doubt, those atrocities do not deserve, or do not merit,
Speaker 1: or do not justify additional atrocities committed by Israel. But
Speaker 1: you know, this is the continued line. And then when
Speaker 1: they're asked about specific horrors perpetrated by the Israeli forces,
Speaker 1: it's this very sanitized, very generic, Oh, too many civilians
Speaker 1: have been killed. Well, but you won't condemn those killings,
Speaker 1: you won't change your policy to try to thwart those killings.
Speaker 4: You just allow this to go on and on and on.
Speaker 3: Under this logic, we could have knew Afghanistan. It's like, okay,
Speaker 3: is that.
Speaker 4: Should have started it?
Speaker 9: I agree?
Speaker 2: I mean that's one of the And remember, look, there
Speaker 2: was a probably would have been at least some little support,
Speaker 2: you know here in the US. It's not like that
Speaker 2: was a non existent rhetorical position in the aftermath after
Speaker 2: nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: What would most.
Speaker 2: People have said, like, yeah, that's probably too far right,
Speaker 2: Because that's what it all comes down to. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: do we want to actually solve the problem what exactly
Speaker 2: is the future and all of that going?
Speaker 3: Hold? Can we put a seven up there on the
Speaker 3: screen please?
Speaker 2: Because this really comes back to something that we highlighted
Speaker 2: actually from the very beginning of the war, is that
Speaker 2: the way that you're conducting the war, you were making
Speaker 2: it nearly impossible for what the future is going to
Speaker 2: look like where it is controlled in any way and
Speaker 2: doesn't explode into further violence. They say, lack of plan
Speaker 2: for governing Gaza form of the backdrop to deadly convoy chaos. Look,
Speaker 2: ignore the passive language and all of that that is
Speaker 2: in front of you, but the crux of the point
Speaker 2: is actually correct, which is that at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, whenever you have no legitimate partner that is
Speaker 2: on the ground and you're wiping out all of the infrastructure,
Speaker 2: and you were conducting the war in such a way
Speaker 2: that the civilian populace is totally against you, and the
Speaker 2: only there is no legitimate governing authority, and you are
Speaker 2: going to fire on people whenever they're swarming a bunch
Speaker 2: of food. You are setting the conditions for exactly the
Speaker 2: same course that happened in Mogadishu in Somalia after the
Speaker 2: outbreak of the civil war, and don't forget that has
Speaker 2: not to this day still been resolved more than thirty
Speaker 2: some years later. They are basically creating that for in
Speaker 2: that territory without any plan, and without a plan that
Speaker 2: is legitimate in the eyes of the people under which
Speaker 2: the war is being conducted. On top of that will
Speaker 2: probably cover this tomorrow, you're actually continuing settlement policy and
Speaker 2: having a government that has directly opposed to any legitimate
Speaker 2: governing authority, meaning you really only have two options, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, hunger games Somalia or you know, you take
Speaker 2: security responsibility and they kind of want to have some
Speaker 2: sort of middle ground, but the net result is terrible
Speaker 2: because it will increase terrorism, but most importantly, it will
Speaker 2: increase starvation and very likely absolute mass disaster, you know,
Speaker 2: for I think maybe many decades to come.
Speaker 1: I mean I object to the framing that there's no
Speaker 1: plan because I think we're watching the plan unfold. I
Speaker 1: think Nan Yahoo has intentionally kept the plan quote unquote vague,
Speaker 1: maybe right, so that he can sort of play both sides.
Speaker 1: But we can see in the actions what the plan is.
Speaker 1: The only question is whether they will be able to
Speaker 1: fully accomplish that. I mean, the initial plan is complete annihilation,
Speaker 1: and then you force the hand of the international community
Speaker 1: of like, well, there's nowhere for them to go back to,
Speaker 1: and there's no one who can run this area. What
Speaker 1: are we going to do? I guess we just have
Speaker 1: to resettle. I mean they even announced that they were
Speaker 1: going to keep security control quote unquote of the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: that they were going to create a buffer zone. Those
Speaker 1: are two things that the US supposedly objected to, but
Speaker 1: that plan was released with no real objections from the
Speaker 1: United States of America. So, you know, in pushing the
Speaker 1: population all the way to Rafa, where they're pressed up
Speaker 1: against the Egyptian border in destroying the entirety of the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. I think we see the plan unfolding, even
Speaker 1: as they keep it a little bit vag so that
Speaker 1: the US doesn't have to completely confront the reality of
Speaker 1: what they have planned, which in theory at least we
Speaker 1: would potentially maybe object to.
Speaker 4: One more piece that I thought.
Speaker 1: Was noteworthy with regard to the aid drop of the
Speaker 1: thirty eight thousand meals, this pitiy amount, and the circumstances
Speaker 1: under which we ended up doing that. This is a
Speaker 1: former ambassador put this up on the screen, former Ambassador
Speaker 1: to Algeria and also former Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford.
Speaker 1: He says, I've seen Israel humiliate previous US administrations, but
Speaker 1: aside from murderous nineteen sixty seven, is really air striking
Speaker 1: against the US Navy ship Liberty. Now forcing USA to
Speaker 1: do air drops of aid to Gazas if USA is
Speaker 1: no better than Egypt and Jordan, is Israel's worst humiliation
Speaker 1: of USA I've ever seen. I should add the USA
Speaker 1: will do humanitarian aid air drops to Gazin's if the
Speaker 1: Israeli Air Force graciously agrees not to shoot down the
Speaker 1: American planes over Gaza. And he goes on to clarify too,
Speaker 1: because someone asked him, what do you better than Egypt
Speaker 1: and Jordan. He's just saying, you know, with regard to
Speaker 1: our position, amount of aid that we fund, you would
Speaker 1: think that we would have a lot more say over
Speaker 1: the situation, but we don't, and so we're reduced to
Speaker 1: this pathetic pr stunt situation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Robert Ford is a very very credible individual.
Speaker 2: I would definitely look he's somebody that we should be
Speaker 2: listening to on this situation.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, all right, let's talk about the polls.
Speaker 2: Crystal mentioned at the top of the show. Every week
Speaker 2: we've got news that's terrible for Joe Biden. But listen,
Speaker 2: we're not the ones that create the news. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. What have
Speaker 2: we got from a brand new New York Times SIENA
Speaker 2: poll says, if the twenty twenty four election were held today,
Speaker 2: who would you vote for if the candidates were Joe
Speaker 2: Biden and Donald Trump? Donald Trump at forty eight percent,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden forty three percent, Ten percent say they don't
Speaker 2: know and or refused to answer. But the next one
Speaker 2: really delves into so many of the problems that Biden
Speaker 2: faces with various different groups. If we can please show
Speaker 2: that to everybody. So here's what we've got. You know,
Speaker 2: Trump has a plus four lead amongst men, Trump has
Speaker 2: a plus seven lead. This one actually takes skill. Amongst women,
Speaker 2: Trump has plus one lead. That's never happened before, But
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was on the ballot. Amongst whites, Trump plus eleven.
Speaker 2: Amongst Hispanics, Trump plus two. Amongst blacks, it says Biden
Speaker 2: plus fifty one. However, Crystal, you know that you know
Speaker 2: could be deceiving because you're actually supposed to be leading
Speaker 2: by seventy Amongst Black Americans, You're not supposed to be
Speaker 2: leading by fifty.
Speaker 3: I've talked to here before.
Speaker 2: If just ten percent of the black vote goes differently,
Speaker 2: then Republicans would win some three hundred.
Speaker 3: And something votes in the electoral college.
Speaker 2: Now, amongst rural voters, Trump plus thirty two, suburban Biden
Speaker 2: plus three.
Speaker 3: That's a bad number.
Speaker 2: You actually should be winning that by much more urban
Speaker 2: voters Biden plus twenty eight. So basically, amongst every demographic subgroup,
Speaker 2: Biden is underwater. Where's either underwater or not leading by
Speaker 2: the margins that he needs to amongst very critical parts
Speaker 2: of the Democratic coalition.
Speaker 3: And this isn't just a single poll that we have here.
Speaker 2: The Wall Street Journal basically can for me these results
Speaker 2: the same day if we can go to the next
Speaker 2: one there please and we can show everyone here. Even
Speaker 2: in a five way race where you've got everybody from
Speaker 2: RFK Junior to Cornell Weston Jill Stein on the ballot,
Speaker 2: Trump is at forty percent, Biden is at thirty five.
Speaker 2: So it's becoming clear here that well, Trump will lose
Speaker 2: some support, but from the third party candidates RFK Junior
Speaker 2: getting nine percent, Cornell Weston two, and Jill Stein at one,
Speaker 2: a lot of that support crystal is bled from Joe
Speaker 2: Biden at least enough to continue the Trump lead in
Speaker 2: a general.
Speaker 3: Election that would include all of them there.
Speaker 2: And then not to mention, you know, everyone's like, well, RFK,
Speaker 2: whether you get the ballot or not, Well, he's already
Speaker 2: on Arizona and Georgia, or at least he has enough
Speaker 2: ballots to get on Arizona and Georgia. That could be enough,
Speaker 2: honestly to swing the entire thing.
Speaker 3: That's it. You only need a couple percent.
Speaker 1: It is important to note. I'm sure he's going to
Speaker 1: face all kinds of lasses, so there's no guarantees that
Speaker 1: he'll be on the ballots and even those states, but
Speaker 1: there's no doubt that he's a problem for Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Jill Stein is likely to be on the ballot in
Speaker 1: basically every state. That's a problem for Joe Biden, even
Speaker 1: if you're talking about one or two percent difference. But
Speaker 1: I mean without them, he's losing easily without them, and
Speaker 1: historically now things may be different, now we don't know,
Speaker 1: but usually Trump support is actually understated. So we've never
Speaker 1: been in a situation, either with Hillary Clinton or with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, where the Democratic candidate was behind Trump. And consistently,
Speaker 1: this isn't just like one poll that's an outlier. It's
Speaker 1: poll after poll after poll that shows Donald Trump beating
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. If you dig into more of the numbers
Speaker 1: on that New York Times Siena Pole, what comes out
Speaker 1: is a trend that we've been tracking for a long time,
Speaker 1: which is so called class de alignment, where historically you
Speaker 1: have non wide in particular working class voters going overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: for Democrats, and that's not the case any longer in
Speaker 1: this poll, and that's the place where Joe Biden seems
Speaker 1: to be bleeding the most support. So they say in
Speaker 1: this write up of the New York Times poll that
Speaker 1: mister Biden won seventy two percent of non white, non
Speaker 1: college voters in twenty twenty, providing him with a nearly
Speaker 1: fifty point edge over Trump. Now that edge is down
Speaker 1: to just six points, forty seven percent to forty one percent.
Speaker 4: So what was a fifty point edge for.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the Democrats among non college, non white
Speaker 1: voters is now down to a six percent edge. To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, Sager, looking at the numbers among
Speaker 1: these different demographic groups, I'm like, how is he even
Speaker 1: as close to Trump as he is? That you are
Speaker 1: losing women.
Speaker 4: To Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: That's crazy.
Speaker 1: The modern era of politics has been defined by a
Speaker 1: huge gender gap, with women going significantly towards Democrats and
Speaker 1: men going towards Republicans, not so accordining to this poll. Now, again,
Speaker 1: it's not an outlier. Okay, Now maybe some of these
Speaker 1: demographic groups you could say, Okay, well, maybe it's a
Speaker 1: small sample size. Other polls showed different a different picture
Speaker 1: with regard to these demographic groups, but especially with regard
Speaker 1: to non white, non college voters. This is a trend
Speaker 1: we've been tracking for a long time, and it spells
Speaker 1: doom for Joe Biden and the Democrats. If this is
Speaker 1: what things actually look like on election Day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what we could see very clearly is flashing
Speaker 2: warning signs across the entire electorate. Also, I feel like
Speaker 2: we've glossed over Hispanics. Trump plus two amongst Hispantics.
Speaker 3: Anybody want to tell me? I mean, this is the
Speaker 3: group where George W.
Speaker 2: Bush was considered the most successful Republican amongst Hispanics because
Speaker 2: he won forty percent of the vote of the Hispanic
Speaker 2: vote in the year two thousand. It had never topped
Speaker 2: really that roughly. Trump came within thirty some percent, including
Speaker 2: the South Texas like Laredo Swing, but for him to
Speaker 2: actually get now it seems fifty at the very least.
Speaker 2: What I have seen is that the vast majority of
Speaker 2: this number is likely Hispanic men, and this actually tracks
Speaker 2: across all male groups, both black and Hispanic. Is that
Speaker 2: you're not only seeing class D alignment unfortunately, and I
Speaker 2: did a whole monologue on this, You're actually seeing a
Speaker 2: lot of gender de alignment as well, where a lot
Speaker 2: of men are starting to vote Republican or at least
Speaker 2: identifying more with the right, and then women identify more
Speaker 2: with the left. Now we're going to show you though,
Speaker 2: some of the cope. So here, let's put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. We have Obama's former campaign manager, Jim Messina.
Speaker 2: He says NYT chases headlines while ignoring what's happening. Trump
Speaker 2: consistently underperforms and Biden overperforms in primaries in New Hampshire,
Speaker 2: Trump seven points worst poll than a result in South
Speaker 2: Carolina minus eight, Michigan minus ten. Best predictor of elections
Speaker 2: equals howe voters vote, and they are voting for Dems
Speaker 2: and for Biden. Well, here's what he forgets, folks. Primary
Speaker 2: voters are not general election voters.
Speaker 3: Number one.
Speaker 2: Now, he's not wrong that it's not something to look at,
Speaker 2: but that is not in any way, as I understand
Speaker 2: at Crystal, primary voter turnout is not a good predictor
Speaker 2: at all of eventual general election. And in fact, the
Speaker 2: smart point that he would have made is not about this.
Speaker 2: It would be about all the slew of special elections
Speaker 2: in the midterms that we have because really that's the
Speaker 2: only thing saving them. Well, the only thing saving them
Speaker 2: is that the polls are totally wrong. In twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: every special election Democrats have overperformed and that's it. So
Speaker 2: just don't believe them. I mean, that's a tough sell,
Speaker 2: you know, given what we have here. But they have
Speaker 2: a point. We know, we'll be stupid not to they
Speaker 2: would be stupid to discount it. Yeah, but this this
Speaker 2: is ridiculous, you know, whatever this nonsense is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, put the next one up on the screen.
Speaker 1: There's actually a response to him from another Obama era person,
Speaker 1: Jon Favreau here Podza Bro. He says, why is words
Speaker 1: from Dan Pfeiffer, another Podza bro. Instead of dismissing the polls,
Speaker 1: we should embrace the idea Trump can win this election
Speaker 1: and then use that frightening notion to re energize the
Speaker 1: anti Maga majority that delivered victories in eighteen, nineteen, twenty two,
Speaker 1: twenty two, and twenty three. Telling people what they want
Speaker 1: to hear may be satisfying in the short term, but
Speaker 1: it rarely works out. So they're saying, like jiu jitsu,
Speaker 1: move use the fact that we're down in the polls
Speaker 1: actually as motivator. And you actually had on Morning Joe
Speaker 1: another one in one of Biden's favorite programs, apparently distressingly,
Speaker 1: you had Donnie Deutsch saying, basically, the way Democrats need
Speaker 1: to go about trying to win is by scaring the
Speaker 1: hell out of people about Donald Trump effectively. And that's
Speaker 1: really the only thing they ever tried to do, right.
Speaker 1: They don't try to offer people anything, they don't try
Speaker 1: to really make an affirmative case. They are still banking
Speaker 1: on going back to that same old, same old playbook
Speaker 1: of yes, but Trump. So you may be pissed off
Speaker 1: about X and Y and Z, but Trump, so you
Speaker 1: got to stick with us, and you got to vote
Speaker 1: for us. And I mean, yeah, work for them in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. It worked for them in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: well enough, but those margins have been very thin, and
Speaker 1: these polls, you cannot look at them and not think
Speaker 1: that they have a very, very big problem on their hands.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just so obvious whenever you see it.
Speaker 2: And I think, I think think a lot of what
Speaker 2: flashes as well, Crystal is Biden's age is just such
Speaker 2: an intense like it is such an intense factor for
Speaker 2: so many voters, and it's one of those where the
Speaker 2: media and is forced to cover it every once in
Speaker 2: a while, whenever the Special Council is like, he didn't
Speaker 2: remember when his own son died in an interview.
Speaker 3: And then he's like, well, how did that? Dare he
Speaker 3: bring that up?
Speaker 2: And then they're like, well, according to the transcript, you
Speaker 2: brought it up, sir, and then you weren't able to
Speaker 2: remember it.
Speaker 3: It's unfixable.
Speaker 2: And so when you have an unfixable, glaring problem which
Speaker 2: everybody on earth, you know, can understand and empathize with
Speaker 2: the voter as to why they wouldn't want to vote
Speaker 2: for him, I mean, don't I look at that. I'm like,
Speaker 2: Jesus Man needs to go immediately. I can't imagine in
Speaker 2: there for another four years. But then you add on
Speaker 2: all of the attendant chaos of Israel, the economy. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's you know, immigration, Like if we look at the
Speaker 2: issue by issue polling, immigration is his lowest approval rating,
Speaker 2: Gaza's number two actual, and then.
Speaker 3: The economy number three.
Speaker 2: Each of those are so highly determinative for the way
Speaker 2: that both independence and others who very rarely vote, who
Speaker 2: may not come out to vote, may find it to
Speaker 2: themselves they're simply unable to vote for you, and then age,
Speaker 2: I think, just pushes you over the edge. So there's major,
Speaker 2: major warning signs here, and especially if you're thing with
Speaker 2: two with Trump. As we covered today or as we
Speaker 2: covered in our last show, Trump has now successfully pushed
Speaker 2: the vast majority of his trial dates either very close
Speaker 2: to the reduction date or possibly.
Speaker 3: After the election day.
Speaker 2: So the worst issue for him may actually not even
Speaker 2: come before people actually cast vote. So combine those two factors,
Speaker 2: things are looking good right now for Trump.
Speaker 1: Let me also say one thing about immigration, because they
Speaker 1: had their dueling border visits last week, and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was like, I call on Donald Trump to work with
Speaker 1: me on a bipartisan border security bill. And it's like,
Speaker 1: you're whole putting the morality of the side that you
Speaker 1: guys can go back and watch that Ris debate on immigration,
Speaker 1: and if you're hungry for that content at the moment,
Speaker 1: I don't have the energy. But your whole case is
Speaker 1: supposed to be that Trump is so awful that we
Speaker 1: cannot have another four years of that. And core to
Speaker 1: that case from Democrats has always been about his basically
Speaker 1: fascism at the border. And now you're like, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're going to compete with him. We want to work
Speaker 1: with him on the fascism at the border, and you know,
Speaker 1: we also want to like keep the kids in cages.
Speaker 1: And we're just as horrible and cruel as the Republicans.
Speaker 1: It's like, what kind of and they think this is
Speaker 1: some kind of an own Like, no, you have just
Speaker 1: accepted the entire Republican messaging around immigration, and so how
Speaker 1: are you supposed to you know, your whole tactic is
Speaker 1: like to scare people.
Speaker 4: About Johnald Trump.
Speaker 1: And I think there are some legitimate things, by the way,
Speaker 1: to be scared about about a second Trump term. But
Speaker 1: on one of the issues that he was the most extreme,
Speaker 1: the most aggressive about, you're going to just go ahead
Speaker 1: and accept his case and reach out a hand to
Speaker 1: work with him on implementing those policies. It makes no
Speaker 1: sense to me whatsoever. And so, you know, to me,
Speaker 1: yet another political fail. And as you were just alluding to, Sager,
Speaker 1: the problems for the Democratic Party and for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: go so far beyond any one demographic group, and in fact,
Speaker 1: some of the biggest issues are with their own base,
Speaker 1: which we're going to show you in a minute, that
Speaker 1: they're apparently terrified of even setting foot on a freaking
Speaker 1: college campus because of Israel protests, which you know, you
Speaker 1: have a lot of not just young people, but a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are saying, you know, morally, I
Speaker 1: just I think that this is a genocide, and morally,
Speaker 1: I just cannot pull the lever for someone who I
Speaker 1: believe is funding and supporting a genocide that's happening right
Speaker 1: now in front of my eyes on social media.
Speaker 2: Well let's go to that part then, and the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal helpfully actually dug into some of this, So
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and put this up there please on
Speaker 2: the screen. What you can see there in front of
Speaker 2: you is that this is amongst the vast majority of voters.
Speaker 2: So it says, do you think Israel's actions in the
Speaker 2: Gaza strip in response to October seven have gone too far,
Speaker 2: not gone far enough, or been about right? Forty two
Speaker 2: percent say gone too far, so that's a plurality. Twenty
Speaker 2: four percent say been about right? Not gone far enough
Speaker 2: is nineteen percent, and don't know and or refuse is
Speaker 2: fifteen percent. But a pretty clear you know, plurality there,
Speaker 2: which is saying that they said, gone too far. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next slide please, because this is where
Speaker 2: you can actually see something very interesting too. It says,
Speaker 2: when you think about the war between Israel and Hamas,
Speaker 2: do you think that the US is doing too much,
Speaker 2: too little, or about the right amount to support the
Speaker 2: Israeli people or in the Palestinian people. So amongst the
Speaker 2: amount of people who say who are asked that question
Speaker 2: about Israeli people, now thirty percent of the electorate is
Speaker 2: saying that actually the US is doing too much to
Speaker 2: support the Israeli people, twenty five percent say too little,
Speaker 2: thirty two percent say about the right amount, So a
Speaker 2: significant eight percent increase since December of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Whenever you're asked or you're doing too much or too little.
Speaker 2: Now when you flip it, you can see the exact
Speaker 2: same rise in the amount of people who now say
Speaker 2: that the US is doing too little to support the
Speaker 2: Palestinian people. Only twenty four percent say that they are
Speaker 2: doing too much, but thirty three percent say too little,
Speaker 2: twenty five percent say that they are doing about the
Speaker 2: right amount, And then the don't know number is roughly
Speaker 2: you know, seventeen fifteen percent or whatever across both demographics.
Speaker 2: I think when you combine those two things, you can
Speaker 2: see a clear trend line. And furthermore, as we have
Speaker 2: covered here, if you see and just to the next.
Speaker 3: One, just because I can show everyone.
Speaker 2: Again is that Gaza is now is number two most
Speaker 2: unpopular issue, which is crazy whenever you consider it against inflation,
Speaker 2: economy and Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Somehow forty six percent approval rating on Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I would love to meet and to talk to those people,
Speaker 2: especially if you're into the Gaza thing.
Speaker 3: You should watch someone.
Speaker 4: It's actually one of the tiest of proofer ratings on
Speaker 4: any issue.
Speaker 2: Please don't get me started on Yeah, the people who
Speaker 2: the people who consume are Gaza content should also con
Speaker 2: see words our content that said what we what we
Speaker 2: could show people here is that electorally, this is a
Speaker 2: major major problem and what you alluded to in particular
Speaker 2: on the campuses is one where it is actually significantly
Speaker 2: curtailing his ability to go out and to campaign. So
Speaker 2: we have a clip here just to show you what
Speaker 2: is facing you know, the Bidens as they crossed the country.
Speaker 2: Jill Biden was actually at an event in Arizona, where
Speaker 2: she was interrupted by a ceasefire protester. Here's what happened.
Speaker 2: So that's what's awaiting Biden on college campuses. And Crystal,
Speaker 2: you flagged this report which you can put up there
Speaker 2: and you could react.
Speaker 3: Is quote how.
Speaker 2: Biden aids are trying to shield the president for protests
Speaker 2: where Democratic President Crystal is unable to go on college campuses.
Speaker 4: Incredible.
Speaker 1: So they say they're taking increasingly extraordinary steps to minimize
Speaker 1: disruptions from pro Palestinian protests at his events. They're making
Speaker 1: them smaller, they're withholding their precise locations, and they're avoiding
Speaker 1: college campuses altogether. A Democratic president cannot go to college campuses.
Speaker 4: Think about that. What that means in terms of the.
Speaker 1: Modern democratic base and coalition that they rely upon. They
Speaker 1: cannot set foot on college campuses in an at least
Speaker 1: one instance, considering hiring a private company to vet attendees.
Speaker 1: Now that specific report is with regard to this big
Speaker 1: fundraiser they have planned that's going to be Biden, Clinton,
Speaker 1: and Obama. It's on March twenty eighth in New York City.
Speaker 1: Just for anyone who lives in New York City. By
Speaker 1: the way, expectations are that it's going to be at
Speaker 1: Radio City Music Hall, but they have not actually released
Speaker 1: that information for exactly this reason.
Speaker 4: They've also upped the t ticket.
Speaker 1: Price to try to price out any potential protesters, any
Speaker 1: potential riff raff that might come in with ideas about,
Speaker 1: you know, standing up and protesting. They say that a
Speaker 1: turning point in their thinking was Biden gave a speech
Speaker 1: in Virginia that was interrupted multiple times with protests. So
Speaker 1: they are so terrified of their own base that they
Speaker 1: basically can't campaign.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's the reality of what.
Speaker 1: They can't do big rallies, they can't do big events,
Speaker 1: they can't go to college campus as Kamwa Harris was
Speaker 1: supposed to do some big college campus tour that was
Speaker 1: postponed or canceled or whatever, because they're so fearful of
Speaker 1: having to actually face these people who have huge issues
Speaker 1: with their policy visa the Israel face to face. I
Speaker 1: also found this line sober in this report, just incredibly sad,
Speaker 1: and I have to note it here. They say the
Speaker 1: moderator of that discussion with the three presidents is going
Speaker 1: to be late night host Stephen Colbert, whom the campaign
Speaker 1: sees as a low risk friendly choice, the people familiar
Speaker 1: with the planning set.
Speaker 3: How do you agree to do that? Think somebody leaks that.
Speaker 1: Think of how far that man has fallen. Yeah, remember
Speaker 1: the White House correspondent. I mean he handed George W.
Speaker 1: Bush his ass while he was sitting right there over
Speaker 1: the Iraq war. And now you're being hand picked because
Speaker 1: you're a low risk friendly choice.
Speaker 4: That is so sad.
Speaker 1: I cannot, as someone who used to love the Colbert rapport,
Speaker 1: that is like the saddest fall I can possibly imagine.
Speaker 4: So that's where we are.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to highlight one other thing from the polls,
Speaker 1: especially the polling we put up earlier from the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal about Israel. Basically, young people in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Coalition have won the argument in the Democratic Party about Israel.
Speaker 1: They found that there is no longer much of an
Speaker 1: age gap in the Democratic base with regards to how
Speaker 1: they view Israel and their conduct in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: Some forty percent of Democrats under age forty said the
Speaker 1: US was doing too much to help the Israeli people,
Speaker 1: compared with thirty three percent of Democrats age forty and older,
Speaker 1: so a seven point difference. But back in December that
Speaker 1: gap was twenty four points. Maybe even more telling, among
Speaker 1: Democrats age forty and older, seventy one percent said Israel
Speaker 1: had gone too far in responding to Hamas. That is
Speaker 1: identical to the share of Democrats under age forty. So
Speaker 1: you know, originally the Biden view was like, oh, none
Speaker 1: of this is going to matter. People going to get
Speaker 1: over a by election day. Then the view was, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to have to find some suburban women to
Speaker 1: overcome the Arab American opposition in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1: Now that Kpe is like, well, it's just Arab Americans,
Speaker 1: Muslim Americans, and young people, which is kind of large
Speaker 1: part of your base. But it becomes really clear when
Speaker 1: you look at these numbers that the problem is way
Speaker 1: bigger than one demographic group. And that was reflected in
Speaker 1: the uncommitted vote, which yes, was strongest in Arab American
Speaker 1: areas and in college towns, but there was a significant
Speaker 1: uncommitted vote across the entire state of Michigan. So well,
Speaker 1: they've got huge issues on their hands. And that's why,
Speaker 1: you know, to tie it back into what we were
Speaker 1: talking about with regards to the airdrops and Kamala Harris's comments,
Speaker 1: and her meeting with Benny Ganson whatever. That's why they
Speaker 1: are trying so aggressively to change their posture and their
Speaker 1: framing of this issue, even as again they are wholly
Speaker 1: unwilling to actually change the policy, which is clearly the
Speaker 1: thing that needs to happen in order to move any
Speaker 1: of these numbers.
Speaker 2: Very likely and we will see some of those results
Speaker 2: on Super Tuesday. That's a good transition to the next part.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Super Tuesday is tomorrow, what is it? Who is voting?
Speaker 2: So we actually have a very useful map that we
Speaker 2: have right there in front of you. We've got Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia,
Speaker 2: North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Utah, and California.
Speaker 2: And so of course California is the prize possession in
Speaker 2: that primary because they have the most amount of delegates.
Speaker 2: Texas is going to be number two there. This is
Speaker 2: where you know, between Trump and Biden, I think we
Speaker 2: all know who is going to win. So the real
Speaker 2: questions about what's going to happen underneath that is the
Speaker 2: strength of the Nikki Haley vote.
Speaker 3: I did want to give everybody an update.
Speaker 2: Crystal Nikki Haley did make history yesterday here in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. She is the first GOP woman to ever
Speaker 2: win a contest with two thousand votes and sixty percent
Speaker 2: of the DC vote. Her campaign, with all seriousness, said
Speaker 2: that it showed that those who worked.
Speaker 3: Closely with Trump in Washington, d C are the ones
Speaker 3: who rejected it.
Speaker 4: That's hilarious.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's nick is.
Speaker 4: Like two perfect.
Speaker 3: I saw it.
Speaker 2: I saw I saw a lot of Nikky signs on
Speaker 2: my driving to Washington this morning, and I just kept thinking,
Speaker 2: how in all good conscience can you think that this
Speaker 2: is in any way electorally beneficial to you. So the
Speaker 2: one contest which she will likely win in this entire
Speaker 2: thing is Washington, d C. Not her home state, you know,
Speaker 2: traditionally something you want to do when you're a politician.
Speaker 3: So we're going to see what the Nikki in all this.
Speaker 2: I'm really curious actually to watch it in the most
Speaker 2: populous states, places like Texas, places like California, not just
Speaker 2: in terms of the delegates that she's going to get,
Speaker 2: but that's a good test for what the national popular
Speaker 2: vote maybe, you know, whenever it comes to Trump, and
Speaker 2: in places where everybody assumes Trump is going to win
Speaker 2: weather and wise, people would want to cast an anti
Speaker 2: Trump vote within the Republican Party. Let's I'm curious on
Speaker 2: that the second part is uncommitted, which you have flagged here.
Speaker 2: We actually have a very useful map that we can
Speaker 2: put here up on the screen.
Speaker 3: This was how do we pronounce this, gentleman.
Speaker 1: I've been saying at injermentum and go.
Speaker 2: On momentum as we understand that he's an anonymous poster
Speaker 2: on Twitter.
Speaker 3: But he's actually very good.
Speaker 2: He is worth the follow He does very good job
Speaker 2: in terms of compiling polling results and maps and such things.
Speaker 2: This is from his substack. What you can see is
Speaker 2: actually in front of you are the various ways that
Speaker 2: uncommitted works. So in some of the states you can
Speaker 2: vote uncommitted, and some you can vote uncommitted, but are
Speaker 2: all writing votes are counted. Some you cannot vote uncommitted,
Speaker 2: but blank ballots are counted, and some you can't vote uncommitted.
Speaker 2: You have only ride ins, but only right INDs that
Speaker 2: are qualified candidates count. And in some you can't vote
Speaker 2: uncommitted rite ins and are not provided. Some there are
Speaker 2: no primary, and some have already voted, so as you
Speaker 2: can see in front of you. If you are interested,
Speaker 2: you can just take a screenshot or something of this
Speaker 2: and see which state you're actually in. But yeah, I'm
Speaker 2: always reminded of how insane the sometimes the US electoral
Speaker 2: system is and various different states and how they run
Speaker 2: certain things. I remember I was asking you on the phone.
Speaker 2: I was like, Hey, can I vote? I'm not sure
Speaker 2: if I'm registered in a party. You're like, oh, we
Speaker 2: don't do that here, And I'm.
Speaker 4: Like, what, like, what crazy states some of those states?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's good, you know, in prison. I
Speaker 3: don't know, it's just like I do.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of in favor of having some like more
Speaker 1: federal standardization of whatever.
Speaker 4: We'll save that for another day.
Speaker 1: Actually, put that map just back upon the scare. I
Speaker 1: want to flag a couple of states here to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on. Unfortunately, our state of Virginia saga. You
Speaker 1: cannot vote uncommittee, uncommitted. They do have right ins, but
Speaker 1: they only count right ins for quote unquote qualified candidates,
Speaker 1: which is such a bullshit.
Speaker 3: How does that work?
Speaker 10: Right?
Speaker 1: It's not so obnoxious, but you have, among other super
Speaker 1: Tuesday states. You know, a lot of eyes are going
Speaker 1: to be on Minnesota, which has a significant Muslim population
Speaker 1: and where there has been some organizing with regard to uncommitted,
Speaker 1: and you can vote uncommitted in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 4: Of Minnesota.
Speaker 1: The other state, uh that kind of jumped down at
Speaker 1: me is Colorado, which obviously has you know, significant young
Speaker 1: a lot of college towns, activist space. That's another place
Speaker 1: where you can vote uncommitted, So that is noteworthy as well.
Speaker 1: Vermont is another one I would pay attention to, you know,
Speaker 1: being a great hippie state that I love. You cannot
Speaker 1: vote uncommitted, but all write in votes are counted, so
Speaker 1: there may be some sort of a write in effort there.
Speaker 1: I could see something like I never would have expected.
Speaker 1: Also highlighted actually by an injurormentum this morning, which is
Speaker 1: one of the Indivisible chapters in Colorado, is backing the
Speaker 1: uncommitted vote. And if I don't know, if you guys
Speaker 1: know anything about indivisible.
Speaker 3: I don't know what it is.
Speaker 4: It's like the.
Speaker 1: Most like lib Trump era resistance.
Speaker 4: Organization move on to UK sort of like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so for them to be backing uncommitted was
Speaker 1: kind of noteworthy. It's gone very like lib mainstream for
Speaker 1: them to be backing, which I thought was interesting.
Speaker 2: Got it well across the pond. Our friends in the
Speaker 2: UK also had an interesting election. Let's go and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. George Galloway, who some
Speaker 2: of you may know as longtime anti war activist, is
Speaker 2: going to be back in Parliament after basically running a
Speaker 2: campaign for his seat all on Gaza and on protests
Speaker 2: of Rishi Sunak's policy of supporting Israel. So he will
Speaker 2: be taking his common seat for the Workers Party of
Speaker 2: Britain after pulling some twelve three and thirty five votes,
Speaker 2: more than six thousand votes than any other candidate in
Speaker 2: the race, so that's pretty extraordinary. He was previously a
Speaker 2: Labor MP up until two thousand and three as an independent,
Speaker 2: then for kids situations between two thousand and three and
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen. But he really has made a name for
Speaker 2: himself both there and you know even here in various
Speaker 2: US Western programs as being a very consistent force against.
Speaker 3: Iraq war, the US and Britaish involvement.
Speaker 2: And now against Western policy in Israel, so into Ukraine.
Speaker 2: On Ukraine as well, it's an important signal. I mean
Speaker 2: you should remember too. You know, across the pond things
Speaker 2: work very differently. Europeans have always their governments may be
Speaker 2: sporting Israel right now, but their populations have been way
Speaker 2: more israel skeptic. And I'm not just talking about the
Speaker 2: Islamic population in Europe, like the overall Western European population
Speaker 2: has been far more skeptical of the Israeli government, specifically
Speaker 2: on bds and on settlements for decades, longer than any
Speaker 2: even nascent left movement here in the United States. We
Speaker 2: have a fascinating interview with mister Galloway actually on Sky News,
Speaker 2: where he really gave it back to his interviewer.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11: The Prime Minister is saying, God, we're talking about little
Speaker 11: Rishi Sunak in the fag end of his prime ministership.
Speaker 11: Don't talk to me as if he's come down from
Speaker 11: the mount with tablets of stone. The things that he
Speaker 11: says are somehow meant to oh me. They may owe you,
Speaker 11: they don't owe me.
Speaker 12: A lot of people have just watched what the Prime
Speaker 12: Minister said. This is your opportunity to respond to what
Speaker 12: he said. Well, he says that there are forces here
Speaker 12: at home trying to tear us apart. He is implying
Speaker 12: youre a divisive figure.
Speaker 13: You have run an.
Speaker 12: Election campaign that has tried to appeal particularly and not
Speaker 12: entirely to one section of the.
Speaker 11: Community on the election. Me or Rishi, I've got the
Speaker 11: democratic mandate here, not Rischia. He didn't even come second.
Speaker 11: He was lucky to come third. So don't put to
Speaker 11: me statements made by Rushi Suna, because if I'm supposed
Speaker 11: to be impressed by them, you don't impress me much.
Speaker 12: We Itt Skuy has spent some time today on the
Speaker 12: streets of Rochdale and there are people who say that
Speaker 12: they feel intimidated by people like you and the people
Speaker 12: that have supported you. You have and they have pointed
Speaker 12: out that you have concentrated your campaign on foreign affairs
Speaker 12: and they worry that Rochdale will not be the wind Act.
Speaker 11: That's my answer to you. I was just elected with
Speaker 11: a thumping majority by the electorate in Rochdale. That's all
Speaker 11: that matters to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's right, and you know, like I said, he
Speaker 2: won forty of the vote. As he pointed to the
Speaker 2: Conservative Party, only one twelve percent of the vote. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but yeah, he's like I love a good British shitster politician.
Speaker 2: There's just nothing better than So I'm going to enjoy
Speaker 2: seeing him in the House of Sorry, in the House
Speaker 2: of Comments.
Speaker 3: Yeah he will. He will definitely make a name it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Just to give a little bit of background on this election,
Speaker 1: and to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know
Speaker 1: who this person was before this moment of looked at policies,
Speaker 1: will just call them very heterodox. But he ran this.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's significant about this campaign is he really
Speaker 1: did lean into Israel Gaza and also that this seat
Speaker 1: that he's won isn't you know the largest Muslim area
Speaker 1: that you know is that is in this region. So
Speaker 1: they have about thirty percent Muslim population in Rochdale, so significant,
Speaker 1: but it's far from a majority.
Speaker 4: The other thing that.
Speaker 1: Is noteworthy here the labor candidate, and this is an
Speaker 1: area that usually goes for labor. The labor candidate was
Speaker 1: forced to drop out because of some what I would
Speaker 1: say were genuinely anti Semitic comments, and so he was
Speaker 1: forced down and so you had kind.
Speaker 4: Of this like vacuum situation.
Speaker 1: But the reason I thought it was noteworthy is both
Speaker 1: because this guy is obviously quite a character. In that
Speaker 1: interview was hilarious and I love how they're freaking out about,
Speaker 1: you know, the workings of democracy where he got more
Speaker 1: votes than Labor and the two worries combined, by the way,
Speaker 1: But the other thing is, yeah, it is a signal
Speaker 1: of not that these things are all parallel, but it
Speaker 1: is a signal of how much electoral power, how much
Speaker 1: care and concern there is for this issue, and a
Speaker 1: lot of times, you know, some of the politics here
Speaker 1: are reflective of what is going on in the UK.
Speaker 1: So that's part of why I thought it was noteworthy,
Speaker 1: especially going into Super Tuesday with the possibility of more
Speaker 1: uncommitted votes. I think politicians who have underestimated the amount
Speaker 1: of emotion and concern about these policies of unconditional support,
Speaker 1: I think that they have you know, made obviously they've
Speaker 1: made a moral mistake, but in terms of their own
Speaker 1: political prospects, I also think they have made a dire mistake.
Speaker 1: And it's very clear with regards to the poll of
Speaker 1: the Democratic base they do not agree with Joe Biden
Speaker 1: on his unconditional support of Israel, and I don't think
Speaker 1: his little pr aid drop or sending Kamala out to
Speaker 1: say the words cease fire, even as what they're really
Speaker 1: talking about is what they used to be calling a
Speaker 1: quote unquote humanitarian pause.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's going to fix the problem for them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, we'll watch with great interests.
Speaker 2: Oh I should have said this on Counterpoints Wednesday morning.
Speaker 2: We will both be on the show to break down
Speaker 2: Super Tuesday results, especially because California is going to be
Speaker 2: such an impactful part of it, and the polls don't
Speaker 2: close there until most of our viewership here on the
Speaker 2: East Coast, including us, will have want gone to bed,
Speaker 2: So we will break it down for you early Eastern time.
Speaker 2: That way will be breaking for you, right whenever you
Speaker 2: wake up with bright and shiny in the morning with
Speaker 2: those results, we're.
Speaker 4: Early to bed people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, guys, sorry, we will stay a plate within reason.
Speaker 2: Okay, California is not reasonable, by the way, daylight savings
Speaker 2: time is soon, so expector rant coming to you very quickly.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the media park.
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely so.
Speaker 1: I wanted to highlight for you guys a really significant
Speaker 1: monologue from CNN's for reied Zakaria. Part of why this
Speaker 1: is noteworthy Is because remember that previous report had come
Speaker 1: out listing who Joe Biden's favorite like news personalities were.
Speaker 1: One of them was Forreied Zakaria, and he breaks him
Speaker 1: across the coals for his Israel policy.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 10: When Hamas launched its gruesome terror attack on Israel on
Speaker 10: October seventh of last year, President Biden made a decision
Speaker 10: based on conviction and calculation. He announced his complete solidarity
Speaker 10: with the country. Biden must have calculated that the only
Speaker 10: way to have any influence on Israel would be to
Speaker 10: hug it close, show real empathy, sended the arms it needed,
Speaker 10: and thus earn Israel's trust to shape its response. It
Speaker 10: was a thought through strategy, but it has failed almost completely.
Speaker 10: From the start, the administration urged the Israelis to consider
Speaker 10: proportionality in their response to Hamas. Israel heard it and
Speaker 10: went ahead with one of the most extensive bombing campaigns
Speaker 10: in this century against a population of about two point
Speaker 10: two million people that, by Israel's own estimates, contained about
Speaker 10: thirty thousand Hamas. Means, by one January estimate, more than
Speaker 10: half of buildings across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.
Speaker 10: The administration counciled Israel against a large ground invasion of Gaza,
Speaker 10: advising it to take a narrower targeted approach aimed at
Speaker 10: eliminating Hamas, militants, and infrastructure. The Israeli government had lots
Speaker 10: of long meetings with US officials and then again went
Speaker 10: ahead with the ground invasion. The Biden team urged a
Speaker 10: humanitarian pause, but only got a brief one when it
Speaker 10: was able to get the government of Kata to broker
Speaker 10: a hostage exchange. After initial operations wound up. American officials
Speaker 10: told Israeli officials that what was done in the north
Speaker 10: of Gaza could not be done to the south. Yet,
Speaker 10: after telling people to move to the south to get
Speaker 10: out of harm's way, Israel then proceeded to bomb the
Speaker 10: south in a manner that President Biden himself admitted is indiscriminate.
Speaker 10: The US has repeatedly pressured Israel to make greater efforts
Speaker 10: to protect innocent civilians, but to little avail. Now it
Speaker 10: has been counseling against an invasion of Raffa, the city
Speaker 10: nestled close to Egypt, where over a million Palestinians have
Speaker 10: huddled together. Prime Minister Benjamin Natania, who has promised to
Speaker 10: invade Rafa whether another hostage deal is made or not.
Speaker 10: Washington has warned that after the war there should be
Speaker 10: no Israeli seizure of land in Gaza and no new
Speaker 10: Israeli occupation of the territory. The Israeli government's plans are
Speaker 10: to do both. The result is that American policy on
Speaker 10: the Gaza War now appears hapless, ineffective, and immoral.
Speaker 1: So he says that the Biden policy on the Gaza
Speaker 1: War has been hapless, ineffective and immoral. Sager, I don't
Speaker 1: have to tell you how unusual it is to hear
Speaker 1: those sorts of things on CNN, which we're going to cover,
Speaker 1: the level of propaganda on CNN, and the amount of
Speaker 1: internal pushback and upset about the double standards with regard
Speaker 1: to Israel and the Palestinians. But the fact that one
Speaker 1: of Biden's favorite commentators took such an aggressive approach, and
Speaker 1: I think lays out pretty aptly looking back over the
Speaker 1: course of this war, how when we meekly ask for
Speaker 1: something at every turn, Israel has been like, no, screw you.
Speaker 1: He puts it all in context pretty well.
Speaker 2: One of the things I hate about Biden is that
Speaker 2: he doesn't have a coherent worldview. He kind of just
Speaker 2: trusts his instincts, and he's very obstinate regardless of what
Speaker 2: he chooses. Sometimes it works in my benefit, like Afghanistan
Speaker 2: on Ukraine, doesn't necessarily work to our benefit on Israel.
Speaker 3: I think it's the same thing. One of the things.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I disagree vehemently with the worldview of Fared
Speaker 2: Zakaria and of Thomas Friedman, but you have to hand
Speaker 2: it to them.
Speaker 3: They are genuinely.
Speaker 2: Consistent, like in terms of the way that they view
Speaker 2: the world, and so within their framework, which is probably
Speaker 2: most aligned with Biden, I think it is clearly noteworthy
Speaker 2: what they are saying. I couldn't help but think also
Speaker 2: of one of Biden's favorite calmness Thomas Friedman, and actually,
Speaker 2: we have this, we can put it up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. He wrote it just a couple of days ago,
Speaker 2: on February twenty seventh, where he writes Israel is losing
Speaker 2: its greatest asset, which is acceptance, and he writes, quote,
Speaker 2: I do not think Israelis or the Biden administration fully
Speaker 2: appreciate the rage that is bubbling around the world, fueled
Speaker 2: by social media and TV footage over the deaths of
Speaker 2: thousands of Palestinian civilians with US supplied weapons in Israel's
Speaker 2: war on Gaza. Hamas has much to answer for in
Speaker 2: triggering this human tragedy, but Israel and the US are
Speaker 2: seen as driving events now and getting most of the blame.
Speaker 2: That such anger is boiling over in the Arab world
Speaker 2: is obvious, but I heard it over and over again
Speaker 2: in conversations in India from the past week. That is
Speaker 2: even more telling because the Hindu dominated government of Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Modi is the only major power in the global
Speaker 2: support that has even supported Israel and blamed Hamas. That
Speaker 2: many civilian debts in a relatively short war would be
Speaker 2: problematic in any context. The point though, that I think
Speaker 2: of what he is sharing showing within this is that
Speaker 2: it is not just the Arab world, where, to be fair,
Speaker 2: he did write the column from so that probably is
Speaker 2: going to change a little bit of his outlook. More so,
Speaker 2: it's what I think I've brought this up in you
Speaker 2: as well, in the context of a lot of this
Speaker 2: is guys, regardless of whether you support the war or not,
Speaker 2: you know, rhetorically, Israel will not be the same as
Speaker 2: a nation in terms of its sovereign relations with others.
Speaker 2: I think that was a huge mistake because it's a
Speaker 2: tiny little strip of land that relies on global trade
Speaker 2: to keep it afloat. You know, you can't have a
Speaker 2: high tech nation and tell of even startup and all
Speaker 2: that in the desert if you got nobody to sell
Speaker 2: it to, especially when you're in a country with what
Speaker 2: like the population of eleven million. It just doesn't work,
Speaker 2: especially also when you have to import a decent amount
Speaker 2: of labor from the people who now hate you even
Speaker 2: more to run, you know, to clean your toilets or whatever.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is all a very precarious situation that
Speaker 2: they're already sitting on. And the point of his column,
Speaker 2: and I think of Farid as well, is to show
Speaker 2: that the international acceptance where people were like were unhappy
Speaker 2: with Israel, even in the Arab world.
Speaker 3: But we're not idiots.
Speaker 2: We could see the abraham A core as in normalization
Speaker 2: there is going in different directions.
Speaker 3: Very selfish.
Speaker 2: They've changed things completely, right, Things are more like the
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy three consensus today than ever you know since
Speaker 2: that time period, and that's a cute strategic catastrophe. That's
Speaker 2: something that Israel worked decades to try and get away from.
Speaker 2: And I think this has made them a lot less safe,
Speaker 2: and also the US too by aligning ourselves with it,
Speaker 2: we always know how to pick them right and to
Speaker 2: make sure that people are aligned against us in a
Speaker 2: region too, where we were trying our best, at least
Speaker 2: allegedly to get out of because it wasn't all that
Speaker 2: strategically important to us, and which keep just getting pulled
Speaker 2: back in.
Speaker 3: By our over and over again, by our mistakes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I think overall has been an absolute strategic disaster.
Speaker 1: I mean, think about Biden has lost indivisible chapters, unbelievable,
Speaker 1: like the backbone of the lib resistance.
Speaker 4: He's lost.
Speaker 1: For Reed Zakaria, he's lost, Thomas Friedman lost. There was
Speaker 1: I don't know if you watched this interview that Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders did with Alex Wagner, which I mean there were
Speaker 1: some issues there, but this is m thes NBC, you know,
Speaker 1: Primetime NBC and Alex Wagner saying this policy of shipping
Speaker 1: bombs and then dropping this pittle bit of aid is
Speaker 1: in it. You can't reconcile it. It's irreconcilable. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: the fact that you have you know that much like
Speaker 1: across the board, mainstream liberal criticism is really something. And
Speaker 1: I do think that's why they're trying to what do
Speaker 1: they say, put lipstick on a pig. They are trying
Speaker 1: to change the image of their approach to this conflict.
Speaker 1: That's why they're sending out Kamala Harris to talk about
Speaker 1: the immense suffering of Palestinians and to call for this
Speaker 1: immediate cease fire. Of course it'll only be temper and
Speaker 1: then we'll get right back to the killing. But that's
Speaker 1: why they're trying to change the image. And you know,
Speaker 1: for the once again, what really needs to change is
Speaker 1: the actual policy here, although you know it's it's not
Speaker 1: beyond people like Thomas Friedman to get tricked by just
Speaker 1: like the new packaging.
Speaker 4: Put on the policy. So we'll see.
Speaker 1: But you know, to your point about Israel, they are
Speaker 1: plus placing a huge bet and this is basically, you know,
Speaker 1: because both for ideological reasons, but also because he wants
Speaker 1: to keep this war going so he can you know,
Speaker 1: hopefully hang onto power by his fingertips. That's what his
Speaker 1: what his plan is. They're placing a huge bet that
Speaker 1: they can get away with a complete you know, modern
Speaker 1: day ethnic cleansing, colonization, annihilation that we're all watching in
Speaker 1: real time, and that they will be able to get
Speaker 1: away with it. That's what they're betting on. We can
Speaker 1: all see the images. We can see what's happening. We
Speaker 1: can see the massacres, we can see the destruction. We
Speaker 1: can see the babies shriveled up, their bodies, wasted, dying
Speaker 1: literally of starvation. The horrible image of a child who
Speaker 1: has been you know, withered away and is fighting for
Speaker 1: his life right now, that has gone viral. These images
Speaker 1: of horror are everywhere, and they're hoping that with our backing,
Speaker 1: they will be able to get away with it. That's
Speaker 1: the bet we'll see.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's well said Crystal.
Speaker 2: And we have a good guest who's going to be
Speaker 2: joining us down to breakdown some of this media chaos.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: So we have a bunch of media ground to cover,
Speaker 1: both regards with regards to CNN and also New York
Speaker 1: Times with Daniel Bogoslaw who joins us now. He's a
Speaker 1: reporter for the intercept who's been breaking some incredibly important
Speaker 1: stories there.
Speaker 4: Good to see you, Daniel.
Speaker 3: Good to see you, Dan.
Speaker 9: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: So let's start with this story that you just put
Speaker 1: out about CNN.
Speaker 4: You got an internal leak.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen that reveals that Christian
Speaker 1: Ahmanpur actually expressed in an internal meeting, along with a
Speaker 1: number of other staffers, great concern over CNN's coverage of
Speaker 1: the Israel assault on the Gaza strip. She mentioned, you
Speaker 1: know that you've got a sort of hypocrisy. I don't
Speaker 1: think that that was the word that she used, but
Speaker 1: go ahead and breakdown for is what you heard in
Speaker 1: this leaked meeting?
Speaker 3: Sure well.
Speaker 9: I think the largest takeaway from this was the continued
Speaker 9: confirmation of an earlier report I did about the concerns
Speaker 9: raised by the CNN internal protocol for all Israel coverage.
Speaker 9: It's called the Second Eye Alias. It's basically an internal
Speaker 9: system that ensures all news concerning Israel or Palestine is
Speaker 9: run through a team of editors largely comprised of Jerusalem
Speaker 9: Bureaus staff members, and the rational given by CNN is
Speaker 9: to ensure that subject matter experts and people on the
Speaker 9: ground have an opportunity to touch and oversee the reporting
Speaker 9: of an extremely sensitive issue. However, multiple staffers last month
Speaker 9: expressed to me that this protocol caused serious delays and
Speaker 9: getting out Israel coverage, and also ultimately shaped the editorial
Speaker 9: line regarding Israel and Palestine by prioritizing IDF statements at
Speaker 9: the top of pieces and basically just the system.
Speaker 3: While justified by CNN and.
Speaker 9: Executives and editors for you know, ensuring accurate, really resulted
Speaker 9: in a degradation of the Israel coverage, and that was
Speaker 9: confirmed this week when we published a story about an
Speaker 9: internal meeting at CNN where even Christian ammanfor you know,
Speaker 9: the chief International correspondent, similarly expressed concern about a double
Speaker 9: standard that was created through this protocol, and her concern
Speaker 9: was echoed by a number of other staffers who were
Speaker 9: present at this meeting who said that they felt delegitimized
Speaker 9: by CNN's coverage. They felt that it was delegitimizing CNN's
Speaker 9: standing in the region, and according to one staffer, turning
Speaker 9: on CNN was more concerning than the bombs falling around
Speaker 9: them while while they were covering Israel's attack in Linon.
Speaker 2: So, Daniel, you guy also band at the forefront of
Speaker 2: exposing some of what's going on over at the New
Speaker 2: York Times, and there has now been a witch hunt
Speaker 2: that has been started inside the Time, not necessarily to
Speaker 2: question some of the reporting around their October seven rape story,
Speaker 2: but instead to find out who are the people who
Speaker 2: have been leaking to you? So, what do you make
Speaker 2: of a media organization starting a leak investigation, even though
Speaker 2: they themselves subsist on leaks. Whatever, it's something that they
Speaker 2: are makes them look bad given your reporting.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it.
Speaker 9: Confirms a lot of what we heard throughout the course
Speaker 9: of reporting about the internal structural flaws president the New
Speaker 9: York Times. Instead of trying to listen to the reporters
Speaker 9: who they trust to put out accurate news from dangerous
Speaker 9: and challenging places, who are speaking up and saying this
Speaker 9: story did not meet the standards which we all try
Speaker 9: to hold ourselves to as reporters and editors, the Times
Speaker 9: is completely ignoring the people on the ground. They're they're
Speaker 9: ignoring the people who make that newspaper function and provide
Speaker 9: it with with the reporting that it it. You know,
Speaker 9: it is the foundation of the whole thing, and they're saying, no,
Speaker 9: we're going to crack down. And as as a source
Speaker 9: pointed out, you know, people do not leak because they're
Speaker 9: hyper radicalized partisans. You know, that is the picture that
Speaker 9: I think The Times is trying to paint that. You know,
Speaker 9: these are people who are who are stepping out of line,
Speaker 9: who are prioritizing their own personal politics over the good
Speaker 9: of the institution. But as once Wor's pointed out that
Speaker 9: it's actually the opposite is true for almost all leakers,
Speaker 9: be the government officials or New York Times staffers. Leaking
Speaker 9: is a course of last resort when the official channels
Speaker 9: for attempting to reform catastrophic system failures break down. And
Speaker 9: I think that's that's certainly what all of us who
Speaker 9: have been reporting on this have noticed and observed talking
Speaker 9: to people on the inside.
Speaker 1: I just someone are remind people too, what the story
Speaker 1: is that you reported down. And as we reference, this
Speaker 1: has to do with what they billed as this blockbuster
Speaker 1: intensive investigation into sexual assault being used systematically as a
Speaker 1: weapon of war by hamas on October seventh, and there
Speaker 1: were three reporters who were bylined on that piece immediately
Speaker 1: after it was published, it came under a lot of scrutiny. Actually,
Speaker 1: one of the main victims in the story her family.
Speaker 1: She was murdered on October seventh by Hamas her family
Speaker 1: freaked out. They rebutted the reports. They said, you interviewed
Speaker 1: us under false pretenses. We had no idea that this
Speaker 1: was about a rape. We actually do not believe that
Speaker 1: she was raped. We have no evidence that she was raped,
Speaker 1: and actually we have evidence in the other direction that
Speaker 1: she was not raped. Some of the quote unquote eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: that they cited had changed their stories. There were all
Speaker 1: sorts of issues here, and you all received this leak
Speaker 1: that The Daily, their premier podcast, had planned an episode
Speaker 1: around this blockbuster investor negation that they eventually ended up
Speaker 1: shelving because they either had to soften the language and
Speaker 1: raise questions and make it less ambiguous than the report,
Speaker 1: which was very conclusive in asserting what happened, or go
Speaker 1: with the original reporting, which had, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: fallen apart under scrutiny, or shelved it all together, and
Speaker 1: that's what they ultimately decided to do. You all have
Speaker 1: since reported additional information about a not Schworts, who was
Speaker 1: revealed online by C. Squirrel to have effectively no background
Speaker 1: in journalism, but to have served previously in the IDF
Speaker 1: in intelligence unit. Another of the reporters byline on the piece,
Speaker 1: Adam Sella, also had very limited experience. And these were
Speaker 1: the two reporters charged with, you know, the extensive quote unquote,
Speaker 1: on the ground investigation. So there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: tumult around this piece, around how these reporters with no
Speaker 1: experience got to work at the premier elite media institution
Speaker 1: in probably the world, and so sponsor to that for
Speaker 1: The New York Times isn't gosh, what happened here? How
Speaker 1: do we get this report wrong? What are the issues?
Speaker 1: How did these journalists quote unquote journalists really no experience,
Speaker 1: how they get put on this piece? No, the response
Speaker 1: has been to go after the people, to shine the
Speaker 1: light on the problem that as actually unfolding at the Times.
Speaker 4: And there's another shoot to drop here.
Speaker 1: This was also a number of outlets got their hands
Speaker 1: on this letter that came from the Times. Union put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen from the Washington Post. The
Speaker 1: Union is saying, not only are you doing this leak hunt,
Speaker 1: but you are racially targeting you are racially profiling your employees,
Speaker 1: assuming that anyone with you know, who's presumably like Arab,
Speaker 1: American or Muslim, or who has some sort of identity
Speaker 1: that you think may be skeptical of Israel's line, you
Speaker 1: are singling them out and targeting them. Here, talk about
Speaker 1: this piece of it, because I mean, they say directly,
Speaker 1: we demand the time cease what has become a destructive
Speaker 1: and racially targeted which hunt in response to the reports
Speaker 1: that you all have put out.
Speaker 9: Sure, so you know, I think what the union is
Speaker 9: referring to here is the sort of interrogation of members
Speaker 9: of a of a Middle East affinity group within the
Speaker 9: New York Times. And and and you know, the Times
Speaker 9: UH pushed back on on the union statement and and said,
Speaker 9: you know that this is inaccurate. And if you actually
Speaker 9: look at the spread of the people that we've interrogated,
Speaker 9: and you'll see that that we're not We're not UH
Speaker 9: racially profiling our staff.
Speaker 4: We're interrogating everyone. Don't worry.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but but again it's it's it's shocking that you
Speaker 9: know each step of this process, you know, you have
Speaker 9: an opportunity for for UH newsroom leadership to take responsibility
Speaker 9: to reassure the reporters who work extremely hard and put
Speaker 9: their lives at that risk at times to cover this reporting,
Speaker 9: and there's an opportunity to actually welcome real feedback from
Speaker 9: the people who are on the ground doing this, who
Speaker 9: want to see the paper succeed, who work there. For
Speaker 9: many of them, that's the that's the end of the line.
Speaker 9: That's that's the that's the you know, top goal for
Speaker 9: so many reporters to get in there and uh, you
Speaker 9: know that that notion that they are so that that
Speaker 9: they're reporters who have who have invested so much in
Speaker 9: this in this company, would be willing to throw it
Speaker 9: all away, uh for for frivolous uh personal reasons instead
Speaker 9: of for wanting to see the organization succeed. Is proof
Speaker 9: of concept for perhaps why some of these flaws and
Speaker 9: failures have been allowed to fester and exist for so long.
Speaker 1: Daniel Ryan had predicted online that this leak investigation was
Speaker 1: likely to backfire and trigger additional leaks because of people
Speaker 1: being upset by this response. You know, has that prediction
Speaker 1: come to fruition? Are you having more staffers come to you,
Speaker 1: are you hearing more from.
Speaker 9: Your Yeah, I mean I can't speak to Ryan's Rolldex,
Speaker 9: but I know certainly that has been the case for myself.
Speaker 3: Yes, all right, well good we looked well. You there
Speaker 3: to seeing more of it. Appreciate your work.
Speaker 4: Dan, Thanks Daniel, great to see you.
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me. Okay, Chrissel, what are you looking at?
Speaker 1: Chaotic incident? A crush of bodies, food aid related deaths.
Speaker 1: Western media rush to create fog of war confusion after
Speaker 1: a straightforward massacre by Israeli forces left over one hundred
Speaker 1: Palestinians dead and more than seven hundred wounded. Their headlines
Speaker 1: and stories followed a classic playbook. Rather than straightforwardly report
Speaker 1: what we know based on video, audio and visual evidence,
Speaker 1: eyewitness testimony, and reports of doctors who treated the wounded,
Speaker 1: they instead attempted to shroud the whole quote chaotic incident
Speaker 1: in mystery, thereby running cover for the war criminals who
Speaker 1: committed this atrocity, the Israeli government, which set the genocidal
Speaker 1: policy in the United States, which backs them every step
Speaker 1: of the way.
Speaker 4: This in spite of the.
Speaker 1: Fact that, in many instances, if these news outlets simply
Speaker 1: followed their own reports to their logical conclusion, the fact
Speaker 1: that Israeli forces murdered starving Palestinians as they sought food
Speaker 1: becomes undeniable. Here's a report by Al Jazeera, who had
Speaker 1: reporters on the ground that day.
Speaker 14: In the early hours of the morning, thousands of people
Speaker 14: flocked to Al Rashid Road, southwest of Gaza City, desperate
Speaker 14: for aid. Instead, survivors say they walked into a trap.
Speaker 14: By the time the sun rose, the extent of the
Speaker 14: horror was clear. The dead and the dying lying side
Speaker 14: by side, gunned down by Israeli fire.
Speaker 7: The Israeli's just opened random fire on us, as if
Speaker 7: it was a trap. Once we approached the eight trucks,
Speaker 7: the Israeli thanks and warplane started firing on us. If
Speaker 7: this continues like this, we do not want any aid,
Speaker 7: deliver it at all. Every convoy coming means another massacred.
Speaker 1: The IDF, in a series of shifting explanations, attempted to
Speaker 1: undercut the testimony of Palestinians on the ground.
Speaker 13: There's three different explanations we're hearing from the IDF so far.
Speaker 13: Initially was that there was a stampede that caused loads
Speaker 13: of people to die. Then there was a suggestion that
Speaker 13: a truck had actually driven by civilian driver had mowed
Speaker 13: down a loads of the Palestinians. Then there was a
Speaker 13: suggestion that actually that this was potentially a.
Speaker 1: Mass Now, obviously, the fact that a the IDEF has
Speaker 1: been caught lying often and b their story kept changing
Speaker 1: throughout the day should make you highly skeptical, to say
Speaker 1: the least, of their account, but news outlets nevertheless gave
Speaker 1: it great credence. What's more, the one piece of supposed
Speaker 1: evidence that Israel offered for their version of events was
Speaker 1: revealed to be selectively edited, and even that video on
Speaker 1: careful review backed up the clear cut evidence that this
Speaker 1: was not a chaotic incident but another massacre courtesy of
Speaker 1: the IDF. Both in New York Times and BBC Verified
Speaker 1: noted that this video, which the Israelis offered as evidence
Speaker 1: of a stampede, was edited and the Israelis refused to
Speaker 1: provide the original footage. Per the New York Times quote,
Speaker 1: the video, which does not include audio, was edited by
Speaker 1: the Israeli military with multiple clips spliced together, leaving out
Speaker 1: a key moment before many in the crowd began running
Speaker 1: away from the trucks, with some people crawling behind walls,
Speaker 1: appearing to take cover. Gee, Wonder what caused them to flee?
Speaker 1: Wonder why audio of the gunfire, I mean stampede was
Speaker 1: not included. BBC Verified notes that the video shows events
Speaker 1: in two different locations. In a portion of the footage,
Speaker 1: you can actually see Israeli tanks and motionless bodies depicted
Speaker 1: by the red boxes strewn across the ground. Now, this
Speaker 1: video alone is highly suggestive of what actually occurred, but
Speaker 1: we've got quite a bit more evidence. Just to eliminate
Speaker 1: any potential doubt. Alt zero release footage from nearby, which
Speaker 1: was verified by both The Times and BBC. And in
Speaker 1: that video you can hear volleys of gunfire and see
Speaker 1: trace arounds in the sky coming from a nearby Israeli
Speaker 1: military base. Trace rounds, by the way, are used to
Speaker 1: mark tar targets for soldiers to fire on. Here is
Speaker 1: a portion of that video. Now, the Israelis, in one
Speaker 1: of their shifting fabrications, earclaimed their soldiers did fire some
Speaker 1: warning shots, but that the deaths were definitely caused by
Speaker 1: a stampede. Well, there is a pretty easy way to
Speaker 1: know whether or not that's true.
Speaker 4: You can ask the.
Speaker 1: Doctors and hospitals who treated the victims. To find out
Speaker 1: what type of injuries they were actually treating. Sure enough,
Speaker 1: those doctors say the overwhelming majority of their patients were
Speaker 1: being treated for gunshot wounds, not broken bones and other
Speaker 1: injuries consistent with a stampede.
Speaker 4: The head of Alauda.
Speaker 1: Hospital told the Associated Press that eighty percent of the
Speaker 1: injured at his hospital had been struck by gunfire, So
Speaker 1: of the one hundred and seventy six wounded, one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty two had gunshot wounds. The director of Kamal
Speaker 1: Adwan Hospital said one hundred percent of their injured were
Speaker 1: treated for gunshot wounds. He also said that the majority
Speaker 1: of those wounds were to the head, neck, or chest,
Speaker 1: in other words, attempted kill shots.
Speaker 4: Contrary to that IDF claim.
Speaker 1: That soldiers had felt unsafe and so fired non lethal
Speaker 1: shots at Palestinian's legs. And if you don't trust the
Speaker 1: claims of these hospital administrators, the UN has since sent
Speaker 1: a team to investigate and confirmed exactly the same information.
Speaker 1: They found a quote large number of gunshot wounds in
Speaker 1: the wake of what has now been dubbed the Flower massacre.
Speaker 1: Ditto euromat Human Rights Monitor, which had researchers there on
Speaker 1: the ground from the very first moments of this whrror,
Speaker 1: and they confirmed the nature of the wounds, which were
Speaker 1: again overwhelmingly from gunfire, not due to a stampede. Now,
Speaker 1: the nature of the wounds sustained is about as definitive
Speaker 1: a piece of evidence as you could possibly get. One
Speaker 1: side says people died in stampede, the others says gunfire.
Speaker 1: The wounded and dead are riddled with bullets. Case closed.
Speaker 1: But of course that hasn't stopped the media from throwing
Speaker 1: up their hands. How can one possibly know what happened?
Speaker 1: What even are facts in reality?
Speaker 3: Really?
Speaker 1: Alan McLoud has done a great job capturing many of
Speaker 1: the most egregious headlines, although it to be perfectly honest.
Speaker 1: Open up literally any Western outlet and you can easily
Speaker 1: pull your own sample of atrocious headlines. CNN went with
Speaker 1: at least one hundred killed and seven hundred injured in
Speaker 1: chaotic incident where IDF open fire as people waited for
Speaker 1: food in Gaza. Palestinian officials say, Now, this one checks
Speaker 1: a whole lot of manufacturing consent boxes. This is a
Speaker 1: chaotic incident, not a massacre. The IDF quote open fire,
Speaker 1: but that gunfire isn't then connected to the deaths, and
Speaker 1: just for good measure, the whole chaotic incident is qualified
Speaker 1: as only being based on the word of Palestinian officials.
Speaker 1: And you know who can trust those hamas loving barbarians anyway.
Speaker 1: Forbes says more than one hundred Palestinians killed while waiting
Speaker 1: for food. Health Ministry says here Israel isn't even mentioned
Speaker 1: where the Palestinian's food poison, where they hit by a tornado?
Speaker 4: Who knows?
Speaker 1: And again this is all only per the Health Ministry,
Speaker 1: So how can anyone really know if any of this
Speaker 1: even happened. The Guardian, in a similar vein, invented an
Speaker 1: entirely new category.
Speaker 4: Of cause of death.
Speaker 1: Apparently these Gosins were struck down not by bullets, but
Speaker 1: they suffered food aid related deaths. The New York Times
Speaker 1: decided to compose a tortured high coup in an attempt
Speaker 1: to avoid describing any blame to Israel. Here's their headline
Speaker 1: as hungary gosinskroto convoy, a crush of bodies, Israeli gunshots
Speaker 1: and a deadly toll. In a later, even more outrageous posts,
Speaker 1: they seemed to suggest that it was actually Israel's generosity
Speaker 1: which backfired here quote disastrous convoy was part of new
Speaker 1: Israeli effort to hand out more.
Speaker 4: Aid in Gasa.
Speaker 1: Really, I can't begin to explain my absolute contempt for
Speaker 1: all of these schools, because although anyone who wants to
Speaker 1: know the facts about this massacre can easily find them,
Speaker 1: the truth is the press attempts to confuse.
Speaker 4: An off escape. They worked.
Speaker 1: They needed just to to lay enough, just to confuse
Speaker 1: enough for Americans to avoid the totality of the absolute
Speaker 1: horror that we are paying for and running cover for.
Speaker 4: They need just enough.
Speaker 1: Well, it's complicated for people to shrug their shoulders at
Speaker 1: the unfortunate food aid related deaths from the chaotic incident
Speaker 1: and then just move on. And they need to allow
Speaker 1: the Biden administrations paid propagandas to be able to point
Speaker 1: to the conflicting accounts to avoid having to respond to
Speaker 1: this carnage directly, which by the way, is exactly what
Speaker 1: State of State.
Speaker 4: Department spokesman Matthew Miller did.
Speaker 5: So do you think that Israeli is complying with this
Speaker 5: ICJ link?
Speaker 14: And do you believe do you agree that.
Speaker 5: Today's attack near Gaza on starving people waiting for momentary
Speaker 5: assistance violence this ice ages.
Speaker 15: So again, let me just say I don't believe we
Speaker 15: have established the facts of what actually happened today, but
Speaker 15: it is important that those facts be established, which is
Speaker 15: why we have called for an investigation, and we'll look
Speaker 15: forward to the results of that investigation. As I've seen,
Speaker 15: there are conflicting accounts, and we don't know the ground
Speaker 15: truth of what happened.
Speaker 1: Conflicting accounts. We don't know the ground truth of what happened.
Speaker 1: We call for Israel to investigate themselves. Meanwhile, new horrors
Speaker 1: are being inflicted on innocent Palestinians so rapidly we can
Speaker 1: barely even keep track. In fact, more eight Sakers were
Speaker 1: shot by the IDF since the Flower massacre. Yet again,
Speaker 1: a new war crime is being normalized. Now the Biden
Speaker 1: administration wants to assuage their conscience and do a little
Speaker 1: pr move by dropping enough aid to feed one meal
Speaker 1: to one point six percent of the population in Gaza
Speaker 1: a single meal, while supplying the bombs and bullets that
Speaker 1: have enabled this continued slaughter. They can gaslight and obscure
Speaker 1: reality all that they want, but the blood on their
Speaker 1: hands is undeniable, and Sager I saw the IDF.
Speaker 4: Put out the results of their investigator. You'll never guess
Speaker 4: what they do.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4: All right, saga, what are you looking at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Elon Musk has been in the headlines a lot in
Speaker 2: last year so mostly for various political or Twitter based reasons,
Speaker 2: but in recent days he's actually made them in a
Speaker 2: way that doesn't conveniently align with the culture wars and
Speaker 2: instead reminds us of the pre political Elon, who for
Speaker 2: years has been a Cassandra on artificial intelligence and his
Speaker 2: belief that, if not responsibly handled, would be a catastrophe
Speaker 2: for the human race. He made big news this week
Speaker 2: with a major lawsuit against open AI. That's the group
Speaker 2: that he helped co found in twenty fifteen, which goes
Speaker 2: far beyond his most recent split with leader Sam Altman
Speaker 2: and cuts to the heart of debates around AI and
Speaker 2: its recent rapid development. The lawsuit effectively alleges that Altman
Speaker 2: and open AI have breached the original founding of the
Speaker 2: mission but on the organization by becoming a de facto
Speaker 2: arm of the Microsoft Corporation and putting profits ahead of
Speaker 2: the mission originally of open source AI that would be
Speaker 2: beneficial to humanity. So the lawsuit is worth reading in
Speaker 2: its entirety, as Elon particularly takes aim at the most
Speaker 2: recent kerfuffle that involved Altmann Brief Ouster, and it notes
Speaker 2: that the board of open Ai has been cleansed largely
Speaker 2: of those who believe in their original mission of developing
Speaker 2: AI for the benefit of humanity. After the purge of
Speaker 2: the board and the subsequent reinstatement of Altman, Elon alleges
Speaker 2: that OpenAI has both already achieved artificial general intelligence and
Speaker 2: has decided to sell the benefits of that to Microsoft,
Speaker 2: the most valuable technology company in the world. He writes
Speaker 2: in his lawsuit, quote, mister Altman has handpookeed a new
Speaker 2: board that lacks technical expertise or any substantial background in
Speaker 2: AI governance with the previous board had by design, adding
Speaker 2: new board consists of members with more experience in profit
Speaker 2: enterprises or politics rather than in AI ethics and in governance.
Speaker 2: They were also reportedly quote big fans of Altman. As
Speaker 2: he says in the lawsuit, it doesn't take a genius
Speaker 2: to see that Elon is right, since the new board
Speaker 2: members literally includes the sellout neoliberal economist Larry Summers. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: Elon points out, quote, with this restructuring, OpenAI, Inc. Has
Speaker 2: abandoned its nonprofit mission of developing AGI for the benefit
Speaker 2: of umanity, broadly, thereby keeping it out of the hands
Speaker 2: a large for profit corporation in which vast power will
Speaker 2: be unduly concentrated. Much of the lawsuit relies on a
Speaker 2: technicality that's going to play out in court. Effectively, it
Speaker 2: boils down to whether you think open Ai has effectively
Speaker 2: achieved so called artificial general intelligence or not. AGI is
Speaker 2: the catchall term of an AI that is capable of
Speaker 2: thinking for itself and for surpassing purely human control. Per
Speaker 2: Elon's telling, open AI's current licensing deal with Microsoft is
Speaker 2: a sham that relies on a definition where OpenAI and
Speaker 2: Microsoft have an exclusive agreement on quote PREAGI technology. This
Speaker 2: so called PREAGI tech that Microsoft isn't incorporating into its
Speaker 2: vast office empire has boosted the valuation of OpenAI to
Speaker 2: some eighty one hundred billion dollars and has been tremendously
Speaker 2: impactful to the Microsoft Corporation stock. A paradox that Elon's
Speaker 2: lawsuit points out is that OpenAI has a direct financial
Speaker 2: incentive to say that it has not achieved so called AGI,
Speaker 2: because if it has, it would then instruct the board
Speaker 2: and the company to decide whether to then exit its
Speaker 2: Microsoft license and instead then ensure the technology is used
Speaker 2: for the benefit of humanity. This points out the fundamental
Speaker 2: disconnect with an open ai itself. It is a structure
Speaker 2: as both a nonprofit and a for profit enterprise, where
Speaker 2: people are getting on the for profit side stupendously rich.
Speaker 2: So put it in simpler terms, have you ever known
Speaker 2: a group of people, no matter how well meaning, who
Speaker 2: would simply turn off one of the biggest money spigots
Speaker 2: in the world for some far off philosophical principles. The
Speaker 2: reason that the lawsuit, in my opinion, is imperative is
Speaker 2: it actually would instruct a jury if it proceeds that far,
Speaker 2: to rule on what exactly AGI is taking the definition
Speaker 2: out of the hands of the creators and beneficiaries of
Speaker 2: the tech and instead establishing a new standard. The standard
Speaker 2: may sound facetious, but hundreds of billions of dollars.
Speaker 3: Here are on the line. More importantly, it actually puts
Speaker 3: the debate into the public realm, where it belongs.
Speaker 2: The biggest problem with AI research right now is that
Speaker 2: the immense cost of R and D has monopolized much
Speaker 2: of the development in the hands of the existing big
Speaker 2: tech players, each with their own incentive to use AI
Speaker 2: for their own profitable aim and not to worry about
Speaker 2: any of the social problems. Open AI, in its founding
Speaker 2: in twenty fifteen, was set up explicity to avoid this trap,
Speaker 2: to pursue nonprofit research and to bolster an open source
Speaker 2: environment which technology startups could then build themselves on top of. Basically,
Speaker 2: it would concentrate the R and D costs within open AI,
Speaker 2: but then allow potentially millions of businesses to piggyback off
Speaker 2: of them and to level the playing field against Microsoft,
Speaker 2: Google and others. There Since, transformation basically into a for
Speaker 2: profit company has destroyed much of that vision and has
Speaker 2: set back any dream of an original open source environment.
Speaker 2: Open sources I have laid out in a previous monologue
Speaker 2: on the subject is, in my opinion, the only way
Speaker 2: to really solve many of these problems that we have
Speaker 2: before us on AI ideological capture of big tech companies,
Speaker 2: ruthless pursuit of profit over any responsible ability, monopolization, complete
Speaker 2: lack of transparency. But most important of all is the
Speaker 2: public say and what is already acknowledged.
Speaker 3: As a world changing technology.
Speaker 2: This lawsuit is the first fight in what I hope
Speaker 2: is a general public awareness of this issue that we
Speaker 2: have very little time to actually get ahead of, because
Speaker 2: if we don't, then the lawsuit and even the discussion
Speaker 2: around this is moot. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook. They will
Speaker 2: just be bigger and stronger than they ever were before.
Speaker 2: They'll buy their way out of any more scrutiny, leaving
Speaker 2: us simply to bow to our existing and new overlords.
Speaker 2: So it's a really interesting lawsuit, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if you want to hear my reaction to
Speaker 1: Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Okay, guys, thank you so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate it, and we will see you all tomorrow.