Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do many interesting topics to get to you
Speaker 1: this morning. So we did have some primaries this week
Speaker 1: and some kind of interesting results that we want to
Speaker 1: go through. Both in terms of the presidential level. Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley stilly still pulling a fair number of votes even
Speaker 1: though she's not in the race anymore. We got some
Speaker 1: interesting polls for Biden. We've got some interesting candidates that
Speaker 1: are moving on to the general elections. We'll break all
Speaker 1: of that down for you. We also have some innovative
Speaker 1: ideas being floated over on Fox News about how Trump
Speaker 1: may be able to foot that big five hundred million
Speaker 1: dollar bill that he Owes, so you definitely want to
Speaker 1: stay tuned for that. The United States is slipping big
Speaker 1: time in terms of the world happiness rankings, and it
Speaker 1: is apparently mostly attributable to young people who are not
Speaker 1: too happy about the direction of the country, their lives,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So we'll look into what may be going
Speaker 1: on there. Some big Joe Biden impeachment hearings yesterday illustrating
Speaker 1: the absolutely farcical nature of our politics all the way around,
Speaker 1: so we'll show you some of the low lights from there.
Speaker 1: It was bade one of the most embarrassing moments I've
Speaker 1: ever seen in politics, to be honest with you, Well,
Speaker 1: you definitely want to hang in there for that one.
Speaker 1: We also have the US with regards to Israel, reportedly
Speaker 1: torn the Biden administration over whether to continue selling weapons
Speaker 1: to Israel as it is increasingly undeniable that they're being
Speaker 1: used in illegal ways and increasingly undeniable that they are
Speaker 1: blocking humanitarian assistance. So we'll take a look at that
Speaker 1: debate that is playing out. Also, we've got bb floating
Speaker 1: using that temporary port where building for ethnic cleansing, so
Speaker 1: that's really great. Playwright Tony Kushner also speaking out backing
Speaker 1: Jonathan Glazer and also calling out Israel's all out AsSalt
Speaker 1: on gods and very noteworthy comments there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's going to be interesting.
Speaker 2: Before we get to any of that, we want to
Speaker 2: thank everybody who's been signing up as we keep on teasing,
Speaker 2: and I do promise it's coming very soon. We have
Speaker 2: a big upgrade coming in our premium service where we
Speaker 2: really think everybody is going to enjoy it. You're going
Speaker 2: to want to get in now before we launch everything,
Speaker 2: so you get a fullsome first picture into what we're doing,
Speaker 2: and we're going to upgrade everything. We're going to make
Speaker 2: it a lot better and a lot easier. So go
Speaker 2: ahead and sign up Breakingpoints dot com. In the meantime,
Speaker 2: by the way, the emails issue, I believe it's mostly solved.
Speaker 2: We are working on it and we will remain and
Speaker 2: keep you guys updated.
Speaker 3: So thank you to everybody.
Speaker 2: We're always thinking about you and about delivering the show.
Speaker 2: So let's go ahead and start, as Chrystal said, with
Speaker 2: the primary, we have some interesting results out of two
Speaker 2: very important states for the general election.
Speaker 3: Let's put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: First from Ohio, I guess a red state, but not
Speaker 2: that long ago it was a blue state, also considered
Speaker 2: Trump Country. Kind of the Trumpification of America really embodied
Speaker 2: in the flip of Ohio from blue to red under
Speaker 2: his leadership. And though, what do we see, well, a
Speaker 2: little bit of a warning sign and some of their
Speaker 2: primary results. So, while Trump did win eight hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty nine thousand votes and racked up almost seventy nine
Speaker 2: percent of the vote taking all of the delegates, Nikki
Speaker 2: Haley still somehow was able to get some fourteen percent
Speaker 2: of the vote, racking up some sixteen So what you
Speaker 2: can see is that between Hailey, DeSantis, Christy and Ramaswami,
Speaker 2: you know, you had some about twenty percent or so
Speaker 2: people who voted in the GOP primary who decided not
Speaker 2: to vote for Donald Trump. A friend of ours Ryan
Speaker 2: Gerdusky flags that this is roughly the same percentage that
Speaker 2: Trump was pulling in two thousand and sixteen, after all
Speaker 2: of the other candidates had dropped out in the primaries.
Speaker 2: The noteworthy thing, though, is that he's already been president,
Speaker 2: as opposed to the fact that he was a unknown
Speaker 2: entity last time around. The same results actually in the
Speaker 2: state of Florida.
Speaker 3: If we can go ahead and put that up there.
Speaker 2: What do we see, Well, Donald Trump again roughly same percentage,
Speaker 2: eighty one percent of the vote, but Nicki Haley fourteen,
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis three percent, and if you look overall, you
Speaker 2: have about nineteen percent or so of people who decided
Speaker 2: to still come out and to vote against Trump. Some
Speaker 2: of the cope I've seen on this crystal is that
Speaker 2: because of mailing votes, some of these people may have
Speaker 2: sent in their ballots before Nicki Haley had dropped out
Speaker 2: of the race. That seems plausible, too reasonable to me.
Speaker 2: That said a twenty percent, that a twenty percent margin,
Speaker 2: you're still winning overwhelmingly. It just gets to that question,
Speaker 2: are these people going to come out? Are they going
Speaker 2: to vote for Trump? In twenty twenty four now twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen around this was a big question. A lot of
Speaker 2: those people did end up voting for Trump or they
Speaker 2: simply became Democrats, and then Trump was able to bring
Speaker 2: more white collar, white working class voters to come out
Speaker 2: who'd never voted before to solidify his election this time around.
Speaker 2: I do feel though, as if some of the Democratic
Speaker 2: purge of a lot of these white college educated voters
Speaker 2: already happened So these are people who are still in
Speaker 2: the Republican Party, and it's a big question as to
Speaker 2: whether he can keep that coalition together and still bring
Speaker 2: out some of those non traditional voters that would put
Speaker 2: him across the finish line in November.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think it's a warning sign in
Speaker 1: the same way that the sizeable uncommitted vote is a
Speaker 1: warning sign for Joe Biden. Like to the extent that
Speaker 1: these people hadn't shipped in mail in ballots early back
Speaker 1: when there was still an ongoing primary fight, while Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley was still in the race. The fact that you
Speaker 1: have people who turned up, like went through the trouble
Speaker 1: to show up on election day and vote for someone
Speaker 1: other than the guy who is already the presumptive nominee,
Speaker 1: you have to see that as a form of protest. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: the question remains, how many of these people are really
Speaker 1: even Republicans at this point. How many of these people
Speaker 1: have already basically shifted to the Democrats in a realignment
Speaker 1: that has been ongoing since twenty sixteen. I think that's
Speaker 1: a really open question. I saw some exit polls that
Speaker 1: suggested that about half of the Nikki Haley voters in
Speaker 1: these primaries said they're going to vote for Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Now those people who voted for Joe Biden last time around,
Speaker 1: or they'd be able to voted for Donald Trump last
Speaker 1: time around. It's very difficult to say, but I do
Speaker 1: think that it is a bit of a warning sign
Speaker 1: and something to pay attention to. Apparently it's not only
Speaker 1: Nicky Haley voters, though, who aren't so sure about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign. Is Own Life giving a very interesting response
Speaker 1: that was kind of amusing on the campaign trail when
Speaker 1: she was asked whether or not she was going to
Speaker 1: be campaigning for Trump her husband this time around. The
Speaker 1: stigg list to a is this Trump?
Speaker 4: Are you going to return to your campaign trail with
Speaker 4: your husband?
Speaker 1: Stay tuned, Stay tuned. I'm gonna start using that, to
Speaker 1: be honestly, someone asked me something that I don't really
Speaker 1: want to commit.
Speaker 2: That was her classic when we covered the White House
Speaker 2: that she was the most impenetrable lady. We couldn't get
Speaker 2: anything out of her really. Well, yeah, even at the
Speaker 2: infamous be Best event, which I honestly I will never
Speaker 2: forget that being in the Rose Garden to watch that kickoff.
Speaker 2: And I think especially because It had come right after
Speaker 2: Trump had tweeted something about like Mika Brazinski's facelift God,
Speaker 2: and so everyone.
Speaker 3: In the White House Press Corps was like.
Speaker 2: Missus Trump, like, how do you square you know your
Speaker 2: anti bullying care with your husband something like that.
Speaker 3: She was so furious.
Speaker 2: I'll never forget it. It was one of the craziest
Speaker 2: moments that I was present for. But anyway, what can
Speaker 2: we learn from that? In terms of Missus Trump Milania, Well,
Speaker 2: she does not seem very enthused about getting back on
Speaker 2: the campaign trail. Reportedly, she did not necessarily want her
Speaker 2: husband to run again. I mean, look, I was there.
Speaker 2: She hated being first Lady. I honestly I felt bad
Speaker 2: for her. She never signed up for this. This is
Speaker 2: not like many politicis' wives. You know, they're with them
Speaker 2: for years. To a certain extent, they know what they're
Speaker 2: getting into. She married him when he was a billionaire playboy.
Speaker 2: You know, she was there for the New York, Miami
Speaker 2: Palm beach lifestyle. She's like, I never signed up for
Speaker 2: all this secret service and all this. She's like, I
Speaker 2: don't want to do the White House Christmas trees or
Speaker 2: any of the other traditional first lady, you know, things
Speaker 2: that she was required to do when she was there.
Speaker 2: So in a certain way I felt bad for from
Speaker 2: when we covered her at she did everything in her
Speaker 2: power not to be at the White House. She didn't
Speaker 2: want to move to Washington. She barely wanted to bring
Speaker 2: Baron you know, here. She wanted to stay in a
Speaker 2: private school. By all accounts, she wanted to stay in
Speaker 2: New York or she went to Florida as much as
Speaker 2: she possibly could. So she is not looking forward to
Speaker 2: being back in the White House if she does need
Speaker 2: to be. And I'm not talking about politics, I'm saying
Speaker 2: purely on a person le she hated it.
Speaker 3: She truly hated me.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if she would this time around.
Speaker 3: Even she may not. She may just stay in Florida.
Speaker 1: I mean, especially like the first time around, you kind
Speaker 1: of got to keep up appearances because you've got to.
Speaker 1: You know, he's got a run for re election again,
Speaker 1: et cetera. This time, you don't know, and baronish eighteen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so he doesn't have to go to school, so
Speaker 1: she could just Saron's graduated high school. It's an adult now.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I would not be surprised if she stays
Speaker 1: in Florida, and if we don't see a whole lot
Speaker 1: of her on the campaign trail, because she doesn't seem
Speaker 1: particularly enthusiastic about it, I can't really blame her on
Speaker 1: that one.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part though, about Biden and
Speaker 2: about the general election. So there were some interesting signs,
Speaker 2: and we always want to give the counter cases here
Speaker 2: because by all accounts, you know, I would say things
Speaker 2: look as if they're going well for Trump, but there
Speaker 2: have been some interesting movements in polls lately that we
Speaker 2: would be remiss not to flag. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there please, on the screen. So this is a January
Speaker 2: to February shift towards March. So in multiple different polling organizations,
Speaker 2: Emerson had Trump plus one in January February.
Speaker 3: Now it says Trump plus two.
Speaker 2: Keep in mind this is registered voters, not likely voters,
Speaker 2: where there is some interesting analysis about whether that's even correct.
Speaker 2: Then you have others here Trump plus two to Biden
Speaker 2: plus two ipsos. You had Biden and Trump tied, now
Speaker 2: it's Biden plus two. You had KFF Kaiser Family Foundation,
Speaker 2: Trump plus four, now Biden plus three. Civics, you had
Speaker 2: them tied Biden plus one, and then Florida Atlantic University
Speaker 2: it was Trump plus four, now Biden plus two. That
Speaker 2: last one. Let's keep in mind that's actually likely voters.
Speaker 2: So that's actually probably the most noteworthy. Now what does
Speaker 2: this mean. I mean, it could mean anything. Trump is
Speaker 2: still overwhelmingly leading Biden in the RCP polling average, and
Speaker 2: I mean that in terms of the average of the
Speaker 2: last months or so of the polls. These are some
Speaker 2: more recent and interesting ones. But Chrystal, we have to
Speaker 2: always remember that per our most recent elections, the polls
Speaker 2: dramatically underestimated Democratic support. So we have to think that
Speaker 2: even in these Trump numbers, and perhaps even in some
Speaker 2: of this movement, that there isn't you know, a non
Speaker 2: baked in factor of a lot of white collar or sorry,
Speaker 2: a lot of white collar democratic college educated voters who
Speaker 2: just come out and vote in numbers that we had
Speaker 2: not seen previously, that clearly polls were not able to
Speaker 2: catch up with in the same way that they underpolled
Speaker 2: these white working class voters from twenty sixteen and in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you dig into the polling data for
Speaker 1: what it's worth, there are some really interesting numbers about
Speaker 1: registered voters versus likely voters, non voter, people who haven't
Speaker 1: voted before, but who are saying I am going to
Speaker 1: vote this time around favor Trump by like twenty three points, right,
Speaker 1: So there's a huge question mark. First of all, is
Speaker 1: it accurate, because that's always worth that people say levels
Speaker 1: given the misses that we've seen.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Second of all, Okay, these are people that haven't voted,
Speaker 1: but are they actually going to vote this time around?
Speaker 1: Because when you look at the universe of people who
Speaker 1: have voted before, that universe tends to favor Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And that's what you're sort of referencing, is these this
Speaker 1: group of voters, these like college educated, mostly white voters,
Speaker 1: they are like the most reliable, especially older, They're the
Speaker 1: most reliable voters. Like clockwork. They show up every single election.
Speaker 1: You can really count on them, and they have overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: shifted into the Democratic parties camp, giving them an edge,
Speaker 1: especially in things like the special elections that we've been tracking,
Speaker 1: especially in like the midterms. Now, a presidential election cycle
Speaker 1: is very different because obviously you're going to have your
Speaker 1: highest level of turnout there, So who actually shows up?
Speaker 1: What is the real universe of voters that we're going
Speaker 1: to be looking at on election day that polsters need
Speaker 1: to be tracking and you know, seeing what direction they're
Speaker 1: going in. So that's one piece. The reason why I
Speaker 1: wanted to highlight some of these numbers is because you know,
Speaker 1: you have to take any one poll with a grain
Speaker 1: of salt. This is not so much to look at
Speaker 1: the absolute overall, you know, towards Biden, but what is
Speaker 1: the movement over the past month. And if you see
Speaker 1: a variety of polls that show some positive movement towards Biden,
Speaker 1: then you have to ask what's going on there, because
Speaker 1: it's unlikely that all of the polls have the same
Speaker 1: error in the direction of Biden over that time period.
Speaker 1: There's a few potential explanations. One is that you know,
Speaker 1: we've had more Trump legal news and it's reminding people
Speaker 1: of you know, all of the chaos, the things that
Speaker 1: they really don't like about Donald Trump. That's one possibility.
Speaker 1: Another possibility is some of the improvement that we've seen
Speaker 1: in things like consumer sentiment that takes some time to
Speaker 1: filter through to the politics, is actually starting to filter
Speaker 1: through people While or nobody here is saying the economy
Speaker 1: is amazing I want to say that the sense that
Speaker 1: there's some improvement may be starting to show up and
Speaker 1: reflect in Biden poll numbers. That's kind of the most
Speaker 1: hopeful outcome for him and his team, and I think
Speaker 1: it's plausible, certainly possible. The other possibility is that he
Speaker 1: did do himself at least some temporary favors with a
Speaker 1: not disaster stress state of the Union appearance, and that
Speaker 1: is helping to shift things in his direction. But you know,
Speaker 1: all of those things. It could be a combination of
Speaker 1: those things. It could be a one off fluke, it
Speaker 1: could be we're looking at a very different situation when
Speaker 1: all posters move to likely voter models. There's a million
Speaker 1: question marks around this, but I did think it was
Speaker 1: enough of a trend to take note that at least
Speaker 1: over the past couple of months, there has been a
Speaker 1: little bit of movement towards Joe Bide that his team
Speaker 1: has to be like, you know, really cheering for and
Speaker 1: holding on to for all it's worth. At this point,
Speaker 1: let's go to the next one.
Speaker 2: This is also about the candidates, because this is going
Speaker 2: to be a big question actually in some of these candidates.
Speaker 2: You see the big tests of what the major issues
Speaker 2: will be so the AP police about Bernie Moreno. As
Speaker 2: we can see, Bernie Moreno was the Ohio victor of
Speaker 2: the GOP primary. He will go on to face Shared
Speaker 2: Brown in the general election. Now, Shared Brown has long
Speaker 2: been kind of a what canary. I guess he's been
Speaker 2: very different than a lot of the other National Democratic parties,
Speaker 2: very pro union, a lot of people who do vote
Speaker 2: Trump always traditionally at higher approval rating in the state.
Speaker 2: What I think is going to be the big question
Speaker 2: mark about Moreno, who Trump backed as opposed to another
Speaker 2: candidate was endorsed by Ohio Governor Mike Dwine.
Speaker 3: It's about abortion.
Speaker 2: Because I was going back and I was looking so
Speaker 2: Bernie Moreno was still not exactly clear where he stands
Speaker 2: on abortion. He's made comments in the past it seemed
Speaker 2: to be he would be okay with a national abortion band.
Speaker 2: I think he's going to have to clarify that language
Speaker 2: with no exceptions exactly. Most importantly in terms of Ohio politics,
Speaker 2: remember Crystal, they had that referendum that came forward.
Speaker 3: That was one where both Moreno and.
Speaker 2: The Ohio Republican Party were on the wrong side of
Speaker 2: that winning issue. So we can see that shared Brown
Speaker 2: is going to lean heavily into abortion messaging. And I
Speaker 2: think that Brown himself is already a very strong candidate.
Speaker 2: This is a man who has you know, stood astride.
Speaker 2: Like a lot of national trends, he has been very
Speaker 2: pro union, very pro tariffs, for example on Chinese goods,
Speaker 2: pro worker in a much more traditional sense of the past.
Speaker 2: And he was able to set himself apart from the
Speaker 2: National Democratic Party even on with Biden. You know, he's
Speaker 2: clashed with him a couple of times on several of
Speaker 2: these issues, kind of going aside on the issue of neoliberals.
Speaker 2: So he kind of has that going for I mean,
Speaker 2: he has a good image I think within the state
Speaker 2: as I understand it. So then if you add on
Speaker 2: all of these voters who came out on abortion, I
Speaker 2: do think that this could be a real test for him,
Speaker 2: because we can't forget that while Ohio went Trump by
Speaker 2: some eight points in twenty twenty four, actually increased his
Speaker 2: vote margin there is that they still did come out
Speaker 2: for the pro host pro choice side in that latest
Speaker 2: referendum that happened to the state.
Speaker 1: You know, I need to go back and look at
Speaker 1: where Bernie Marino was and what he had to say
Speaker 1: about that referendum, because that could end up being significant
Speaker 1: into the context of this race. As you're bringing it up,
Speaker 1: you know, I just pulled up the polls that have
Speaker 1: Brown versus Marino head to head. They favor Brown at
Speaker 1: this point plus four plus six, plus five plus two. Now,
Speaker 1: these are not overwhelming margins, and none of these polls
Speaker 1: is Shared Brown over fifty percent, which has to be
Speaker 1: a concern if you're a Democrat in a state that
Speaker 1: has increasingly trended towards the right. So I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any doubt Shared Brown has the fight of his
Speaker 1: life on his hands. Now, Democrats think they got the
Speaker 1: candidate they wanted in Bernie Moreno. In fact, Schumer's pack
Speaker 1: spent I believe millions of dollars.
Speaker 3: Yes, they did.
Speaker 1: Backing Bernie Moreno, running these ads that are like, oh,
Speaker 1: he's too conservative for a he he's too close to Trump,
Speaker 1: knowing that that could actually boost him in the context
Speaker 1: of a Republican primary. So they very much thought that
Speaker 1: he is the most beatable candidate. Is that the case,
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't know. I mean, the comments on abortion
Speaker 1: are probably the biggest issue for him. There's also this
Speaker 1: questionable report that came out just before the primary, like
Speaker 1: literally the day before the primary. The ape you reported
Speaker 1: that in two thousand and eight, someone with access to
Speaker 1: his work email account created a profile on an adult
Speaker 1: website seeking men for one on one sex. The ap,
Speaker 1: though couldn't definitively confirm, is created by him himself. His
Speaker 1: lawyer set a former intern had created the account as
Speaker 1: a juvenile prank. So there's whatever that is going on.
Speaker 1: But I agree with you, Zack. I think the bigger
Speaker 1: issue is his abortion comments and other somewhat extreme comments
Speaker 1: that he made in the context of trying to win
Speaker 1: a Republican primary. He's also not a politician, so we've
Speaker 1: seen the way that you know, he's he's sort of
Speaker 1: untested in that way. It's also possible Democrats have some
Speaker 1: additional dirt on him that we haven't learned about yet,
Speaker 1: and that's why they were so eager to push him
Speaker 1: forward as the candidate. But in other ways, I do
Speaker 1: think he's kind of dangerous for them. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is cut from a similar cloth as Trump in terms
Speaker 1: of being this like, you know, not that Trump really
Speaker 1: was self made, but self made businessman image he does
Speaker 1: have this sort of populist positioning that, especially in a
Speaker 1: state like Ohio, could work out well. So in any case,
Speaker 1: Democrats placed a big bet. Two point seven million dollars
Speaker 1: I just saw was the amount that they spent to
Speaker 1: elevate this guy. They got the candidate they wanted, Let's
Speaker 1: see how it works out for them.
Speaker 2: It was funny for me to watch because this is
Speaker 2: a time when you have Jay Vance and Trump on
Speaker 2: the same side as Chuck Schumer, both kind of thinking
Speaker 2: that they are he is the most selectable candidate. I
Speaker 2: do agree with you if I were them, you're playing
Speaker 2: with fire here. I mean, you don't know. Look, last time,
Speaker 2: I think they are all riding high. And this is
Speaker 2: the problem with politics. Everything is recency biased. They are
Speaker 2: all riding high off of backing the Doug Mastrianos of
Speaker 2: the world and others from twenty twenty two. Now, don't
Speaker 2: get me wrong, it definitely worked out like that. They
Speaker 2: were right and I was wrong. I didn't think that
Speaker 2: was a very proven strategy. But you know, it's always
Speaker 2: a roll of the dice whenever it comes to people
Speaker 2: who are actually voting. So what if it ends up
Speaker 2: You know another thing, I was thinking about, is about
Speaker 2: the Senate Republican majority.
Speaker 3: Something that's come out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: Christle is Larry Hogan in Maryland who's running for Senate
Speaker 2: and he's actually leading in all the polls. That's a
Speaker 2: plus one in the GOP category. So let's say that
Speaker 2: Bernie Moreno here wins and takes out a Democrat, and
Speaker 2: then let's look around the map and listen Kerry Lake.
Speaker 2: She may have lost once, she could win again.
Speaker 3: We don't know.
Speaker 2: She could beat what's the same, Reuben Diego. It could
Speaker 2: come down to our percentage point. That's another Democratic seat,
Speaker 2: you know, or I guess independent, whatever cinema is today
Speaker 2: that goes in the Republican category. Now we're talking about
Speaker 2: fifty three, maybe fifty four, fifty five seats for the
Speaker 2: Republicans that are in the Senate. That is a very
Speaker 2: very very different governing coalition than any time that we
Speaker 2: saw under Trump in his first term around. So these
Speaker 2: are all things where they should be very careful and considered.
Speaker 2: That said, because there's not a lot of daylight between
Speaker 2: a lot of the Ohio Republicans on abortion, I do
Speaker 2: think that any of them were going to get hit
Speaker 2: with this no matter what, and it'll be a great
Speaker 2: test actually for that abortion standard of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: And in some of the referendums Issue one, I did
Speaker 2: look it up. He was on the side of Issue one.
Speaker 2: He came out pretty forcefully for the pro life side
Speaker 2: there and obviously they lost pretty big at the ballot box.
Speaker 2: Whether that's going to carry over into the general like
Speaker 2: we always say, who the hell.
Speaker 1: Knows problems for him? I think I'm also I mean,
Speaker 1: Sharon Brown is not a usually strong politician. He's probably
Speaker 1: one of the only Democrats that could credibly win the
Speaker 1: state at this point. That being sent again, it's different
Speaker 1: at a state level versus a federal level, and so
Speaker 1: is the fact his you know, the way people feel
Speaker 1: about him locally. Is that enough to overcome what has
Speaker 1: become a completely toxic Democratic brand in the state of Ohio.
Speaker 1: I will also say that, you know, some of the
Speaker 1: Biden things that did get past, like the Chips Bill,
Speaker 1: the infrastructure bill, some of the push towards evs and
Speaker 1: you know, increase opening new manufacturing facilities. With regards to that,
Speaker 1: Ohio has been one of the states that has disproportionately
Speaker 1: benefited shared Brown is really running a campaign to tie
Speaker 1: himself to that increase in jobs in the state. And also,
Speaker 1: I mean he's always been extremely pro labor, even when
Speaker 1: that was like not cool, he really stood by unions.
Speaker 1: That's very popular in the state of Ohio. It is
Speaker 1: very I used to live there. It is a very
Speaker 1: populous state and kind a little bit different than the
Speaker 1: more country club Republican brand that may dominate in other places.
Speaker 1: So we'll see. I think chery Brown is planning to
Speaker 1: run his campaign basically on abortion rights and jobs and
Speaker 1: commitment to working people. That is a combination that has
Speaker 1: certainly worked well for him in the past. As I said,
Speaker 1: Democrats think that they got the right candidate that they
Speaker 1: have the best shot of beating, and.
Speaker 2: We will see what happens on a line that is
Speaker 2: hands down the best campaign he could run. I think
Speaker 2: he's the only guy who could possibly win, But as
Speaker 2: you said, it is still going to be a very,
Speaker 2: very tough election on the issue of candidates as well.
Speaker 2: Let's go to this next one, Mark Robinson. We talked
Speaker 2: about him previously. There was a question about whether he'd
Speaker 2: quoted what was it Hitler or not. I will defend him.
Speaker 2: Having read the full context, of the quote. I do
Speaker 2: believe that he was neared by the media that said
Speaker 2: mister Robinson, I would in general epstein from quoting mister Hitler.
Speaker 2: That's just a general per piece of advice. As they
Speaker 2: right here. Mark Robinson has quote has a long history
Speaker 2: of inflammatory statements. He has called for waiving weaving conservative
Speaker 2: religious beliefs into the fabric of the government. Robinson has
Speaker 2: kind of been it's kind of hard to like a
Speaker 2: firebrand almost. Yeah, like firebrand is probably the best way
Speaker 2: to say. I've been familiar with him for a while.
Speaker 3: Seem to kind of bubble up in the state. Yeah,
Speaker 3: just I always like to track like who's.
Speaker 2: Going viral amongst the right wing, the right wing kind
Speaker 2: of video ecosystem, because you know, they go on to
Speaker 2: win elections and then now our primaries and now he's
Speaker 2: going to face you know, and a major test in
Speaker 2: North Carolina. North Carolina is another very interesting one here
Speaker 2: because what we have is the gubernatorial race. Now North
Speaker 2: Carolina at the federal level has been largely.
Speaker 3: Willing to go Republican.
Speaker 2: We know, I think was Obama won the state in
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight, but at the gubernatorial the state level,
Speaker 2: the attorney general and all that, Crystal, they don't have
Speaker 2: really a problem, you know, electing democrats.
Speaker 1: The democratic governor right now, exactly so, And.
Speaker 2: What isn't he facing the state the attorney general in
Speaker 2: the right, I'm not sure, But my point is that
Speaker 2: at the state level they don't have a problem electing Democrats.
Speaker 2: So if that is where it will be a big
Speaker 2: question too, because you know, for all the talk here
Speaker 2: on the show about federal politics and all that, listen,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: It certainly does.
Speaker 2: But at a gubernatorial level, the state stuff, I mean,
Speaker 2: this all matters a lot too. Yeah, And so for
Speaker 2: North Carolina it's always been in that purplish category. And
Speaker 2: for Biden you need everything you can possibly get. And
Speaker 2: this is the case too, where like, okay, interesting are
Speaker 2: these people who are totally endorsed by mag and all that.
Speaker 2: How are they going to do in an actual election
Speaker 2: against a very cookie cutter, normal Democrat in the state.
Speaker 3: That's a question as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and how do the wildest characters that they nominate
Speaker 1: in these primaries translate over into the overall normal person
Speaker 1: impression of the Republican Party, Because in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: This was the biggest problem in the twenty twenty two midterms.
Speaker 1: It's not that the Democrats were so amazing or they
Speaker 1: were you know, voters were super excited about Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and his party, but they looked at characters like Doug Mastriano,
Speaker 1: and they looked at a lot of the other candidates
Speaker 1: that came out of those primaries, who, by the way,
Speaker 1: by and large, were backed by Donald Trump, and they
Speaker 1: were repulsed in many instances, so that seats like the
Speaker 1: ones in Pennsylvania, which were eminently winnable for Republicans, became,
Speaker 1: you know, not to use what is apparently now a
Speaker 1: very controversial term bloodbath for.
Speaker 2: Republicans, Hey don't, don't go advocating for violence.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, in any case, I think that's why these
Speaker 1: two individuals, Bernie Marino, but even more to the point
Speaker 1: Mark Robinson, who listen, you can say the other quotes
Speaker 1: were taken out of context. There's plenty to work with
Speaker 1: their for this man saying really wild and out of
Speaker 1: the mainstream things. He also has extremely fringed positions visa
Speaker 1: the abortion, which he has worn on his sleeve and
Speaker 1: has no interest in walking away from, which will be
Speaker 1: anathema to a lot of people in a state like
Speaker 1: North Carolina where these issues you know, obviously, at the
Speaker 1: state level, this is an incredibly present and important issue
Speaker 1: for a whole lot of voters. So that to me
Speaker 1: is the question is do Republicans once again do themselves
Speaker 1: in by nominating these types of candidates who not only
Speaker 1: impact those specific races that should be completely winnable for Republicans,
Speaker 1: but really stain the whole party in this sort of
Speaker 1: like these are a bunch of fringe wackos that we
Speaker 1: want nothing to do with.
Speaker 2: Kind of a way, the other thing I'm paying attention to,
Speaker 2: we don't have an alman for this Pennsylvania. Remember David McCormick,
Speaker 2: who was defeated by doctor Oz. He's very likely going
Speaker 2: to bet Hedge FUNDUS, former Hedge fund guy who worked
Speaker 2: for Ray Dalio, who's one of the biggest sellouts to
Speaker 2: China and American history.
Speaker 3: Secondary it certainly shouldn't be important.
Speaker 2: And my big test for him is he always said
Speaker 2: I could have beat John Fetterman, which I don't believe,
Speaker 2: and now he's going up against Bob Kay. So this
Speaker 2: is also a test on the other side of can
Speaker 2: the traditional normy Republican actually farewell against let's say a
Speaker 2: traditional normy Democrat like Bob Casey in the overall general elections.
Speaker 3: So I'm actually watching that race very closely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because this is a non MAGA person and you know,
Speaker 2: his whole case was I'm a throwback to Mitt Romney type.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, can the Pat Toomey type Republicans still
Speaker 2: win in the state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3: That's gonna be a big question as well.
Speaker 1: And interestingly, Pennsylvania has been one of the swing states
Speaker 1: where Joe Biden has held up better for whatever reasons
Speaker 1: than other swing states according the Bowling. Thanks, Joe's got
Speaker 1: to prove for him, all right. We have some interesting
Speaker 1: developments interesting on the Trump legal front. So, as we
Speaker 1: covered previously, Trump has been unable despite extraordinary efforts of
Speaker 1: going to thirty different insurance companies to secure the half
Speaker 1: a billion dollar bond that he needs to be able
Speaker 1: to put down in this case of his civil fraud
Speaker 1: suit and judgment that went against him for nearly that
Speaker 1: amount of money. So this has led to a variety
Speaker 1: of Fox News personalities floating all kinds of ideas for
Speaker 1: how he could potentially come up with this money, and
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to make light of it
Speaker 1: because obviously it's an extraordinary sum of money. It could
Speaker 1: genuinely lead to some of his premier New York properties
Speaker 1: being seized by the state because he does not have
Speaker 1: the cash in the bank, because who does to cover
Speaker 1: half a billion dollars. So here we have to start
Speaker 1: with Larry Kudlow asking Kevin O'Leary if he might personally
Speaker 1: float this amount of money to Donald Trump with sigles
Speaker 1: into that.
Speaker 5: Kevin O'Leary, I think this is where it's going to go.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 5: I was wondering, if he can't get to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 5: will you loan on the four hundred and sixty million,
Speaker 5: you know, just to help in order to protect America's name.
Speaker 3: Think about that would get.
Speaker 4: The bond he was able to get the ninety plus
Speaker 4: million from Chubb. Yeah, it's I don't know of a
Speaker 4: bok on more than ninety million.
Speaker 6: I don't recall one.
Speaker 4: And so you need cash to back up the bond insurance.
Speaker 4: And so now we're talking about the terminology of seizing
Speaker 4: assets that actually that's foreign language to an American investor.
Speaker 4: They want due process, they want the appeal that sounds
Speaker 4: like Venezuela, sounds like Cuba. It's a really bad look
Speaker 4: for New York. But I think it's going to beyond
Speaker 4: New York now. Bipartisan participants and financial services managers are
Speaker 4: not okay with this and getting very uncomfortable. And I think,
Speaker 4: whether it's a Supreme Court that provides the adult supervision,
Speaker 4: whether it's somebody else we desperately need for this kid's party,
Speaker 4: for the adults to get home.
Speaker 1: So notably does not respond directly to Larry. I don't
Speaker 1: think he's good for that half a billion dollars.
Speaker 3: So no, I think he's probably good for it. I
Speaker 3: think he just don't well.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think he's going to pony it up,
Speaker 1: is what I mean.
Speaker 2: I got a soft spot for Kevin. He's got a
Speaker 2: great watch collection. He does a lot of good watch
Speaker 2: sho He's got a great He's got a lot of
Speaker 2: good watch content on YouTube, if you're interested.
Speaker 1: I don't know who really.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: That's really all I know about it. I will come
Speaker 1: out hard for Trump recently. Is that the idea he's
Speaker 1: like a business guy.
Speaker 2: I like he was saying he's attacking it from the
Speaker 2: I've never seen a bond kind of thing he's he
Speaker 2: likes to speak out about, like, yeah, exactly like business finance.
Speaker 2: I know it has done a lot of business in
Speaker 2: New York. So I'm not gonna, you know, go after
Speaker 2: his analysis there or whatever. All I would say is, uh,
Speaker 2: I think it is interesting that even his richest and
Speaker 2: wealthiest I wouldn't call him a backer here. Also, I
Speaker 2: do think Kevin is Canadian, so that that's important.
Speaker 3: They though, are while they.
Speaker 2: Made to cry the decision, I've seen others Joe Lonsdale
Speaker 2: and others who are talking about this very very wealthy individuals.
Speaker 3: Nobody yet, though, is.
Speaker 2: Willing to actually pay the fine for the man, and
Speaker 2: that seems important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I would just say with regards to his analysis,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we're not used to seeing people who
Speaker 1: are at that level of you know, the top point
Speaker 1: one percent of wealth, seeing that lians put on their
Speaker 1: accounts and assets sees. But this is a very common
Speaker 1: occurrence for you know, ordinary people who you know, get
Speaker 1: behind on jobs, aboard or bed behind.
Speaker 3: All taxes or where.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's very commonplace. So it's not like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, this has never happened before. This is venezuela tax,
Speaker 1: you know, back toaxes. All these sorts of things can
Speaker 1: result in lians being put on your accounts, or your
Speaker 1: pay being garnished, or your assets being seized, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So this is not that's true.
Speaker 2: You know, credit card companies garnish people wages all the time.
Speaker 2: All they have to do is take your take you
Speaker 2: to court and they can put Yeah they can literally
Speaker 2: it only takes them a year and they can actually
Speaker 2: take money out of your paycheck yeh, which is crazy
Speaker 2: in my opinion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's all of it.
Speaker 1: Indeed. Okay, So just to underscore what is actually going
Speaker 1: on here, because again I don't want to make light
Speaker 1: of it. It is a huge amount of money. It
Speaker 1: is really significant to Trump himself. Let's put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen from the AP. So this article goes
Speaker 1: into yes, it is a very real possibility on the
Speaker 1: table that New York could seize Trump's assets. They say,
Speaker 1: if Trump isn't able to pay, the state could levy
Speaker 1: and sell his assets. Lean is real property garnish anyone
Speaker 1: who owes him money. According to a Syracuse University law professor,
Speaker 1: potential targets could include properties like his Trump Tower, Penthouse,
Speaker 1: Wall Street office building, and golf courses. Letitia James's office
Speaker 1: could also seek permission to drain Trump's bank accounts and
Speaker 1: investment portfolios, or sell off other assets like his planes, helicopters,
Speaker 1: or even his golf carts. They go on to say
Speaker 1: seizing assets is a common legal tactic when someone cannot
Speaker 1: access enough cash to pay a civil penalty. Now, Trump
Speaker 1: does still have some avenues of appeal, and Letitia James
Speaker 1: has not yet indicated how aggressive she's going to be
Speaker 1: in moving to make good on this payment that is
Speaker 1: currently owed. So a lot of things that are up
Speaker 1: in the air there. Let's skip over the next one
Speaker 1: and go to our next Fox News personality with an
Speaker 1: innovative idea for how Trump may be able to pay
Speaker 1: this judgment amount. Laura Ingram says, maybe he should crowdsource
Speaker 1: it and ask his supporters to fund this half a
Speaker 1: billion dollar judgment. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7: A friend texted me today and said Trump should crowd
Speaker 7: fund this fine. Like if I think it's like one
Speaker 7: million supporters each gave him four hundred and fifty dollars
Speaker 7: that would cover the fine. But in the meantime, what
Speaker 7: are his options here in emergency to stay from a
Speaker 7: federal court?
Speaker 3: Where does he go?
Speaker 1: So what do you think of that? When Soger, should
Speaker 1: he go to his supporters to crowd fund this this judgment?
Speaker 3: This one.
Speaker 2: Look, I have no problem with people asking rich people
Speaker 2: for money, but asking Trump supporters for money that really.
Speaker 3: Pisses me off.
Speaker 2: And you know, especially these box news people. Laura herself
Speaker 2: is incredibly wealthy. I mean, she's been in the conservative
Speaker 2: like media complex for decades now. From what I heard,
Speaker 2: she's done very very well. It's like, okay, you shell
Speaker 2: it out then, Like, don't be asking grandma's and grandpa's
Speaker 2: on Social Security to pay for Trump's four hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty million dollars pond. That actually makes me very upset
Speaker 2: because the problem is it goes back to stop the
Speaker 2: steal and all the money some two hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: million dollars that was raised on the backs of people.
Speaker 3: Listen, it is their money. They can do as they wish.
Speaker 2: But you know, Trump was like, the election was stolen,
Speaker 2: I need you to support me, and they gave him
Speaker 2: a quarter billion and he didn't spend any of it
Speaker 2: on his elections. He ended up spending it on his
Speaker 2: Save America pack and in some cases paying for his reelection.
Speaker 3: I legally, he can do as he pleases. I don't
Speaker 3: think that's right.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's right to be asking, you know,
Speaker 2: a bunch of boomers mailing in checks and all these
Speaker 2: who may believe in Donald Trump. And in this case,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't even be a campaign or election related. It
Speaker 2: would be literally related.
Speaker 3: To his own personal finances.
Speaker 2: And I understand the investigation and all that obviously is political,
Speaker 2: but to have it be his personal benefit, it's not right,
Speaker 2: you know. So look, you want to ask your wealthy people, fine,
Speaker 2: but don't be asking normal folks.
Speaker 1: Co stein completely and they really have been so exploited.
Speaker 1: Trump has tapped these people dry number one, to the
Speaker 1: to the extent that you know, other Republican candidates have
Speaker 1: really struggled with grassroots fundraising because Trump has just hit
Speaker 1: these lists over and over and over again. And that's
Speaker 1: becoming a problem now for him increasingly, where there just
Speaker 1: isn't enough money among his sizeable grassroots base to continue
Speaker 1: to you know, fully fund his campaign, let alone the
Speaker 1: legal bills that he's been able to you know, pay
Speaker 1: with political money as well. And then you also have
Speaker 1: you know, the build the Wall people. Oh yeah, people
Speaker 1: who are out there like raising money from Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: claiming they're investing in some currency that's going to come
Speaker 1: become legal tender when Trump is realized. I mean, so
Speaker 1: much nonsense and grift has been directed to these people.
Speaker 1: This is the last thing that needs to happen. And
Speaker 1: I think your point as well said, if Laura wants to,
Speaker 1: you know, put up a few million towards Trump's legal bills,
Speaker 1: she and some of her rich friends should feelsolutely free
Speaker 1: to do that. Put the last element up here be
Speaker 1: five from the New York Post. It's the New York Post,
Speaker 1: so take it for what it's worth. But they have
Speaker 1: some report from inside the Trump camp of how he
Speaker 1: is considering his options, and they said increasingly, one thing
Speaker 1: that they're you know, very seriously considering and maybe even
Speaker 1: leaning towards, is simply doing nothing, letting the deadline for
Speaker 1: posting this bond pass and putting the ball in New
Speaker 1: York Attorney General Letitia James's court to decide if she's
Speaker 1: going to actually seize Trump's bank accounts or buildings, including
Speaker 1: Trump Tower, of course, Trump Tower famously where he declared
Speaker 1: his twenty sixteen presidential run, where he famously has his
Speaker 1: own personal penthouse. And the thinking is number one, again,
Speaker 1: you're sort of putting the onus on her. I think
Speaker 1: Trump probably it doesn't say this in the article, but
Speaker 1: probably feels he can use this to some sort of
Speaker 1: political effect, and then they feel confident that through the
Speaker 1: appeals process, this amount at least may get knocked down
Speaker 1: and then he could regain those assets. Now there's actually
Speaker 1: no guarantees in that regard, because if Trump Tower, let's say,
Speaker 1: get seized and sold off in a fire sale, the
Speaker 1: state doesn't owe Trump Tower back to Trump. They just
Speaker 1: owe the amount of money that they obtain from Trump
Speaker 1: Tower back to Trump. But according to the New York Post,
Speaker 1: at least this is an avenue that he is seriously considering,
Speaker 1: which would be you know, a real wild development in
Speaker 1: terms of politics. In this man's whole brand is based
Speaker 1: on his iconic brand, and you know, his name being
Speaker 1: plastered on these buildings, Trump Tower being the most famous
Speaker 1: of all his all of his properties. So that's why
Speaker 1: this truly is an extraordinary development that we're dragging here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, I mean if he does.
Speaker 2: If she does take it, it will be very politically
Speaker 2: and financially significant. For also, I think he lives there,
Speaker 2: or at least maintained. I mean, he has that famous penthouse.
Speaker 1: Mostly in Florida, now though I think I.
Speaker 2: Know he's a Florida resident. But you know, with these
Speaker 2: rich folks, they do six months in one day or whatever,
Speaker 2: the houses everywhere. From what I know, he had a
Speaker 2: penthouse apartment there, the famous one, like I said, with
Speaker 2: the gold toilet, the marble worthy.
Speaker 1: Of Well, that penthouse was probably what got him in
Speaker 1: trouble here too, because he wildly for some loan estimate
Speaker 1: inflated like the square footage and how much it would
Speaker 1: be were I mean, I'm talking bout a ridiculous factor.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even close. So this was one of the
Speaker 1: issues that they went after him for. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this last piece up on the screen. B three
Speaker 1: with regard to the Georgia case, So, as we told
Speaker 1: you previously, there had been a question over whether there
Speaker 1: was a disqualifying conflict of interest with Fanny Willis and
Speaker 1: her former at least lover who had been brought on
Speaker 1: as a special prosecutor and earned hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars with regards to the prosecution of this case. So
Speaker 1: the decision came down from this judge that, no, it
Speaker 1: didn't rise completely to the level of conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: but this was enough of a problem that one or
Speaker 1: the other of them needed to resign. He resigned. Fanny
Speaker 1: Willis is still in place, but Trump is now, according
Speaker 1: to this report, able to appeal that ruling. So I'll
Speaker 1: read you a little bit of what Acio says here.
Speaker 1: They say, the judge overseeing former President Trump's Georgia election
Speaker 1: subversion case granted a pathway Wednesday for Trump to appeal
Speaker 1: his decision to allow Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis
Speaker 1: to remain at the helm of the prosecution. Why it matters,
Speaker 1: they say. By granted a certificate of immediate review, Fulton
Speaker 1: County Judge Scott McAfee enabled Trump's lawyers to appeal the
Speaker 1: decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals before the start
Speaker 1: of a trial. McAfee's granted the defense's requests for a review.
Speaker 1: Note in the court filing that other matters related to
Speaker 1: the case will go forward as planned, so it's not
Speaker 1: like everything stops while this review is being conducted. But
Speaker 1: nevertheless a win for Trump and another crack at being
Speaker 1: able to low or even completely undermine this case or
Speaker 1: get Also, Fanny willis removed from the case, so that
Speaker 1: is you know, significant development for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very because the appeal up a it takes more
Speaker 2: time be for Fanny Willis.
Speaker 3: This is going to kick it to the appellate court
Speaker 3: and all of this.
Speaker 2: Remember, even if Trump would eventually get convicted, this is
Speaker 2: all going to matter even more on appeal again, because
Speaker 2: it's not like Trump is going to run out of money.
Speaker 2: So from what I understand, this is just going to
Speaker 2: lengthen it, you know, even more significantly and publicly. It
Speaker 2: still remains a blow to her in the overall investigation.
Speaker 2: Not to mention the fact that even if she does
Speaker 2: survive this, don't forget, she still has to re grand
Speaker 2: jury six specific reco charges before she's able to bring
Speaker 2: them in her trial against Trump. Specifically that one relating
Speaker 2: to the perfect phone. Well, I don't know how many
Speaker 2: perfect phone calls her up. This was one of the
Speaker 2: perfect phone, one of the most perfect.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about happiness.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about happiness and does it even exist in
Speaker 2: Moore here in the United States, and to what extent,
Speaker 2: let's go and pull this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: There was a very report here from Yahoo News, and
Speaker 2: it was a write up specifically about how the American
Speaker 2: dream now costs three point four million dollars, and the
Speaker 2: overall way that they arrived at that math was that
Speaker 2: between marriage, two kids, homes, healthcare, cars, and education and
Speaker 2: estimated three point four five million dollars over the course
Speaker 2: of a lifetime. A new Investipedia study has found this
Speaker 2: is from December of twenty twenty three, but has actually
Speaker 2: been readjusted now at this point. They say that the
Speaker 2: cost of raising children, in particular just two to the
Speaker 2: age of eighteen now totals five hundred and seventy six
Speaker 2: eight hundred and ninety six dollars. That the lifetime costs
Speaker 2: currently with the ten percent down payment on average and
Speaker 2: a thirty year fixed rate mortgage of approximately seven percent,
Speaker 2: which is where we're at right now, is eight.
Speaker 3: Hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: That's actually possibly the most stunning part to me because
Speaker 2: it really shows us where how the massive impact of
Speaker 2: interest rates can affect this car purchases lifetime on average,
Speaker 2: in how people are spending.
Speaker 3: It's about two.
Speaker 2: Hundred and seventy thousand dollars, another very very significant chunk.
Speaker 2: But let me tell you, guys, the one that hurts
Speaker 2: more than any of this in the breakdown is average
Speaker 2: family premium cost thirty nine years of annual for a
Speaker 2: family of four, nine hundred and thirty four thousand dollars
Speaker 2: out of cost ahurance, just for health insurance, out of pocket.
Speaker 3: And the craziest part.
Speaker 2: Is that doesn't even include the hospital birth that they
Speaker 2: list here at the top right, which is fifty seven hundred,
Speaker 2: because that's what people are paying out of their damn deductibles.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that doesn't that doesn't actually include your medical
Speaker 1: That is just your premium.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just the premium, not medicalbuts so insane. It's funny
Speaker 2: because retirement in this is less than a lifetime health
Speaker 2: insurance cost. That is what outraged me actually most about this.
Speaker 2: The top line figure. You know, we can debate and
Speaker 2: spend some time on that, and a lot of this
Speaker 2: is fungible, like you can, you know, you can buy
Speaker 2: cheaper cars, you can buy a smaller house, you can
Speaker 2: choose to go to state college and all that, but
Speaker 2: you really can't choose to not have health insurance in
Speaker 2: this country. That's one of the most fixed costs in
Speaker 2: this entire thing. It is the single biggest chunk of
Speaker 2: your overall lifetime of your overall lifetime expenses. And what
Speaker 2: do we know is that this currently is just based
Speaker 2: on twenty eighteen to twenty twenty costs. There's actually been
Speaker 2: an inflation, huge inflation in health insurance costs. Health insurance
Speaker 2: costs inflation far outstrips and normal CPI inflation. And I
Speaker 2: haven't even mentioned food and cost of living and all this,
Speaker 2: so the likely number is probably higher. So the point
Speaker 2: of all this is just that the cost has gone
Speaker 2: significantly up from where it was previously. And then lo
Speaker 2: and behold, it turns out that the US has slid
Speaker 2: down on the ranking of overall national happiness. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen Finland for
Speaker 2: some reason, we'll talk about this in a second. Let
Speaker 2: me focus on the US part at least right now.
Speaker 2: The US has now slipped from the top twenty of
Speaker 2: nations in overall happiness. But what they is particularly noteworthy
Speaker 2: is that in side of the report, what we find
Speaker 2: is that it is largely attributable to young people. It's
Speaker 2: that the people who are over the age of thirty,
Speaker 2: their overall happiness ranking has not really gone and by
Speaker 2: the way, this is all self reported. Their overall happiness
Speaker 2: ranking has either remained static or has gone up, but
Speaker 2: that the drop in the young happiness has actually slid
Speaker 2: all of the US below the top twenty for the
Speaker 2: first time in quite a long time.
Speaker 1: So they surveyed one hundred and forty three countries. The
Speaker 1: unhappiest country, by the way, is Afghanistan, which we obviously
Speaker 1: had a significant handan way to go, guys, the US
Speaker 1: ranked tenth for people who are sixty and older they
Speaker 1: still feel pretty good about things, but sixty second for
Speaker 1: people under thirty, sixty second for people under thirty. They
Speaker 1: quote an economist in one report who said, I have
Speaker 1: never seen such an extreme change talking about the drop
Speaker 1: in happiness among younger people. This has all happened in
Speaker 1: the last ten years. It's mainly in English language countries.
Speaker 1: There isn't this drop among young people in the world
Speaker 1: as a whole. And this report I looked at also
Speaker 1: talk to a young person who was not feeling too happy,
Speaker 1: who said, listen, we have less to look forward to
Speaker 1: in the future, there's going to be climate change though
Speaker 1: effect the way we live. There's less of a clear
Speaker 1: cut trajectory for our life paths because for so long
Speaker 1: it was so easy just to know you could get married,
Speaker 1: have your two point five kids, pay for your house.
Speaker 1: Now that path is a lot more closed. And going
Speaker 1: back to some of those components that make up the
Speaker 1: three point five million dollars that you need just to
Speaker 1: do the basics of the like you know, middle class
Speaker 1: American dream life. Have a house, go to college, get married,
Speaker 1: have kids, be able to retire, have health insurance. Those pieces,
Speaker 1: those core components have go on up in price wildly
Speaker 1: over the past several decades. So you know, we've talked
Speaker 1: a lot about inflation in terms of near term cost
Speaker 1: of living. Those things and obviously incredibly important. But part
Speaker 1: of why you see this overall trajectory of people saying
Speaker 1: we're on the wrong path, of people saying the American
Speaker 1: dream is no longer reality, of young people feeling so
Speaker 1: depressed about the current stage with their lives and their
Speaker 1: possibility for the future, is that long term massive price
Speaker 1: spike in education, healthcare, and housing that has made life
Speaker 1: so much more precarious for younger generations.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so again, I mean just to be sixty second.
Speaker 2: Some of the countries that beat us our Guatemala, Bulgaria,
Speaker 2: and Saudi Arabia, which is pretty crazy, especially Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: because if you're a female in Saudi Arabia, you don't
Speaker 2: even have any rights and it's like you're happier than
Speaker 2: people are here in America.
Speaker 3: That doesn't sound right.
Speaker 2: Well, look what we can glean from this is that
Speaker 2: I think almost all that comes back to housing, and
Speaker 2: that is one of those just because housing is the
Speaker 2: biggest expense you're going to make in your entire life.
Speaker 2: So if you're not able to make that, you're going
Speaker 2: to do well well, yes, whenever, So housing and healthcare,
Speaker 2: I guess housing because it's the biggest upfront costs you're
Speaker 2: going to make in your entire life, right in terms
Speaker 2: of the largest purchase. Unable to say for that. That
Speaker 2: is what delays marriage people having kids. America is one
Speaker 2: of the very few countries in the world where people
Speaker 2: report having to having wanting more children than they're able
Speaker 2: to afford. In some countries like Japan and others, it's
Speaker 2: not like that they don't have the money to have kids.
Speaker 2: They just genuinely don't want to have children. But America
Speaker 2: is one of those places where people want to have
Speaker 2: two point two between two point five kids, which is
Speaker 2: replacement rate, and so they just simply can't afford it.
Speaker 2: And we just read everybody the numbers there, and they
Speaker 2: feel it would be irresponsible or they wouldn't be able
Speaker 2: to have a reasonable quality of life if they were
Speaker 2: able to do so. I've always found that very very
Speaker 2: sad statistic, because it's one of those where that's the
Speaker 2: exact reason why people are supposed to work hard. It's
Speaker 2: not supposed to can have nice cars or whatever. It's
Speaker 2: supposed to you know, be able to raise kids, have family.
Speaker 2: That's largely where you're going to derive the vast majority
Speaker 2: of happiness in your life.
Speaker 3: And there's reams of data to back all of that up.
Speaker 2: The problem that we can see inside of this is
Speaker 2: both from the very very early level, and this is
Speaker 2: where I'm curious too, what you Yeah, everyone keeps blaming
Speaker 2: social media, but I'm like, you know, I just think
Speaker 2: social media is a reflection of what people accurately feel.
Speaker 2: It's not TikTok, Instagram reels and other things that go
Speaker 2: viral about people being unable to afford life. That's not
Speaker 2: a fake circumstance, like in my opinion, It goes viral
Speaker 2: and it gets shared because people can resonate with the
Speaker 2: themes and you know kind of what people are talking about.
Speaker 2: There's a big debate right now as to whether it's
Speaker 2: causal in terms of social media, but I still genuinely
Speaker 2: believe that it's very just reflective of what the actual
Speaker 2: living conditions are.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at the fact that young
Speaker 1: people around the world have social media yea all seeing
Speaker 1: this precipitous decline and how they feel about, you know,
Speaker 1: their life and level of happiness, I think is you know,
Speaker 1: pretty decent proof in your interaction. I mean, I would
Speaker 1: be remiss if I didn't point out that consistently places
Speaker 1: like Finland, the other Nordic countries, you know, Denmark, Iceland
Speaker 1: is another one that does well on these happiness rankings.
Speaker 1: These are all social democracies where things like you're not
Speaker 1: going to be paying a million bucks over the course
Speaker 1: of your lifetime for health insurance. You're going to have
Speaker 1: healthcare universally, it's not going to be something that you
Speaker 1: worry about. They have more of a solid social safety net.
Speaker 1: We're subsidies in terms of you know, housing, making housing
Speaker 1: more affordable, and paying more attention to that as well.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's an accident that those are
Speaker 1: consistently the places where people self report the highest levels
Speaker 1: of happiness. I also think we'd be remiss if we
Speaker 1: didn't point out that part of this catastrophic decline for
Speaker 1: young people and self reparded happiness also coincides with COVID,
Speaker 1: and you know, we know that that had a tremendous
Speaker 1: impact on levels of anxiety and overall mental health for
Speaker 1: young Americans. So you know, I don't think that I
Speaker 1: don't think we can ignore that piece as well, even
Speaker 1: as I do think that these long term economic trends
Speaker 1: are incredibly significant in terms of how people feel about
Speaker 1: the direction of their own lives in the direction of
Speaker 1: the country.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, that's how a good point. I hadn't thought about that.
Speaker 2: I think you're absolutely right. Okay, this is the only
Speaker 2: thing about Finland. I've been in Finland, Man, Finland is
Speaker 2: dark as hell. People there are not smiling. I'm just
Speaker 2: not sure I buy it. Like, maybe they self report happiness,
Speaker 2: but from having traveled all the Nordic countries. These are
Speaker 2: some of the most like closed off folks that you
Speaker 2: will ever see in your entire life. They even they
Speaker 2: joke about it about how Americans are too smiley and
Speaker 2: they talk all the time, and so I'm like, are
Speaker 2: you guys really that happy? Like, be honest, lave us
Speaker 2: in the comments. Also, the food, let's all be real,
Speaker 2: there's not a scrap of flavor in any of the food.
Speaker 1: That's the power of social democracy. What overcome bad food,
Speaker 1: oh terrible climate.
Speaker 3: Botten fish, goulash all day long in.
Speaker 1: The winter, That's how powerful social democracy is.
Speaker 2: At no I would say there is some argument about
Speaker 2: that though, Chrysal about whether we could even have So,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a more important question kind.
Speaker 3: Of relates back to immigration.
Speaker 2: But you know, these are very highly homogenous societies where look,
Speaker 2: what are the real differences when you all look the
Speaker 2: same talk the same language.
Speaker 3: You have very very low levels of immigration in.
Speaker 2: Terms of their tax and capital, in terms of their
Speaker 2: innovation and all that. What's the last thing Finland really invented.
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to put it down and say
Speaker 2: that that's not a worthy model. The question is, can
Speaker 2: it ever actually succeed in a country of three hundred
Speaker 2: thirty million.
Speaker 1: Because we have social security. It's one of the most
Speaker 1: it is one of the most successful and popular universal
Speaker 1: social safety net programs in history. And I would argue
Speaker 1: the exact counter that when you have the level of rapacious, predatory,
Speaker 1: state captured capitalism that creates this zero sum seeming game
Speaker 1: and high stakes, that's exactly what exacerbates and opens up
Speaker 1: an opportunity for unscrupulous, self serving politicians to stoke these divides,
Speaker 1: where if you have a social safety net where people
Speaker 1: feel more secure and more stable, then they're less susceptible
Speaker 1: to those type of divide and conquer tactics which are
Speaker 1: so effective and so ever present in terms of our politics.
Speaker 2: I don't even disagree. It's more just a question of
Speaker 2: like what is America like? For example, the largest company
Speaker 2: in Finland by market cap is like forty two billion.
Speaker 3: Like that's a freaking joke, Like this.
Speaker 1: Is not a country's because they have free healthcare.
Speaker 2: No, I have no idea why. I don't even think
Speaker 2: it's necessarily because they have free healthcare. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of crappy European countries that also have very very little business.
Speaker 2: My only question is about America is a very dynamic country.
Speaker 2: Make a lot of money here. People like entrepreneurialism. It's
Speaker 2: a huge country. There's three hundred and thirty million people,
Speaker 2: people from all over the world. We have very different ideas,
Speaker 2: we have very you know, finished politics. I'm not one
Speaker 2: hundred percent familiar, but as I understand it in general,
Speaker 2: the way that ours functions and the way that we
Speaker 2: kind of go at it like that, it doesn't really
Speaker 2: exist in the same way in a lot of these places.
Speaker 2: I don't know though, whether that's because of our economics
Speaker 2: or not. Right so, even in times of high economic prosperity.
Speaker 2: I was looking this fascinating graph. The top earning cities
Speaker 2: in America in nineteen forty nine were like Cleveland, Detroit.
Speaker 2: It was all in the American heartland from industrial manufacturing
Speaker 2: from the post World War two era, and I was
Speaker 2: thinking about how different of a country it was whenever
Speaker 2: the richest people in America were also the people who
Speaker 2: actually produced stuff. This is all just kind of me
Speaker 2: trying to wrap my head around whether any of this
Speaker 2: is even possible in America.
Speaker 8: Like that.
Speaker 3: I lived in Denmark. It's a tiny ass little country.
Speaker 3: They don't have a lot of people there, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, but also ignorre in the fact that like the
Speaker 1: time period in American history when probably we had the
Speaker 1: highest levels of self reported happiness was during the New
Speaker 1: Deal and when you had you know, and partly this
Speaker 1: was just because of post World War two global circumstances
Speaker 1: that we overwhelmingly benefited from. But you had a middle
Speaker 1: class that was expanded, expanding, you had people who felt
Speaker 1: like they were able to, you know, achieve the American dream,
Speaker 1: and this idea of we're able to work hard and
Speaker 1: we're able to get ahead was more present and seemed
Speaker 1: more realistic. And you know, the numbers in terms of
Speaker 1: the cost of housing then versus now, the cost of
Speaker 1: healthcare then versus now, the cost of education then versus
Speaker 1: now also bear that out, not to mention the way
Speaker 1: that wages have not even come close to keeping up
Speaker 1: with the increased productivity of the American worker. So you know,
Speaker 1: of course we can. That's why I'm not advocating. You're
Speaker 1: right that there's a balance, right, you don't want to
Speaker 1: lose that creative spark and that innovation that at its best,
Speaker 1: we all, you know, have so much pride in as Americans.
Speaker 1: You don't want to lose that. That's why I'm not
Speaker 1: like out here asking for communists. That's why I think
Speaker 1: social democracy is, you know, has proven to be a
Speaker 1: good balance of some of those competing priorities of making
Speaker 1: sure our everybody's good, especially in a wealthy, prosperous society,
Speaker 1: but also allowing for innovation, creativity, and that like you know,
Speaker 1: fruitful hum that we again at our best get here
Speaker 1: in Amaya.
Speaker 3: That's her.
Speaker 2: One thing we should steal from the Fins is sauna.
Speaker 2: Finished saunas are awesome. I hate oh man, no, hey, everybody, anyway.
Speaker 1: I listen. I'm a sweaty person to start with. I
Speaker 1: don't need a frickingsonna. That's like my worst nightmare.
Speaker 3: So no, but the Finish model is great.
Speaker 2: So you get hot and you get cold, you get
Speaker 2: hot and you get cold again.
Speaker 3: It's a lot of fun. If you ever go to Finland,
Speaker 3: I highly recommend Fins.
Speaker 1: You can keep that, you can keep that out part
Speaker 1: to yourself.
Speaker 2: At the same time, yesterday there was a major hearing
Speaker 2: here in Washington about the Biden impeachment, and it pretty
Speaker 2: much went off the rails in every respect that you
Speaker 2: can possibly imagine the Democratic side on the Republican side,
Speaker 2: some of the things that we did not learn, but
Speaker 2: there were at least some good sound bites that we
Speaker 2: could show you. First and foremost was Tony Bobolinski, the
Speaker 2: infamous Hunter Biden business is so see it testifying sparring
Speaker 2: with some of the members of Congress on the Democratic side.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen at.
Speaker 9: The same people preaching this mantra know better they continue
Speaker 9: to lie directly to the American people without hesitation and remorse.
Speaker 3: Rep.
Speaker 9: Dan Goldman and Jamie Rasking, both lawyers, and mister Goldman,
Speaker 9: a former prosecutor with the SDN Y from New York,
Speaker 9: will continue to lie today in this yearing and then
Speaker 9: go straight to the media to tell more lies. Hunter
Speaker 9: Biden's defense attorney, Abbey Loll, weaponizes letters to Congress to
Speaker 9: try to smear my name, mister Chairman, the cold art facts,
Speaker 9: Miss Chairman. In an attempt to save his powerfully connected
Speaker 9: client and his father. I challenged mister Lowell to make
Speaker 9: those claims on national television so he can be held
Speaker 9: accountable for his lies.
Speaker 10: God order uh, mister Bobski, mister Boblisky, please proceed place, proceed,
Speaker 10: apologize for the disruption from the minority.
Speaker 11: Okay, well me and mister chairman save his time. But
Speaker 11: he called members of this committee liars. And I just
Speaker 11: want to know whether the order and decorum requirements of
Speaker 11: House Rule eleven apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.
Speaker 11: Does it apply or does it not?
Speaker 10: There's decorum from the members We've asked for that. There's
Speaker 10: no language that I'm aware of pretending to a witness.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 3: That was a good taste, Crystal what the whole day
Speaker 3: was like. But look, listen, Bubba Liskey.
Speaker 2: We've known about him since what twenty twenty he did
Speaker 2: the Tucker Cross an interview back in Fox if everybody
Speaker 2: wants to remember, his claims have been wide out there
Speaker 2: to see. This is part of the problem with this
Speaker 2: overall hearing is almost all the information has been publicly
Speaker 2: available now for two years. And I'm not saying it's
Speaker 2: not even important, but they have not been able to
Speaker 2: prove from there and a smoking gun of a monetary
Speaker 2: connection between Hunter Biden and between Joe Biden, even with
Speaker 2: the subpoena power and all the others that have come
Speaker 2: to light. The best that they have been able to
Speaker 2: find are the irs whistleblowers that came forward that's resulted
Speaker 2: in tax investigation against Hunter, but they have not been
Speaker 2: able to put a name on a single wire transfer.
Speaker 2: I mean, Crystal we were talking about, I mean in
Speaker 2: a certain sense too. Look, the information is there. Hunter
Speaker 2: is blatantly and outrageously corrupt. He benefited off of his
Speaker 2: father's name. Whether his dad profited or not, it's not
Speaker 2: one hundred percent certain. He definitely knew about it, and
Speaker 2: he definitely lied about some of his previous interactions.
Speaker 3: That seems to be the best that we're going to
Speaker 3: get out of this.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The other witness, by the way, was some dude who's
Speaker 1: serving time in Alabama prison for securities frauds. So that's
Speaker 1: what live honest was No. Jason galanis another former associate
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden, you know, gives you a sense of
Speaker 1: the type of characters he was doing business with, which.
Speaker 3: Is bad as well. It's definitely bad.
Speaker 1: Which is that. I mean, Look, there's a lot going
Speaker 1: on here. No one would welcome a genuine investigation into
Speaker 1: corruption that goes across, you know, on both sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle, more than myself. I entirely welcome the notion
Speaker 1: of taking serious the idea of corruption, even if because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has ruled that actual illegal corruption is
Speaker 1: so incredibly narrow, even if it doesn't meet that standard,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that we shouldn't know and care about
Speaker 1: the fact that Hunter Biden and James Biden these other
Speaker 1: characters were trading on the Biden name and basically, you know,
Speaker 1: promising Joe Biden access and giving Joe Biden access in
Speaker 1: certain documented instances doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it.
Speaker 1: But a couple of things have happened here. I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, the Republicans are always completely hypocrites because
Speaker 1: they don't care when it's Jared Kushner and Trump, or
Speaker 1: Trump and live golf for these other entanglements, or taking
Speaker 1: money into his hotel or whatever. They don't give a shit.
Speaker 1: So they're obviously hypocritical, and so they their claims don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of They don't feel particularly weighty when
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy is so blatant. That's number one. Number two,
Speaker 1: because they made such extraordinary and unproven claims about Joe
Speaker 1: Biden directly getting cash that have never born out, they
Speaker 1: set the bar extremely high for themselves, and you know,
Speaker 1: even I think, by their own standards, are completely failing
Speaker 1: to meet that bar. Another thing that I would say
Speaker 1: here is, you know, I perhaps it would be a
Speaker 1: better world if this was the number one public concern
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden. But this isn't even the top issue.
Speaker 1: That if Republicans are just looking at political gain to
Speaker 1: press means of you Joe Biden, like, you know what
Speaker 1: the problems are. You know that the biggest one of
Speaker 1: them is just that people feel like he's too freaking
Speaker 1: old and they're not sure that he can handle another
Speaker 1: four years. They're not really buying the idea that he's
Speaker 1: the head of some elaborate, corrupt crime family. And it
Speaker 1: is a little dissonant with the other messaging about him
Speaker 1: being too old and too infirm, which I think lands
Speaker 1: more with what people are experiencing and their biggest concerns
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden. At this point, Let's just say if
Speaker 1: corruption was the number one issue in this campaign, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that would go well for Donald Trump either.
Speaker 1: In addition to you know, all the rest of what
Speaker 1: I've laid out here, so it is kind of farcical.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, sorry you to tell me because
Speaker 1: you're more in touch with this. It seems like even
Speaker 1: the Republican base is kind of frustrated with the lack
Speaker 1: of their there in terms of these hearings and their
Speaker 1: lack of inability to actually directly prove those links and
Speaker 1: find that smoking gun given what was promised to them
Speaker 1: at the beginning of it.
Speaker 2: Well, I can play this out of order, guys, if
Speaker 2: we could go ahead and play D three, that kind
Speaker 2: of hits home what you're talking about. This is a
Speaker 2: Newsmax host who's getting very upset with Jim Jordan being like, hey, guys,
Speaker 2: when is this actually going to go somewhere.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: Is impeachment the next step or are you going to
Speaker 12: hold a vote on the House floor. I know it's
Speaker 12: up to Mike Johnson, but the Margins congressman you lost,
Speaker 12: Kevin McCarthy, ken Buck left last week, George Santos was ousted.
Speaker 12: Unless you get Democratic votes, this is going to be
Speaker 12: real tough. So it kind of seems like you're chasing
Speaker 12: your tail at this point because this is not going
Speaker 12: to go anywhere.
Speaker 10: No fair question, and we you know, we got a
Speaker 10: small majority. Everyone understands that not just on this issue,
Speaker 10: but on a host of issues. Our job is under
Speaker 10: the Constitution is to do oversight of the executive branch.
Speaker 10: We are doing that, We're going to continue to do that.
Speaker 10: There's no time limit in the Constitution on how long
Speaker 10: you can do an investigation.
Speaker 2: So as you can see, the Newsmax host was not
Speaker 2: very happy there with mister Jordan. He's like, hey, what's
Speaker 2: actually going on. I do think some of the Republican
Speaker 2: base feels that way, and this is part of the issue.
Speaker 3: I do think over promising was a big one.
Speaker 2: A lot of it comes back to I think a
Speaker 2: lot of it is just deep frustration that people are
Speaker 2: not willing to take the Hunter Biden laptop story more seriously.
Speaker 3: And look, I don't even necessarily disagree.
Speaker 2: I think it should have gotten its due, you know,
Speaker 2: at the time, in terms of actually talking about the
Speaker 2: corruption allegations. But the truth is that this has now
Speaker 2: been before the American people now for quite some time,
Speaker 2: and it seems, unfortunately, maybe because of the Trump factor,
Speaker 2: maybe because they haven't been able to prove a direct
Speaker 2: thing with Biden, that it has not been able to
Speaker 2: actually penetrate anything beyond kind of the Fox News ecosystem.
Speaker 2: On the other side of the coin, though, Crystal is
Speaker 2: mister Jared Moskowitz. This is a Democratic congressman, and this
Speaker 2: is a continue strategy, right, is to tie any of
Speaker 2: these questions into Russigate, into trying to saying that you're
Speaker 2: some sort of Putin puppet. Here is the Democratic congressman
Speaker 2: who is donning a Vladimir Putin mask ahead of the hearing,
Speaker 2: trying to talk to reporters and saying that James Comber,
Speaker 2: the head of the committee, is in Putin's pocket.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 13: I just came to James Cohmer.
Speaker 2: For taking all of our intelligence and using it in
Speaker 2: the committee.
Speaker 8: Maybe he can come see the technology in our grocery stores.
Speaker 3: Thank you for Tosmans against two neighbors.
Speaker 8: Kind of mature.
Speaker 2: So he's got the Putin aller reed Max there, I
Speaker 2: hate everything.
Speaker 3: It's got to be one of the more humility things.
Speaker 1: What a healthscapers, What a healthscape of a political system?
Speaker 1: This is like, how embarrassing? This was why I was
Speaker 1: so like distraught the idea that Paul Manifort was going
Speaker 1: to be brought back onto Trump can be because it's
Speaker 1: just I mean, the russigates. It just never ends. Are
Speaker 1: you a child wearing a putin mask?
Speaker 3: What do you do?
Speaker 1: Even some of the mainstream reporters there were like, isn't
Speaker 1: this a little immature?
Speaker 2: Know anything, This is a little immature. I'm like, yeah, definitely. Anyway,
Speaker 2: So that was the main result. Doesn't seem like it's
Speaker 2: going to go much further. I know that there's been
Speaker 2: a vote or whatever on the impeachment investigation, I know
Speaker 2: within the House of Representatives, but unless they come up
Speaker 2: with someone soon, this is probably going to be the
Speaker 2: high water mark of the overall thing.
Speaker 1: All Right, We've got a lot of developments to get
Speaker 1: to with regard to Israel, and especially with regards to
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's response to Israel. So let's put this
Speaker 1: first piece up on the screen. A report from Haretz
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration is supposedly split on whether or
Speaker 1: not to suspend arm sales to Israel ahead of what
Speaker 1: they're describing as a deadline on Sunday. Now that deadline
Speaker 1: has to do with this letter that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: was pressured into requiring Israel to sign certifying that they
Speaker 1: are going to use these weapons and are using these
Speaker 1: weapons in accordance with international law, and that they are
Speaker 1: not blocking humanitarian aid. In other words, that it is
Speaker 1: actually legal for the US to send to continue these
Speaker 1: arm sales, because to do so if they are blocking
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid or if they are not, which we've all
Speaker 1: seen the reality of what's going on there, if they
Speaker 1: are not abiding by international law, that is illegal under
Speaker 1: our own laws. So they sent the letter from Yoav Gland,
Speaker 1: the Defense Minister of Israel. They sent the letter saying, yes,
Speaker 1: of course, we're following the law as blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: and now the US has to certify that that is
Speaker 1: the case. So let me lead read you a little
Speaker 1: bit of this report. They say that Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Anthony Blincoln, who is planning to visit Israel tomorrow, has
Speaker 1: until Sunday to approve Israel's stance. That stance was delivered
Speaker 1: earlier this week to the US ambassador in Israel, Jack
Speaker 1: lou Or. The US will immediately susp and weapons transfers
Speaker 1: to its close. Ally, we've already had some fallout around
Speaker 1: the world of other countries that have already suspended weapons
Speaker 1: shipments in different regards. So we had a group of
Speaker 1: Danish non governmental organizations that said last week they would
Speaker 1: sue Denmark in a bid to end that country's arms
Speaker 1: exports to Israel. They cited concerns about crimes against Palestine civilians.
Speaker 1: Last month, a Dutch court ordered the Netherlands to stop
Speaker 1: exporting parts for F thirty five viighter jets to Israel,
Speaker 1: citing concerns the parts were being used to violate international law.
Speaker 1: Officials from three State Department bureaus Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Population,
Speaker 1: Refugees and Migration, and the Office of Global Criminal Justice,
Speaker 1: as well as USAID have all accordinated to this report
Speaker 1: expressed deep skepticism about the idea that Israel is in
Speaker 1: fact in compliance. Israel's failure to allow surge of humanitarian
Speaker 1: assistance into Gaza, they say, despite repeated commitments, remain a
Speaker 1: key driver of pessimism. And they also have an interesting
Speaker 1: quote here from Schumer that I wanted to take note of.
Speaker 1: In an interview with The Times, he added that without
Speaker 1: US support, Israel's future could well be over, which I
Speaker 1: thought was kind of extraordinary, given you know, Schumer's overwhelming
Speaker 1: past commitment to the state of Israel. So Sager, I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is real if there really is
Speaker 1: a schism here, if there really are people who are
Speaker 1: at a high level pushing for not certifying Israel's letter
Speaker 1: and commitment and actually suspending weapons sales. But if they
Speaker 1: did go in that direction, which again I will believe
Speaker 1: what I see because we've seen the unconditional support that's
Speaker 1: been provided thus far. But if they did go in
Speaker 1: that direction, there's no doubt that would be quite significant.
Speaker 2: I think what they would do, and this would be
Speaker 2: the smart play, is you would try to push for
Speaker 2: a ceasefire, and then you would do it post cease fire,
Speaker 2: after they don't necessarily need it, perhaps as a pressure
Speaker 2: valve to try and say that you should not recontinue hostilities.
Speaker 2: There was an interesting quote you found, Crystal in this
Speaker 2: mother Jones piece. I was actually really struck by it.
Speaker 2: If we can put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: It was actually a quote from a retired Israeli major general.
Speaker 2: It's fuck Bricktel's Mother Jones quote. All of our missiles,
Speaker 2: the ammunition, the precision guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs,
Speaker 2: it's all from the US. The minute they turn off
Speaker 2: the tap, you can't keep fighting. You have no capability.
Speaker 2: This is more significant than I had thought, because I
Speaker 2: had thought that the Israelis had more native capacity than
Speaker 2: I had understood. But what they lay out is that
Speaker 2: while the Israelis do have let's say, artillery shells, unguided
Speaker 2: bombs and all of that, all of their precision munitions
Speaker 2: actually do come from the US, and that some of
Speaker 2: these dumb bombs in quote unquote largely their use has
Speaker 2: come either from running dry and not having yet been
Speaker 2: replenished by America's I didn't realize that so much of
Speaker 2: the high tech capacity of the IDF is actually backed
Speaker 2: by America. I knew it was some, and I knew
Speaker 2: it was significant, but I didn't say didn't think it
Speaker 2: was quote all of our missiles, all of the ammunition,
Speaker 2: all of the bombs, all of the airplanes is all
Speaker 2: from the US.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I mean, so the idea that oh, we
Speaker 1: can't really Israel's a sovereign country, even if we did
Speaker 1: cut off weapons shipments, it wouldn't really make that big
Speaker 1: of a difference. That's just not true. And even if
Speaker 1: it were true, it still would behoove us to try
Speaker 1: to put pressure on Israel to end this absolute onslaught
Speaker 1: that has killed at least thirty thousand Palestinians and has
Speaker 1: led to overwhelming levels of you know, imminent famine and
Speaker 1: actual deaths from starvation now in at least about two
Speaker 1: dozen cases. And so that's what this administration is facing.
Speaker 1: They were sort of pressured by a group of senators
Speaker 1: into forcing Israel to issue this certification. And now in
Speaker 1: the face of we've been getting months, for months reports
Speaker 1: about you know, potential levels of famine, potential levels of starvation,
Speaker 1: et cetera. We've just gotten a few more that have
Speaker 1: gone into specifics about the way that Israel is using
Speaker 1: starvation as a weapon of war. And we also have
Speaker 1: the images of young children and babies who are literally
Speaker 1: starving to death. Now and we've you know, come to
Speaker 1: this point of pathetic desperation where the US is now
Speaker 1: air dropping in aid as if into some hostile territory
Speaker 1: rather than territory that is basically you know, completely run
Speaker 1: by our supposed ally and floating this boondoggle port situation.
Speaker 1: More on that in a moment, but you know, it's
Speaker 1: come to the point where even Sectuary of State Anthony
Speaker 1: Blincoln has to acknowledge the reality of the starvation that
Speaker 1: is unfolding on the ground. Take a listen to what
Speaker 1: he had to say recently.
Speaker 6: According to the most respected measure of these things, one
Speaker 6: hundred percent of the population in Gaza is at severe
Speaker 6: levels of acute food insecurity. That's the first time an
Speaker 6: entire population has been so classified. We also see again
Speaker 6: according to in this case the United Nations, one hundred
Speaker 6: percent the totality of the population is in need of humanatranus.
Speaker 1: So how, Sagar, do you say something like that one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of the population Gauzes at severe levels of
Speaker 1: acute food insecurity. How can you possibly say and acknowledge
Speaker 1: that reality and then turn around and certify that, oh,
Speaker 1: Israel is allowing humanitarian aid and Israel's in compliance with
Speaker 1: our loss. They may well do it. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I'll believe it when I see it with regards them
Speaker 1: taking any real action against Israel versus just these rhetorical shifts.
Speaker 1: But it seems to me that you know, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult to clean their incompliance with our laws and deserving
Speaker 1: of these weapons sales when you have an entire population
Speaker 1: for the first time that is at severe levels of
Speaker 1: acute food insecurity, and in certain instances actually starving to death.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was interesting that this happened with Canada.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there please on the
Speaker 2: screen where they say that Canadians will actually be stopping armsale, well,
Speaker 2: at least consideration. This is from the Foreign Minister. There
Speaker 2: was actually a non binding motion that had passed through
Speaker 2: parliament that called on them to do so. Very significant
Speaker 2: for a couple of reasons. Obviously, Canada is not Western European.
Speaker 2: Most importantly, though NATO member somebody that, especially with the
Speaker 2: Trudeau administration, has cooperated pretty significantly with the Biden administration
Speaker 2: and does demonstrate as well kind of a split in
Speaker 2: the overall Western posture towards Israel. Even if there's some
Speaker 2: crazy anti Semitism laws or whatever on the books in Europe,
Speaker 2: those governments are handling this very very differently than we are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is noteworthy, not because of the overall amount
Speaker 1: of the arm sales coming from Canada. They're not that
Speaker 1: significant a player in that regard, but still that such
Speaker 1: a close ally of ours would basically, you know, look
Speaker 1: at the situations that we can't do this any longer.
Speaker 1: That is obviously noteworthy. So we'll see where that goes.
Speaker 1: I just also have to note that it's not like
Speaker 1: we've just stood by while Israel does these things. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have helped them with the starvation policy, in particular
Speaker 1: by at their request, immediately defunding UNRA, which is the
Speaker 1: number one aid organization on the ground, and we did
Speaker 1: that on the day that the ICJ ruling came down, acknowledging,
Speaker 1: you know, it's plausible in South Africa as a decent
Speaker 1: enough case to continue this pursuit of whether or not
Speaker 1: Israel is in fact committing genocide. So we haven't just
Speaker 1: been observers here, We've been active participants in this horror
Speaker 1: that's unfolding of using starvation as a weapon of war,
Speaker 1: total collective punishment of the entire, entire civilian population. And
Speaker 1: by the way, since that ICJ ruling came down, which
Speaker 1: no did not call for a ceasefire, but called on
Speaker 1: Israel to cease any actions that are contributing to this
Speaker 1: finding a potential plausible genocide, that the number of AID
Speaker 1: trucks and the amount of AID entering has actually fallen dramatically.
Speaker 1: And you also have now Israel, over the objections of
Speaker 1: the US, targeting some of the people who've been really
Speaker 1: key in distributing the aid on the ground, and specifically
Speaker 1: Gaza police officers. Now they'll say, oh, well they're Hamas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because Hamas was the government. But the US had asked
Speaker 1: them to stop targeting these civil society workers who are
Speaker 1: critical for helping to distribute what little aid is getting in,
Speaker 1: and that has not happened. In fact, if anything, they
Speaker 1: have stepped up the targeting of those individuals on top
Speaker 1: of of course, you know the massacres that we've seen,
Speaker 1: like the Flower massacre, of directly targeting starving Gazans who
Speaker 1: are going to try to obtain what aid they can.
Speaker 1: There was an extraordinary report in the Washington Post summed
Speaker 1: up you know, quite well, I think by Dave DeCamp
Speaker 1: of anti war dot com. Great website by the way,
Speaker 1: like libertarian or right leaning anti war website that I
Speaker 1: highly recommend to you guys regards to where you are
Speaker 1: on the political spectrum. Let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: up on this screen, and I'll read Dave's assessment of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post report, which really was quite stunning. So
Speaker 1: this Washing Post report attempted to go back to October
Speaker 1: seventh and basically look at how we ended up, the
Speaker 1: US ended up in the place it is now and
Speaker 1: at this point undeniable and manifest failures of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration's policy to say nothing about its immorality. So Dave writes,
Speaker 1: Biden administration officials knew back in October October twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: to be specific, that Israel was bombing buildings in Gaza
Speaker 1: without having solid intelligence that they were military targets, and
Speaker 1: continue to provide full support for Israeli military operations anyway,
Speaker 1: So we knew October twenty seventh. We knew that Israel
Speaker 1: was indiscriminately bombing without solid intelligence. And yet you remember
Speaker 1: the language and the rhetoric and the policy support that
Speaker 1: was Levy behind Israel at that point and continues to
Speaker 1: be to this day. Let me just continue reading this, guys,
Speaker 1: they say. The report said that a briefing took place
Speaker 1: at the White House on October twenty seventh, three weeks
Speaker 1: into that brutal Israeli military campaign, due to the Sheer
Speaker 1: Distry production in Gase, it was clear Israel was bombing
Speaker 1: the strip indiscriminately. And a report that we covered extensively
Speaker 1: here from Plus nine seven to two magazine published in
Speaker 1: November revealed Israel was actually intentionally hitting civilian targets. Israeli
Speaker 1: intelligence sources told nine seven to two that Israel targeted
Speaker 1: what it called power targets, which includes civilian infrastructure such
Speaker 1: as high rise apartment buildings, banks, universities, other public buildings.
Speaker 1: The sources said the Israeli military would also approve strikes
Speaker 1: that killed large numbers of civilians in an attempt to
Speaker 1: target one Hamas member. Biden officials also acknowledged during that
Speaker 1: October twenty seventh meeting that Israel had no clear plan
Speaker 1: on how to defeat Hamas. So think about that. They
Speaker 1: knew that this idea of while we're hunting Hamas was bullshit.
Speaker 1: From the early days of this war. Quote, we never
Speaker 1: had a clear sense that the Israelis had a definable
Speaker 1: and achievable military objective, a source familiar with the meaning
Speaker 1: told the Post. Quote, from the very beginning, there's been
Speaker 1: a sense of US not knowing how the Israelis were
Speaker 1: going to do what they said they were going to do.
Speaker 1: US Intel has acknowledged since that Hamas is not going away.
Speaker 1: The annual Threat Assessment that was released publicly by the
Speaker 1: Office of the Director of National Intelligence that we also
Speaker 1: covered here on Breaking Points this month said Israel quote
Speaker 1: probably will face lingering armed resistance from Hamas four years
Speaker 1: to come. Despite the lack of a realistic goal and
Speaker 1: massive civilian casualties, President Biden still continues to provide unconditional
Speaker 1: military aid for the slaughter. Since October seventh, his administration
Speaker 1: has approved over one hundred armstels for Israel. So bottom line,
Speaker 1: they knew, they knew the hunt for Hamas was bullshit.
Speaker 1: They knew civilians were being targeted from the very early days,
Speaker 1: and it did not stop them from shipping one hundred
Speaker 1: different times one hundred weapons sales, voting down vetoing UNC's
Speaker 1: fire resolutions, providing overwhelming diplomatic cover and support and rhetorical
Speaker 1: support to Israel. And one last thing soccer that was
Speaker 1: not in that particular report about this Washington Post piece,
Speaker 1: but that was also very noteworthy with regard to the
Speaker 1: raid on Al Shifa that you'll recall the Biden administration
Speaker 1: greenlit and that very day when they came out and said, oh,
Speaker 1: we agree with the Israeli intelligence with regard to Al Shifa,
Speaker 1: and we think that there is this command and control
Speaker 1: Hamas node under the hospital that was the very day
Speaker 1: that the first raid of Al Shifa occurred. Well, Senator
Speaker 1: Chris van Holland, in this Washington Post piece, who had
Speaker 1: received a classified briefing about that US intelligence on Al Shifa, said,
Speaker 1: quote there were important and subtle differences between what Biden
Speaker 1: officials were saying publicly and what the intelligence actually showed quote.
Speaker 1: I did find there to be some disconnect between the
Speaker 1: administration's public statements and the classified findings. In other words,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration lied on behalf of Israel about what
Speaker 1: our intelligence said about that supposed never proven Hamas command
Speaker 1: and control in order to give Israel the green light
Speaker 1: to go ahead and bread that hospital. That has led
Speaker 1: to numerous this point, I couldn't even say how many
Speaker 1: hospital raids, including we've just had our fourth rate of
Speaker 1: Alshifa that we covered this week.
Speaker 2: I encourage people to go and read this entire thing.
Speaker 2: It's very well written. John Hudson, one of the reporters
Speaker 2: on there, is a very good guy. He covers the
Speaker 2: State Department has for a long time. It's a very
Speaker 2: excellent piece because it outlines exactly why there's so much
Speaker 2: of a disconnect between public and private outside of the
Speaker 2: political the overall strategy that they are now acknowledging his
Speaker 2: failure is that the bear hug strategy allows you to
Speaker 2: be close if you back somebody up, and that will
Speaker 2: then let them listen to you because you're holding them
Speaker 2: close and you're actually sticking with them, as opposed to
Speaker 2: if you criticize them from the outset, then they're going
Speaker 2: to they're not going to listen to you from the beginning.
Speaker 2: But what they demonstrate in the piece is that a
Speaker 2: step by step by step by step is that the
Speaker 2: bear hug, even with the bear hug, was being taken
Speaker 2: in advantage of by the Israeli side, but was not
Speaker 2: being listened to, and that in the end what happened
Speaker 2: is a Biden himself ends up looking foolish. One of
Speaker 2: the ways you can really see that right now is Netta,
Speaker 2: who just losing it over Schumer. I mean, apparently it's
Speaker 2: been berating him behind the behind the scenes Netsa who
Speaker 2: actually addressed the Senate Republican conference this morning, which by
Speaker 2: the way, John Fetterman asked to sit in and on.
Speaker 2: But oh my god, that's a whole other separate conversations.
Speaker 2: In that meeting, he berated Chuck Schumer and allied himself
Speaker 2: even more with the Republican Party. And you know, let's
Speaker 2: be honest, it's not like Schumer called for anything substantively different.
Speaker 2: So my only point is that the bear Hug strategy
Speaker 2: is met with the same contempt at an analytical policy
Speaker 2: level brass tacks as opposed to the same critical level
Speaker 2: and withholding the only thing they do seem at least,
Speaker 2: the only thing they really seem to understand is actual strength,
Speaker 2: which has not yet been tried by any administration, by
Speaker 2: any real political entity.
Speaker 1: In the US, not for a while anyway, not certainly
Speaker 1: not under this administration. Let's get to this next piece,
Speaker 1: which is incredibly significant with regard to this port boondoggle situation.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen, so Beebe is apparently floating, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, we could use that port for a
Speaker 1: little ethnic cleansing so that Gozins could leave. Let me
Speaker 1: read this tweet specifically, Nott Yahoo in the Forid Affairs
Speaker 1: Committee in Israel said, we are looking at how to
Speaker 1: distribute the aid and gaza through non local entities because
Speaker 1: Hamas failed the attempts to distribute it through local entity.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is bullshit. But anyway, put that aside,
Speaker 1: private companies are also being investigated. This is all because
Speaker 1: they are defunding unrun trying to destroy. As far as
Speaker 1: the State of Israel is concerned, there is no obstacle
Speaker 1: for the Gosins to leave. Maybe even the port they
Speaker 1: are building could be used for this, but there are
Speaker 1: no countries in the world that are ready to receive
Speaker 1: them yet, countries not super excited about participating in your
Speaker 1: ethnic cleansing plan here. But Sager, this comes I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw this, you probably did mis reports
Speaker 1: that as much as Biden floated this port situation as
Speaker 1: like his idea and this great humanitarian assistance to the
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians, the idea actually came from the Israelis and
Speaker 1: from Netanyahu himself. So this gives you some insight into
Speaker 1: why they were keen for us to build this temporary
Speaker 1: port which is going to take months, which is going
Speaker 1: to take somewhere around one thousand US service members who
Speaker 1: were going to put at risk untold amount of dollars
Speaker 1: and is not even going to come close to solving
Speaker 1: the problem, which is the fact that babies are starving to.
Speaker 3: Death right now today, that's what they want.
Speaker 2: They want us to take them, they want us to
Speaker 2: be responsible for occupying for.
Speaker 3: I mean, remember the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 2: They wrote a whole article they were like, hey, America,
Speaker 2: you guys should take all these refugees from Gaza and
Speaker 2: then we'll figure it out.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: You this are literal members of the Kanesset who wrote
Speaker 2: this openly and they said that we should occupy the
Speaker 2: place and that we should take responsibility for them.
Speaker 3: That's what pisses me off the most about this.
Speaker 2: It's not even humanitarian because, as he said, people are
Speaker 2: either starving, We're not helping in the future, we're footing
Speaker 2: a bill, our people are at risk. It's a boondoggle,
Speaker 2: and it's just helping at least in the interim, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of helping accomplish their overall strategy. So the whole
Speaker 2: thing is just totally ridiculous. And what again does it
Speaker 2: say about a prime minister who is willing to just
Speaker 2: say this out in the open, about how hey, maybe
Speaker 2: you guys can take them or you can facilitate her.
Speaker 2: It's like, what, we're going to ship people out on
Speaker 2: US navy vessels to wear on your behalf, Like no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: that's not how this is going to go.
Speaker 1: Well, well, but it may well.
Speaker 3: We're up to me, I would say, no.
Speaker 1: Yeah. At the same time, the level of contempt that's
Speaker 1: being telegraphed from this administration towards people who have who
Speaker 1: are many and who are a majority of Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: orders by the way, at this point, who have issues
Speaker 1: with their policy is really broad taking. Here's Koreean Jean Pierre.
Speaker 1: Just look at her affect. Listen to the answer, but
Speaker 1: also look at her affect while she is fielding this
Speaker 1: question about people who have objections to Joe Biden's policy
Speaker 1: of unconditional support of Israel, Takalism.
Speaker 14: Stinnian American, Arab American, and Muslim organizations that the White
Speaker 14: House reached out to for a meeting this week rejected
Speaker 14: the invitation.
Speaker 1: So what is the White House strategy on this? And
Speaker 1: are there plans for the President to directly engage with
Speaker 1: these communities.
Speaker 14: So look, the President, as you know, has had an
Speaker 14: opportunity to meet with members of that community not too
Speaker 14: long ago, leaders of that community, the our American community,
Speaker 14: the Muslim American community, not too long ago. And so
Speaker 14: look what I will say is We understand that this
Speaker 14: is a difficult time, that this is a painful time.
Speaker 14: We understand that the events of October seventh, that you know,
Speaker 14: that killed more than twelve hundred, twelve hundred souls, right,
Speaker 14: took more than twelve hundred souls in Israel and also
Speaker 14: took Helmas, the terrorist organization also as we know, took
Speaker 14: Costage more than two hundred people. And what that led to,
Speaker 14: that war that led to is incredibly pained.
Speaker 3: We understand that.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, this response was so bad on so
Speaker 1: many levels. First of all, she's practically rolling her eyes.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind, again, fifty percent of Joe Biden
Speaker 1: twenty twenty voters think this is a genocide. Fifty percent, okay,
Speaker 1: and that was, by the way, that poll is now,
Speaker 1: you know, at least a month old. I would be
Speaker 1: very curious what the numbers are at this point, given
Speaker 1: what we've seen unfold. She's flipping through the paper as
Speaker 1: she can barely be bothered. She looks bored, she's annoyed.
Speaker 1: Like I said, she's practically rolling her eyes, and then
Speaker 1: she can't even offer anything about you know, how they
Speaker 1: take this series out, they're going to win people back?
Speaker 1: She can't offer anything even a word about Palestinian civilian
Speaker 1: death and that loss of life and how it's wholly unacceptable. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, the level of content that continues to
Speaker 1: be telegraphed here is just really wild.
Speaker 3: It's very odd. I think.
Speaker 2: Look, I think that the eye roll just comes from
Speaker 2: They're like they don't want to deal with this anymore.
Speaker 3: They're just like, we want this to go away.
Speaker 2: We don't want to talk about it, we don't want
Speaker 2: this to be a problem for us. And that's I
Speaker 2: think one thing that the Israelis and the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: all of them have underestimated is that these clips are
Speaker 2: not local, like they go viral, and that moment went.
Speaker 3: Very, very viral.
Speaker 2: I think for the exact reasons that you're talking. Part
Speaker 2: of the reason why we've highlighted here was because it
Speaker 2: was because of the indifference, and they just don't seem
Speaker 2: to understand where that disconnect is, especially for their voters,
Speaker 2: and that's where it's becoming a political problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, So the last piece we wanted to put
Speaker 1: up here because this.
Speaker 3: Is relevant to this hilarious I want to this.
Speaker 1: Whole conversation about like Israel so upset about Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: interv meddling in their domestic politics. All right, put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Hawret's reports on an Israeli influence
Speaker 1: operation that directly targeted US lawmakers with regards to Hamas
Speaker 1: and unrespecifically. The subhead here says, hundreds of fake accounts
Speaker 1: amplified three mysterious quote unquote news sites to advance Israeli interest.
Speaker 1: Their target US Democratic lawmakers. The number one target, by
Speaker 1: the way of this influence operation apparently was Richie Torres.
Speaker 1: But you know, very interestingly, the majority of the posts
Speaker 1: were targeted not just at Democratic lawmakers or even just
Speaker 1: at you know, insane pro Israel acts like Richie Torres.
Speaker 1: It was actually targeted very specifically at black democratic lawmakers
Speaker 1: because there was this, you know, the senses borne out
Speaker 1: by if you look at who was signed on to
Speaker 1: cease fire proposals, especially from early on, there's a disproportionate
Speaker 1: number of Black Democrats who were backing these proposals. You
Speaker 1: have a historic connection to the Palestinian cause among black
Speaker 1: communities and civil rights activists in particular, so that was
Speaker 1: a serious focus. They say that over five hundred different
Speaker 1: avatars were found on three social networks. They pushed out
Speaker 1: posts with almost identical war wording links to what fake
Speaker 1: reporter call it. That's the outlet that actually originally identified
Speaker 1: this influence operation. The three main assets in this influence
Speaker 1: operation were these fake news websites, Unfold Magazine, Non Agenda,
Speaker 1: and the Moral Alliance. There's a very strong suggestion in
Speaker 1: this report, though they don't come right out and say
Speaker 1: it that it was being run by the Israeli government directly.
Speaker 1: We don't have one hundred percent proof of that. But again,
Speaker 1: like I said, strong suggestion, and to the point of
Speaker 1: what I was saying, some eighty five percent of all
Speaker 1: the American politicians whose accounts were targeted with such content
Speaker 1: were Democrats. Ninety percent of them were African Americans according
Speaker 1: to that analysis, and Richie Torres was targeted most. So
Speaker 1: very interesting. So oh, they would never meddle in our politics. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to say, like the posts they were making,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they were particular.
Speaker 3: No, they weren't good, but they were doing.
Speaker 1: Effective or influential. Some of them even didn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: It'd be like an avatar with a white, middle aged
Speaker 1: looking dude who's like as a black woman, I feel
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. So it's not like it was like
Speaker 1: really well done or I think particularly impactful. But I
Speaker 1: also would point to saga. Remember the ADL was having
Speaker 1: a meltdown, we played some of the audio that got
Speaker 1: leaked about their TikTok problem, and there's this whole freak
Speaker 1: out about social media and how the young people are
Speaker 1: you know, pro Palestine or in their words, quote unquote
Speaker 1: pro Haamas. So I do wonder if this was like
Speaker 1: a direct reaction to that to try to combat the
Speaker 1: you know, the pro Palestinian sense on social media, especially
Speaker 1: among young people.
Speaker 3: I think it's possible.
Speaker 2: I don't know necessarily though, If that's what they're I
Speaker 2: think it's just a classic influence op, and they're going
Speaker 2: after the people that think.
Speaker 3: What they do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is just what they Dosad Israelis, like I said,
Speaker 2: they're the most notorious spies and like internal metalers here
Speaker 2: in the US by an alleged US ally.
Speaker 3: So anyway, I think it falls in the traditional playbook.
Speaker 1: All Right, we have an update for you on those
Speaker 1: Jonathan Glazer comments at the Oscars that came in for
Speaker 1: quite a bit of controversy. Let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. So in reaction to the Glazer comments,
Speaker 1: you know, he was the filmmaker made zone of interest
Speaker 1: that's actually about the Holocaust. He himself is Jewish, and
Speaker 1: he said that he rejected the weaponization of his Jewishness
Speaker 1: and of the Holocaust in order to justify, you know,
Speaker 1: things that he believes should be unjustifiable. So they say,
Speaker 1: according to Variety, over one thousand Jewish creatives and professionals
Speaker 1: have now denounced Jonathan Glazers Zone Oscar speech in an
Speaker 1: open letter. Oh really, Well, it turns out that this
Speaker 1: open letter, it's just a form. It's a Google form,
Speaker 1: and you can see this in the community note, which
Speaker 1: is actually rather helpful. Here they say the letters a
Speaker 1: simple Google form. It does not confirm or ask for
Speaker 1: proof that the signers are Jewish creatives or professionals. One
Speaker 1: of the signers listed by Variety is a sag after
Speaker 1: member named River to the Sea. So apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: the original version of this letter had something like four
Speaker 1: hun or fifty names after it. After it got some
Speaker 1: publicity suddenly and just shot up to over one thousand
Speaker 1: purported the Jewish creatives and professionals, but some significant doubts
Speaker 1: about whether these are actual people who had an actual problem,
Speaker 1: and certainly whether they are Jewish creatives in Hollywood. Also,
Speaker 1: just as a note, apparently not a lot of big
Speaker 1: names signed on to this letter denouncing Jonathan Glazer, but
Speaker 1: I don't want to downplay the fact. I do think
Speaker 1: this could potentially his outspoken criticism which did become very
Speaker 1: controversial and was also lied about and misconstrued intentionally by
Speaker 1: a lot of dishonest actors. This could be a problem
Speaker 1: for his career. I don't think there's any doubt about
Speaker 1: that in terms of what the future may hold for him.
Speaker 1: I'm sure he knew that going into making these comments
Speaker 1: as well, because we've seen people in Hollywood lose their
Speaker 1: jobs for speaking out on behalf of Palestipians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Tony Kushner, our producer Griffin found this. If people
Speaker 2: aren't familiar, he wrote Lincoln, he wrote Munich. He's been
Speaker 2: a Spielberg kind of collaborator. He's one of the more
Speaker 2: high profile people. I saw him speak once actually in college.
Speaker 2: He's the playwright. He did Angels of America. He actually
Speaker 2: spoke out on Glazier's half, and some of the comments
Speaker 2: were interesting let's says.
Speaker 13: The idea that you know, in the blowback after Jonathan
Speaker 13: Glazer's really sort of unimpeachable, irrefutable statement at the.
Speaker 1: Oscars, you identified with what he said, of.
Speaker 13: Course, I mean, who doesn't. What he's saying is so simple.
Speaker 13: He's saying, jewishness, Jewish identity, Jewish history, the history of
Speaker 13: the Holocaust, the history of Jewish suffering, must not be
Speaker 13: used in a campaign as an excuse for a project
Speaker 13: of dehumanizing or slaughtering other people. This is a misappropriation
Speaker 13: of what it means to be a Jew, but the
Speaker 13: Holocaust meant and he rejects that. Who doesn't agree with that?
Speaker 13: What kind of person thinks that what's going on now
Speaker 13: in Gaza is acceptable? And if you find yourself saying
Speaker 13: out loud and in public, oh, it's fine with me
Speaker 13: what they're doing because you feel that it's the only
Speaker 13: choice for you, because you're a Jew, is to defend
Speaker 13: everything that Israel does you know, Shame on you.
Speaker 2: I thought it was interesting just because he's a big
Speaker 2: he's a big player in Hollywood. So for him to
Speaker 2: come out and say something like this Spielberg collaborator and
Speaker 2: all that you're gonna have to pay attention.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Producer Griffin, he's like our most famous American playwright.
Speaker 1: We take.
Speaker 3: Like I said, I think he's an interesting guy. I saw.
Speaker 3: I went to go see him speak just because he
Speaker 3: wrote Lincoln, and he's.
Speaker 2: A very very very learning man, very well kind of
Speaker 2: crafted in his thoughts and the way he puts stuff
Speaker 2: down to paper.
Speaker 3: I've always found kind of an inspiration as a writer, he.
Speaker 1: Also said, and you could see that on the screen.
Speaker 1: He went on to say that what was happening in
Speaker 1: Gaza looked a lot like ethnic cleansing to him. So again,
Speaker 1: these are, you know, really noteworthy comments. And I think
Speaker 1: speaks to this conversation too about anti Semitism, because is
Speaker 1: you know, the idea that being a Jewish person requires
Speaker 1: you to support Israel, requires you to support everything Israel
Speaker 1: is doing and what Israel is all about. I think
Speaker 1: painting any sort of ethnic or religious group with that
Speaker 1: brought a brush. I mean, that's inherently bigoted to say
Speaker 1: you have to associate yourself with this ethnic cleansing in
Speaker 1: his words that's being carried out here. You know, I
Speaker 1: think that is truly anti Semitic, and that gets to
Speaker 1: some comments that our former president Donald Trump had to
Speaker 1: make about Jewish people and how they should be viewing
Speaker 1: this conflict, dictating to them what should define their Jewishness.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 3: Why do the Democrats hate Biby and Netanyahu?
Speaker 8: I actually think they hate Israel. Yes, I don't think
Speaker 8: they hate it. I think they hite Israel. And the
Speaker 8: Democrat Party hates Israel. Any Jewish person that votes for
Speaker 8: Democrats hates their religion, They hate everything of about Israel,
Speaker 8: and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel would
Speaker 8: be destroyed.
Speaker 1: Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.
Speaker 1: Think about that, and that's the polar opposite of what,
Speaker 1: For example, Tony Kushner was saying that his Jewishness requires
Speaker 1: him to speak out against what is being done to
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians in the name of him and other Jewish people.
Speaker 1: So it reminded me so much of the Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: If you don't vote for me, then you ain't black.
Speaker 1: It reminded me so much of that that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: thinks he can dictate to Jewish people what their religion
Speaker 1: is all about and how they if they vote for
Speaker 1: a Democrat then they must hate their religion. I mean
Speaker 1: that is disgusting.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think it's right, but it's actually
Speaker 2: become more of a popular talking point amongst a lot
Speaker 2: of conservative Jews. I've seen a lot of people like
Speaker 2: JPod John put Herrits, Josh Hammer and others who have
Speaker 2: kind of normal this within the conservative Jewish community where
Speaker 2: they are inextricably linking Israel, the war in Gaza, criticism
Speaker 2: of that and trying to not excommunicate per se.
Speaker 3: I don't think it exists in Judaism, but it's.
Speaker 2: More like you are not adhering to the tenets of
Speaker 2: like who we are and what is described in the
Speaker 2: religion if you don't, if you vote for the Democratic Party,
Speaker 2: I believe you. Hammer said that outright and explicitly. So
Speaker 2: I think that is where a lot of this is
Speaker 2: coming from for Trump, is they're like, hey, you should
Speaker 2: push this.
Speaker 3: And I've seen a lot of this internal.
Speaker 2: Policing, you know, in the Jewish community very recently where
Speaker 2: you know, Schumer his act was very controversial where it
Speaker 2: kind of split some of the way that they think
Speaker 2: and talk about Israel. And I think Trump is trying
Speaker 2: to like glom onto that and trying to bring some
Speaker 2: of that energy into the Republican Party. I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: on a rhetorical level, I think it's crazy and outrageous. Like,
Speaker 2: you know, nobody. It is not the job of anyone
Speaker 2: except for people in their religion, and even then they
Speaker 2: don't as far as I understand it, there is no
Speaker 2: pope or whatever in duties.
Speaker 3: So you people figure that shit out for yourself. There's
Speaker 3: more my question.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a poll that found a majority
Speaker 1: of Jewish American support to cease fire, A majority of
Speaker 1: Jewish American support.
Speaker 3: Most Jewish Americans are libs.
Speaker 1: Like that's the I mean, here's the thing too. There's
Speaker 1: been obviously a very warranted conversation about anti Semitism. There's
Speaker 1: also been an unwarranted conversation about anti Semitism, you know,
Speaker 1: being invented in any criticism of Israel being considered an
Speaker 1: antismitic et cetera, et cetera, and anti Semitism is never justified,
Speaker 1: It's never acceptable. I just want to you know that
Speaker 1: this is not to justify anything, but if you are
Speaker 1: requiring all Jews to be associated with what the Israeli
Speaker 1: government is doing right now, starving two million people ethnic
Speaker 1: wanting to ethnically cleanse those people, plausibly committing a genocide
Speaker 1: against those people, and you want to tie every Jew
Speaker 1: in the world to those policies and say that's what
Speaker 1: makes you Jewish, That's the defining character of your Jewishness
Speaker 1: is to be associated with this state that is acting
Speaker 1: in the most morally outrageous ways you can possibly imagine.
Speaker 1: It is almost inevitable, again, not justifying, it is almost inevitable.
Speaker 1: That is going to lead to an increase in anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: that is going to make Jews around the world less safe.
Speaker 1: So that's part of why I find the reaction to
Speaker 1: Jonathan Glazers speech. So discussiing is part of why I
Speaker 1: find Donald Trump's comments here. So discussing this conflation of
Speaker 1: Jewishness with unconditional support for Israel. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not the way Israelis think about things, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: they certainly don't think that their Jewishness is defined by
Speaker 1: supporting friggin Benjamin Netanyato. I can tell you that much
Speaker 1: based on the polls now, there is a very high
Speaker 1: and very disturbing level of support for what is being
Speaker 1: done in Gaza by the Israeli public. But to say
Speaker 1: that you were you are defined in your Jewishness by
Speaker 1: your level of support for whatever it is the Israeli
Speaker 1: government is going to do, or even commitment to the
Speaker 1: State of Israel, you know, in the Zionist project itself.
Speaker 1: I just find that absolutely disgusting, wrong, and like I said,
Speaker 1: I think inevitably actually makes Chews less safe and lifts
Speaker 1: the level of anti Semitism here in our real world.
Speaker 2: That's the point our friend Daryl Cooper has been making
Speaker 2: very consistently.
Speaker 3: He's like, listen, if you want it this way, well.
Speaker 2: Then you know you are going to be by and
Speaker 2: large actually increasing the amount of aggregate anti Semitism in
Speaker 2: the world. I would also say this, you know, you
Speaker 2: can't be saying dual loyalty is anti semitic if you
Speaker 2: also are accepting a frame of dual loyalty.
Speaker 1: That's true, demanding actually true, You're actually demanding it, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a whole other conversation, and that is why
Speaker 2: you know, I know it's controversial, but I think it
Speaker 2: is the most most poignant part and is one on
Speaker 2: the American right, which nobody wants to touch with a
Speaker 2: ten foot poll, and yet is so obvious with so
Speaker 2: many commentators. I'll just leave it at that that it
Speaker 2: is supposedly off bounds, but it's like they're the ones
Speaker 2: also internally trying to enforce the exact same standard. So
Speaker 2: you can't call it anti semitic and then say it's
Speaker 2: anti semitic not to adhere to that standard in their
Speaker 2: own community.
Speaker 3: So anyway, that's a whole.
Speaker 2: Other conversation, I guess. Indeed, all right, thank you guys
Speaker 2: for watching. We really appreciate it. As we said, sign
Speaker 2: up for premium if you can. Breakingpoints dot Com big
Speaker 2: upgrade in the service. If anything breaks over the weekend,
Speaker 2: we'll bring it to you. Otherwise, we've got some content.
Speaker 3: We'll see you all next week.