Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do.
Speaker 3: It's a big day, guys.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of exclusive polling that we commissioned
Speaker 1: here at Breaking Points that's going to look at Americans'
Speaker 1: views of Israel and Palestine. And we have a special
Speaker 1: lens of how people view this conflict depending on where
Speaker 1: they get their news from. Yes, which is very interesting
Speaker 1: and obviously very relevant given the conversation about TikTok, etc.
Speaker 3: So we're going to break those down.
Speaker 1: We also have the continued crackdown on campus protesters and
Speaker 1: a few hoaxes that have emerged.
Speaker 3: Amidst all of that.
Speaker 1: You've also got a bipartisan effort to further censor speech
Speaker 1: on campus.
Speaker 3: So that's great. We'll get into all of that.
Speaker 1: Also, incredibly consequential oral hearings at oral arguments at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court last week taking a look at whether Trump
Speaker 1: should be immune for any official acts during his presidency,
Speaker 1: and big question marks about what this is going to
Speaker 1: mean for Jacksmith's January sixth case in particular against Trump,
Speaker 1: so we'll break that down for you. We also have
Speaker 1: Trump now taking aim at RFK Junior after some polls
Speaker 1: which we covered here revealed that perhaps RFK Junior is
Speaker 1: taking more votes away from Trump, so he seems like
Speaker 1: he's more a little bit more nervous now. And RFK
Speaker 1: Junior also was on with Bill mar we'll show you
Speaker 1: a little bit of that.
Speaker 3: It appears that the International Criminal.
Speaker 1: Court is set to issue arrest warrants against bb net
Speaker 1: Yahoo and some of his compatriots, the US getting involved there,
Speaker 1: and we also have some exclusive poll numbers that we
Speaker 1: can bring you there as well about how Americans feel
Speaker 1: about bb net Nyaho and whether or not they think
Speaker 1: that he is a war criminal. And lastly, Christina, I'm
Speaker 1: apparently murdered a puppy, So got to break that down
Speaker 1: for you as well.
Speaker 3: She got at least that's literally the case.
Speaker 1: She wrote about it in her book Created I would
Speaker 1: say a bipartisan reaction of I would hope so utter revulsion.
Speaker 1: And you know, she was a top contender for Trump
Speaker 1: VP picks, so it seems important.
Speaker 3: We'll get into that. And I'm taking a.
Speaker 1: Look at the horrific spectacle of the White House Correspondence
Speaker 1: dinner over the weekend and the protests that they were
Speaker 1: met with.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm very glad that you're doing that. Can't it's
Speaker 2: a yearly tradition. We've got to go after the White
Speaker 2: House Corresponds dinner.
Speaker 3: Boy, did they ever deserve it this time?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, thank you to everybody who
Speaker 2: supports the show, you guys to enable us to be
Speaker 2: able to do this exclusive polling. Polling is very expensive,
Speaker 2: and this is just part of exactly the type of
Speaker 2: things that we want to do. So we have a promographic.
Speaker 2: We can go and put that up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: and you can sign up at breakingpoints dot com to
Speaker 2: support this, and just so everybody knows, like one of
Speaker 2: the reasons we're very proud of this poll is we
Speaker 2: tried to go after the things that a lot of
Speaker 2: mainstream media was either not covering or was not going
Speaker 2: after itself specifically with media coverage because it would indictment
Speaker 2: of them specifically. So I think that we've partnered with
Speaker 2: JLP here to do a really good job is to
Speaker 2: how people view things based upon their news consumption, and
Speaker 2: that in and of itself is a major indictment. I
Speaker 2: think of a lot of things that the show stands again,
Speaker 2: so oh yeah, and support us. We would appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Cable News as we go through these is a bit
Speaker 1: of an outlier. It's great in terms of how they
Speaker 1: view the conflict in almost every instance.
Speaker 3: So let's start with this.
Speaker 1: Put a two up on the screen to give you
Speaker 1: the overview here. One of the questions we asked so
Speaker 1: that we could have this demographic breakdown as we were
Speaker 1: looking at all of the questions we ask with regards
Speaker 1: to Israel and Palestine, is hey, where do you get
Speaker 1: most of your news? Here we have that information broken
Speaker 1: down by age group. So something that's really going to
Speaker 1: jump on at you here is take a look at
Speaker 1: eighteen to twenty nine, fifty nine percent of young people
Speaker 1: say they're getting their news from TikTok, Instagram x or
Speaker 1: other social media fifty nine percent. The next closest category
Speaker 1: is podcasts in YouTube, but at seventeen percent, so huge
Speaker 1: drop off. Only fifteen percent say cable news, four percent
Speaker 1: say print media, and five percent say none of the above.
Speaker 1: Then take a look at sixty five plus totally different
Speaker 1: dynamic fifty nine percent there say they're getting their news
Speaker 1: from cable news, only five percent from social media, only
Speaker 1: five percent from podcasts, nine percent from print media. And
Speaker 1: you can see the other age demographics. I mean, fifty
Speaker 1: to sixty four looks very similar to the sixty five
Speaker 1: plus fifty four percent, so a majority getting their news
Speaker 1: from cable news. To thirty to forty nine year old
Speaker 1: demographic is a little more mixed. You still have a
Speaker 1: plurality at thirty seven percent getting their news or saying
Speaker 1: they're getting their news.
Speaker 3: From cable news.
Speaker 1: Next highest is social media, then podcasts and YouTube, then
Speaker 1: print media. I just want to reflect and say more
Speaker 1: of you all should be getting your news from podcasts
Speaker 1: and YouTube, apparently the lowest category for in all instances,
Speaker 1: but I mean, are just I think it's worth commenting
Speaker 1: on this piece specifically, which shows you if you compare
Speaker 1: the news habits of eighteen to twenty nine year olds
Speaker 1: versus those fifty plus, it's a whole different world, whole
Speaker 1: different landscape in terms of the type of information that
Speaker 1: they're taking in here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I try to say this, and our boomers
Speaker 2: always get mad, but you guys are living in a
Speaker 2: different world. Like listen it. I think it's great the
Speaker 2: number of boomers who watched the show Premium members. We
Speaker 2: love you, we respect you, but even you need to
Speaker 2: acknowledge it, even the very distinct minority of your age group.
Speaker 2: And one of the things that this country is really
Speaker 2: determined by is the fact that the median voter is
Speaker 2: fifty five years old and is not college educated. And
Speaker 2: the vast majority of those people fifty five, sixty five,
Speaker 2: seventy five plus who are very invested in the political system,
Speaker 2: they live in a completely different reality whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to money, whenever it comes to media. It's never been
Speaker 2: more evident, and I think in modern American history than
Speaker 2: it is today. Everyone's like always kids these days. But
Speaker 2: the mono culture moment, and specifically monocultures of information from
Speaker 2: newspapers and that cable era and all of that basically
Speaker 2: from nineteen ninety two prior was very very different, where
Speaker 2: everyone was consuming the same media, but they had very
Speaker 2: different opinions about how they were consuming that. Here we
Speaker 2: are actually living in different realities, and that determination of
Speaker 2: reality is downstream of all of our politics. It's how
Speaker 2: you see polls where in the majority of Republican voters
Speaker 2: will be against Ukraine AID, but very specifically sixty five plus,
Speaker 2: it's like fifty to fifty. So that's how you get
Speaker 2: eighty five percent of Republicans who then go in and
Speaker 2: support it same whenever it comes. Democrats even have fifty
Speaker 2: percent of Democrats who can be against something. But if
Speaker 2: you go to the sixty five plus to where the
Speaker 2: people most engage with the political system and the people
Speaker 2: most who are actually in Congress itself, that's how you
Speaker 2: get what is it, ninety percent of Democrats who end
Speaker 2: up voting for Israel AIDS. So this, to me is
Speaker 2: the most important graph that we may have ever produced,
Speaker 2: because that is America as a picture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a couple things to note about that. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, as much as cable news viewership and
Speaker 1: frankly their whole business model is kind of falling apart.
Speaker 1: You can see from these graphics how important it still is,
Speaker 1: how incredibly influential it still is. And this is part
Speaker 1: of why we still continue to cover what happens on
Speaker 1: cable news, because it's very impactful, especially in terms of
Speaker 1: that elite conversation and how our policymakers are making their decisions,
Speaker 1: and also how vastwaths of voters are processing information from
Speaker 1: this conflict. So that's number one. Number two, I just
Speaker 1: want to say that famously, as we covered here, remember
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley had that quote about like the more time
Speaker 1: you spent on TikTok, you become eighteen percent more antisemitic
Speaker 1: or whatever. There's this assumption that the social media platforms
Speaker 1: are making people have a different view of the conflict. Now,
Speaker 1: I do think there is kind of a reinforcement cycle.
Speaker 1: But the reason why a more pro Palestinian view of
Speaker 1: the world is wildly more popular, not just on TikTok,
Speaker 1: but on Twitter, on effectively any social media platform you
Speaker 1: could look at that has a broad audience is because
Speaker 1: young people started from a different place in this conflict,
Speaker 1: and so then social media company is being in the
Speaker 1: business of making money, guess what they're going to surface
Speaker 1: for you, and there are algorithms content that they think
Speaker 1: matches things you've already expressed interest in. So I think
Speaker 1: the sort of causation is the exact opposite of the
Speaker 1: way that people in Washington are thinking about it. And
Speaker 1: obviously this ties into the whole reason why TikTok is
Speaker 1: actually in danger of being I mean, the legislation was passed,
Speaker 1: is very possible to be banned, is because they see, Okay,
Speaker 1: young people are on TikTok. Young people have a different
Speaker 1: view of this conflict. We're blaming TikTok. But as I said,
Speaker 1: I think the causation goes in the exact opposite direction.
Speaker 1: All right, So bearing those numbers in mind, let's put
Speaker 1: the next question up on the screen here, which gives
Speaker 1: you a kind of overall picture of which group people
Speaker 1: are more sympathetic towards. The question here, which do you
Speaker 1: feel more sympathy with Israel or the Palestinians. So keep
Speaker 1: this up so I can explain this and people can
Speaker 1: kind of process this information. So the yellow bars here
Speaker 1: are the sentiment of social media news consumers. The blue
Speaker 1: bars right next to that are podcasts in YouTube. Then
Speaker 1: the green bars are cable news, and the red bars
Speaker 1: are print media. So starting with the yellow bar, you
Speaker 1: can see that a very clear plurality thirty three percent
Speaker 1: leans towards having more sympathy with Palestinians versus Israeli. It's
Speaker 1: only twenty percent say Israeli, so thirty three versus twenty percent.
Speaker 1: When you go to podcasts and YouTube, you can see
Speaker 1: that's the blue bar. Similar dynamic plurality twenty six percent
Speaker 1: says Palestinians versus twenty one percent says israel If you
Speaker 1: go to cable news, that dynamic totally flips. And similarly
Speaker 1: with print media, so for cable news is eighteen percent
Speaker 1: only lean towards Palestinians, and the plurality thirty four percent
Speaker 1: are more sympathetic with Israelis. With print media, it's twenty
Speaker 1: percent Palestinians and forty two percent Israelis. And obviously you
Speaker 1: can see significant chunks in each group saying neither one
Speaker 1: or don't know. So it shows you, Sager the way,
Speaker 1: that there is a different sort of like innate sympathy,
Speaker 1: different different pluralities going in opposite directions here depending on
Speaker 1: what news media they're consuming.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and again I would just point to
Speaker 2: the fact that the podcast YouTube number is incredibly significant.
Speaker 2: Something also that people it's funny if we think back
Speaker 2: to some of the twenty nineteen discourse, what was it?
Speaker 2: All podcasts are right wing? RSS is out of control? Really,
Speaker 2: what comes becomes very clear to me is that any
Speaker 2: media which is non institutionalized and separate from big moneyed
Speaker 2: interests and or the corporate machine is by definition just
Speaker 2: going to be more attract an audience and be able
Speaker 2: to present information which is not as sanitized and thus
Speaker 2: in less sanitized information. You're going to have a more
Speaker 2: honest view of the conflict. And I just have to
Speaker 2: underscore the reality question once again, what reality do you
Speaker 2: live in? Even people who are probably pro Israel and
Speaker 2: who are online as in on social media, listen to
Speaker 2: a podcast, they're even going to be more aware, let's say,
Speaker 2: of some of the arguments Crystal that you or I
Speaker 2: would raise about Israeli military conduct, Whereas if you are
Speaker 2: on cable you don't even understand that those exist. Unless
Speaker 2: Fared Zakaria on Saturday, to his audience of three hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand people, happens to do a seven minute
Speaker 2: segment about it. Right like just think about the disconsonants,
Speaker 2: you know, that has to exist there in that reality.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: And so I mean that's why it's sort of newsworthy
Speaker 1: when they do a segment that's like the one we
Speaker 1: covered here.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, they actually.
Speaker 1: Talked about the fact that the IDF is desecrating cemeteries,
Speaker 1: because it's so rare that that type of information about
Speaker 1: what is going on in this conflict actually breaks through.
Speaker 1: And of course we've covered here the analyzes from the
Speaker 1: Intercept and elsewhere about the dramatically war sanitized language that
Speaker 1: is used. We had that leaked memo from the New
Speaker 1: York Times saying you shouldn't even say the word Palestine,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't say the word occupied territories, you shouldn't say
Speaker 1: the word refugee camps. So that's the bubble and the
Speaker 1: filter that older Americans in particular are learning about this
Speaker 1: conflict through. And so you can see, and this is
Speaker 1: going to be very consistent theme as we go through
Speaker 1: these numbers, the way that they're coming to very different
Speaker 1: conclusions from people who are getting their information who are
Speaker 1: seeing the IDEF tiktoking their war crimes, for example, who
Speaker 1: are seeing all of those horrors on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: which is much more readily available on social media, podcast YouTube.
Speaker 1: All right, let's put this next piece up on the screen,
Speaker 1: very relevant to the college campus conversation question. Here is
Speaker 1: has anti Semitism increased? Okay, you've got a couple, you've
Speaker 1: got a number of options increased a lot, a little decreased,
Speaker 1: a little decreased, a lot, stayed the same, and don't know.
Speaker 1: So let's start at the top and focus in on
Speaker 1: this line that says, Okay, I believe anti semitism has
Speaker 1: increased a lot. You can see a significant divergence between
Speaker 1: the yellow and blue bars at eighteen percent. Those are
Speaker 1: your social media and podcast news consumers and the cable
Speaker 1: news and print media audience. They say thirty one and
Speaker 1: thirty five percent that it has.
Speaker 3: Increased a lot.
Speaker 1: If you look down at the uh stayed the same,
Speaker 1: you have a much different view. You've got actually a
Speaker 1: similar number across the board that say it's more or
Speaker 1: less stayed the same. So the big divergence there is
Speaker 1: in terms of the numbers at the top. So you
Speaker 1: see significant numbers even of you know, podcasts and social
Speaker 1: media consumers who say increased a little, or increased a lot,
Speaker 1: but that increased a lot line stands out as a
Speaker 1: kind of, you know, different view. And obviously the emphasis
Speaker 1: has been much greater on cable news and print media.
Speaker 1: And I mean they've just gone all in on smearing
Speaker 1: anyone who's protesting for a ceasefire as an anti Semite.
Speaker 1: So if that's the view of the world you're taking,
Speaker 1: if you're watching Morning Joe with Jonathan green Blatt from
Speaker 1: the ADL saying actually, these college campus protesters are all
Speaker 1: Iranian proxies for Hamas, then you can see how you
Speaker 1: end up with a little bit of a different emphasis
Speaker 1: on anti Semitism than perhaps on other platforms.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we see it too in the next one. I
Speaker 2: actually think this might even be most impactful. We can
Speaker 2: put it please up there on the screen. The question
Speaker 2: here is has these really Israeli military gone Let's say
Speaker 2: for too far. You're only going to have thirty two
Speaker 2: percent of cable news viewers who say that it has.
Speaker 2: You're going to have thirty three percent of podcast viewers.
Speaker 2: You're going to have forty five percent or sorry, forty
Speaker 2: five percent of podcasts, and then also forty one percent
Speaker 2: of TikTok and or Instagram users, Whereas if you go
Speaker 2: to the about right number or the not far enough number,
Speaker 2: you're going to see that it's much larger for print
Speaker 2: media and for cable news as opposed to the podcast
Speaker 2: and the TikTok.
Speaker 1: Now Cable News in particular, there Cable News seventeen like
Speaker 1: we need it, it's not far enough.
Speaker 2: They they need to increase. And then even about the
Speaker 2: about right figure, if you look at print media and
Speaker 2: cable news, it's just disproportionately so much bigger compared to
Speaker 2: the podcast and the TikTok users. And again I just
Speaker 2: want to say, I would I considering the fact that
Speaker 2: if you look at the podcasts the top news podcast
Speaker 2: in the country of which we are on there it's
Speaker 2: not just us. It's like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Candae Owans,
Speaker 2: Megan Kelly. It's not like there isn't a huge pro
Speaker 2: Israel segment of the population that is not listening to
Speaker 2: news podcasts. It is the fact that those podcasts, again,
Speaker 2: if you are interacting with Ben Shapiro, you're more likely
Speaker 2: from what I can see too in our data, to
Speaker 2: also watch maybe a breaking point segment. So even if
Speaker 2: you are pro Israel, and I've seen this, actually the
Speaker 2: pro Israel side that has to engage with some of
Speaker 2: the things that we will bring up here on the show.
Speaker 2: They'll be like, yeah, yeah, but it's okay because I
Speaker 2: support it, or it's okay because war is terrible. It's
Speaker 2: not even mired necessarily in like a moralistic language. It's
Speaker 2: much more I guess, real politique in terms of their
Speaker 2: historical justification, which I mean, I don't no issue with that,
Speaker 2: in terms of at least be honest about who you are.
Speaker 2: Just don't throw your morality kind of in my face.
Speaker 2: My only point is that even amongst you know, podcast
Speaker 2: users who let's be around us have been smeared as
Speaker 2: right wingers Joe Rogan and all that, even they are
Speaker 2: much more reticent, you know, to kind of describe Israel's
Speaker 2: actions has not gone far enough. Even if to some
Speaker 2: of people like Shapiro, who's one of the largest news
Speaker 2: podcasts in the entire country, may say that they are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let that actually backup on the screen. Because there's
Speaker 1: another thing that I noticed about this, which is that
Speaker 1: even though the numbers are higher for the podcast, YouTube,
Speaker 1: social media people, you have a plurality of every group
Speaker 1: that says.
Speaker 3: They've gone too far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good points.
Speaker 1: So even among the cable news watchers you know, who
Speaker 1: are listening to Jonathan Greenblatt and whoever else, you still
Speaker 1: have a third thirty three percent saying too far versus
Speaker 1: the next highest number twenty four percent.
Speaker 2: About right.
Speaker 3: So even in.
Speaker 1: These very skewed news ecosystems, you still have a plurality
Speaker 1: that is saying this is too much. And listen, one
Speaker 1: thing I was thinking about what you're talking about, like
Speaker 1: the podcasts that are out there. You can look at
Speaker 1: the way liberals on MSNBC respond to all of these
Speaker 1: people are responding to a lot of audience and market incentives. Right,
Speaker 1: Liberals on MSNBC, they've got the older audience. They are
Speaker 1: much more sort of hawkish, They're much more on the
Speaker 1: Biden line.
Speaker 3: You think about the pod Save Bros.
Speaker 1: Which is like the biggest liberal podcast out there as
Speaker 1: far as I know, they've been critical.
Speaker 2: That's a good point.
Speaker 1: So there's been there's you know, there is a different
Speaker 1: audience they're responding to. There's a different age demographic, and frankly,
Speaker 1: there's more room for that kind of critique on that platform.
Speaker 1: Versus on MSNBC. Shout out to Aiman Yaldean and Ali
Speaker 1: Velsheen others who have been created some space on MSNBC
Speaker 1: to be critical, but overwhelmingly, if you're watching there, you're
Speaker 1: getting the Joe Biden party line. Let's go to the
Speaker 1: next graphic, which is highly relevant to our recent policy debate.
Speaker 1: So the question here is overall, do you think the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is sending too much, too little, or about
Speaker 1: the right amount of aid to Israel? And once again
Speaker 1: you've got similar dynamic where if you are social media
Speaker 1: podcast you say, by larger numbers it's too much. Okay,
Speaker 1: you've got a plurality thirty five percent who says too
Speaker 1: much of social media users, forty seven percent very strong
Speaker 1: almost majority saying too much among podcasts and YouTube users.
Speaker 1: And then you've got smaller numbers twenty eight and twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent for cable news and print media respectively. About
Speaker 1: right is the plurality choice for the more traditional media
Speaker 1: consumers and too little the highest number here. Once again,
Speaker 1: print media and cable news is a little bit of
Speaker 1: an outlier. They are the it's still not a plurality
Speaker 1: by the way, that says too little, but nineteen percent
Speaker 1: as opposed to thirteen and eleven percent for the podcast
Speaker 1: and TikTok Instagram, social media sort of non establishment platform consumers.
Speaker 1: So you know, you can see a pretty sizable split
Speaker 1: in the way these groups are viewing the conflict, and again,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a complicated mix of correlation is not causation.
Speaker 1: You've got very different as we showed you before, age
Speaker 1: demographics consuming news on these various platforms. Different age demographics
Speaker 1: were already coming at this conflict from a very different perspective,
Speaker 1: and then they're basically having a lot of their views
Speaker 1: sort of confirmed on their platforms of choice, and that
Speaker 1: leads to an increasing split in the way that these
Speaker 1: age demographics and news consumers are viewing the compr.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an important point, right, No way to know
Speaker 2: for sure whether it's a causation of the media, whether
Speaker 2: it's a self selection bias, if anything. On podcasts, you're
Speaker 2: probably more prone to self selection bias, just because you
Speaker 2: can genuinely seek out something that is inherently just almost
Speaker 2: entirely confirming what you want. But there's still a lot
Speaker 2: of ideological you know, opinion and disagreement. If you listen
Speaker 2: to multiple shows, or if you listen to our show,
Speaker 2: and so I think that it opens you up just
Speaker 2: intellectually in a different way. And again, you know, even too,
Speaker 2: for all of the talk of social media creates reality bubbles,
Speaker 2: I think that the biggest reality bubble that exists is
Speaker 2: the cable news environment has shown very very clearly. And
Speaker 2: I see this all the time in my real life.
Speaker 2: I'm sure everybody does too. If you have older relatives
Speaker 2: or older Americans that you speak with and they ask you,
Speaker 2: usually they ask you about the dumbest, most likely inconsequential
Speaker 2: political event and be like did you see Trump said
Speaker 2: a bloodbath or something? You're like, dude, that was debunked
Speaker 2: like three months ago. Yeah, Like what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And I'm like, well I thought that be seen. You
Speaker 2: know at a certain point too, like you really want
Speaker 2: to argue if you're in laws, grandparents, like now you're.
Speaker 5: Not doing that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I will note though, in terms of that, you know,
Speaker 1: how much age should we be sending to Israel? There
Speaker 1: was no group of news consumers in which the majority
Speaker 1: or even plurality was like, we're sending too little. So,
Speaker 1: just in terms of the disconnect from or policymakers with
Speaker 1: even the most you know, sort of consent manufactured group
Speaker 1: of people, which is the people watching cable news. Even
Speaker 1: with them, they're not like we're sending too little. They
Speaker 1: their plurality says it's about right. So maybe ease off
Speaker 1: the gas pedal there, DC lawmakers. Let's get to the
Speaker 1: very latest that is happening in terms of college campuses.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: from Ohio State University, which saw some of the most
Speaker 1: dramatic clashes with well, I shouldn't say clashes arrest peaceful protesters.
Speaker 1: They're warn't even any allocations of violence to my knowledge,
Speaker 1: at any of these universities we have up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We've got Arizona State, We've got Indiana, Washington University, Northeastern
Speaker 1: University just says Austin. I guess that's ut Austin again,
Speaker 1: Ohio State University. So you can see the arrests escalated
Speaker 1: at Arizona State. If you pay attention to an upper
Speaker 1: left box there, that's actually frat boys who were apparently
Speaker 1: like collaborating with the cops to destroy tents, which is
Speaker 1: oursorry ASU. One of the most ASU things I've ever
Speaker 1: heard in my life. But you know, some of these
Speaker 1: arrasts were quite violent. There were also reports at Ohio
Speaker 1: States Hour. Did you see this snipers? I did see
Speaker 1: that being placed on top of the buildings.
Speaker 2: For no consequence either, by the way, which was hilarious
Speaker 2: because it turned out that one of the students was
Speaker 2: actually able to sneak up on said police sniper, right,
Speaker 2: which somebody pointed out, like, dude, that's one of the
Speaker 2: most basic tenets of being a sniper is not allowing
Speaker 2: somebody to snap on the higher so anyway, militarily.
Speaker 3: Yeah, highly trained, What are we doing here?
Speaker 2: You know, for what purpose is that? Crowd control is
Speaker 2: one different thing. Enforcing local ordinance or whatever about people
Speaker 2: who are unlawfully gathered again, but putting people up on
Speaker 2: a rooftop. I have only ever seen that in one
Speaker 2: instances because I live here in Washington, DC and whenever
Speaker 2: it's the President is out and about. I've never seen
Speaker 2: it anywhere else in the entire United States. So did
Speaker 2: I saw that clip? And I was like, it just
Speaker 2: clownish on several levels, because A it's ridiculous, like in
Speaker 2: terms of short force, and B it didn't even work. Dude, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you got snuck up on.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's complete insanity, and I put a fourteen
Speaker 1: actually up on the screen.
Speaker 3: Guys.
Speaker 1: So apparently two hundred at least protesters were arrested over
Speaker 1: the weekend, in particular Northeastern University, Arizona State, Indiana University,
Speaker 1: and Washington University in Saint Louis. They say there have
Speaker 1: been more than eight hundred arrests of protesters on US
Speaker 1: campuses since April eighteenth, That was when Columbia University initially
Speaker 1: had that crackdown. This map we can see up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This show you the way these protests are spreading.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was kind of I was very pleasantly
Speaker 1: surprised to see that University of Mary Washington, which is
Speaker 1: very close to where I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia, is
Speaker 1: not a large school and it's not like it's a
Speaker 1: liberal arts college, but it's not like an elite Columbia
Speaker 1: type university. Apparently they had protests and there were arrests
Speaker 1: that took place. You also had Virginia techs or I'm
Speaker 1: showing my Virginia bias, but you could see these protests
Speaker 1: are literally cross the country, and so that crackdown and
Speaker 1: the focus on the Columbia protesters, if it was meant
Speaker 1: to snuff out the flame and scare students out of
Speaker 1: protesting what they see as a genocide being committed with
Speaker 1: our tax dollars in the Gaza strip, it has had
Speaker 1: the polar opposite reaction. And actually I saw something that
Speaker 1: was really quite beautiful, which is a number of Palestinians
Speaker 1: in Gaza staging a demonstration writing on their refugee displacement
Speaker 1: tense messages of solidarity and appreciation for the Columbia Diversity
Speaker 1: students in particular for standing up for them, which was
Speaker 1: kind of incredible and I'm sure very heartening for these
Speaker 1: students who are, you know, trying their best to figure
Speaker 1: out how to make a difference in the world. Let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and go back to A eight, which shows
Speaker 1: you some of the aggressive tactics that are being used here.
Speaker 1: You can see this the elder woman Jill Stein, the
Speaker 1: white hair there being aggressive, like I would say, assaulted
Speaker 1: with a police bike there. She was arrested. Okay, you
Speaker 1: saw the interaction. She was arrested and charged with assault
Speaker 1: of a police officer. Again, seventy three year old. Whatever
Speaker 1: you think of her, she is a presidential candidate, and
Speaker 1: the Green Party is you know, it's a significant organization,
Speaker 1: they're likely to have ballid access, and she's being treated
Speaker 1: in this manner, Soger, It's completely outrageous. At the same time,
Speaker 1: speaking of outrageous, we have new bipartisan effort that was
Speaker 1: just launched in the House and can put this up
Speaker 1: on this pro Israel House Democrat and Republican plan to
Speaker 1: introduce a legislation creating federally sanctioned anti semitism monitors for
Speaker 1: select college campuses. This is who else, Ritchie Torres and
Speaker 1: Republican also from New York, Mike Lawler. The bill would
Speaker 1: allow the Department of Education to send a third party
Speaker 1: anti semitism monitor to any college that receives federal funding,
Speaker 1: and to revoke that funding for colleges that don't comply.
Speaker 1: The monitor, which would be paid for by the school,
Speaker 1: would be charged with releasing a public quarterly report evaluating
Speaker 1: the progress that a college or university has made toward
Speaker 1: combating anti semitism. Now, obviously I abhor anti semitism and
Speaker 1: any type of racism, but we also know the way
Speaker 1: that these people have consistently defined anti semitism as anything
Speaker 1: that basically they don't like when it comes to criticism
Speaker 1: of Israel. It's wrong think when it comes to Israel.
Speaker 1: So the idea of codifying this at a federal level.
Speaker 3: I mean, saga.
Speaker 1: This is one of the most aggressive attempts I've seen
Speaker 1: to have an overt attack on the First Amendment officially
Speaker 1: sanctioned on college campuses.
Speaker 3: It's pretty wild.
Speaker 2: No, this is pretty crazy because what it does is
Speaker 2: it actually institutes the Department of Education and says says
Speaker 2: to them that they have to create quote third party
Speaker 2: anti semitism monitors paid for by the US government, that
Speaker 2: will then go and analyze each college that receives federal
Speaker 2: funding and then revoking funding for colleges that don't apply.
Speaker 2: That monitor again, would actually be charged with quote releasing
Speaker 2: a public quarterly report evaluating progress that a college or
Speaker 2: university has made towards combating anti semitism. And what it
Speaker 2: would do is redefine anti semitism in the same way
Speaker 2: that previous resolutions of Congress have passed. Now, let's be
Speaker 2: very clear about that, because that actually directly conflates as
Speaker 2: previous governmental definitions of anti semitism exist, criticism of the
Speaker 2: state of Israel with anti Semitism itself. And that is
Speaker 2: why I almost just refuse to fall for the canard
Speaker 2: at this point of like I have poor anti systemisms,
Speaker 2: like yeah, of course, but at a certain point, like
Speaker 2: I'm not even gonna play these people's games anymore, because
Speaker 2: if you're going to use that definition, then I'm not playing.
Speaker 2: It's like, at that point, I'm just gonna say I
Speaker 2: believe very strongly in the First Amendment. What I would
Speaker 2: like to see is a First Amendment monitor which actually
Speaker 2: goes to each campus and revokes federal funding from anyone
Speaker 2: which is directly in violation of a Supreme Court definition
Speaker 2: for federal funding. That seems like a lot more reasonable
Speaker 2: to me. But of course they're not doing that. They're
Speaker 2: actually moving into more censorious direction. And I would just say,
Speaker 2: again to any right wingers, I mean trying to make
Speaker 2: this point more recently, if Trump wins again, do you
Speaker 2: know how many college Republicans are going to be called
Speaker 2: anti Semitic or any of these other groups. Do you
Speaker 2: think they're not going to use this against other student
Speaker 2: groups that they don't want they're on campus, And even
Speaker 2: if they are anti Semitic, that is legally within the
Speaker 2: bounds of the First Amendment, which I stand for. I know,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's a good thing. You know, I
Speaker 2: don't love seeing it march on campus. But I guess
Speaker 2: I've said this before. I've seen straight up like Christian
Speaker 2: nationalists psychos march on my campus when I was in college,
Speaker 2: and nobody really cared much at that time.
Speaker 1: So to that point, ye this, I think this weekend
Speaker 1: or last week in Charleston, West Virginia, there was a
Speaker 1: group of out and out neo Nazis marching down the
Speaker 1: streets of Charleston.
Speaker 3: Went to Okay, fine, yeah, fine, the cops didn't get involved.
Speaker 1: They did their disgusting thing, and everyone moved on. And
Speaker 1: you know what, I find them abhorrent and disgusting, and
Speaker 1: I still support their right, yeah, to be there under
Speaker 1: the first event everyone, because that's what the First Amendment is, Okay.
Speaker 1: It's not for the speech that you love and you're
Speaker 1: comfy with and is friendly for the establishment. It's for
Speaker 1: the speech you find offensive. It's for the speech that
Speaker 1: is controversial. It's for the speech that you know, in
Speaker 1: the case of the Palistine protesters, that challenges powers that
Speaker 1: be and the status quo.
Speaker 3: So I love your idea.
Speaker 1: Someone needs to take that at the first Amendment monitors
Speaker 1: on college campuses. That's a great frickin' idea. Some ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar or whoever. I need to get on that because
Speaker 1: that would really make it very difficult for all these
Speaker 1: people who claim to be free speech bros. When it
Speaker 1: was their side of the equation that they felt was
Speaker 1: being censored. Now you're jumping on board with a fit
Speaker 1: using the power of the federal government to quash legitimate
Speaker 1: criticism of US funding and involvement in a foreign conflict,
Speaker 1: Like what are what are we doing? It's it's such
Speaker 1: complete insanity. And I guarantee you if it was if
Speaker 1: it was anything else, you know, if it was certainly
Speaker 1: like the trans bigotry monitor on campus, you would be
Speaker 1: you would be right there and listen to do the
Speaker 1: flip sid I'm sure there are people who would have
Speaker 1: supported the transbigotry monitor who are involved in the protest
Speaker 1: now are supportive of the protests, who have a.
Speaker 3: Problem with this.
Speaker 1: How about we just all learned the lesson that we
Speaker 1: protect free speech even when it's things that we specifically
Speaker 1: in our political ideology disagree with. Okay, so that's that
Speaker 1: incredible things were happening at Northeastern University over the weekend.
Speaker 1: The Daily Beast with a rare w here exposing what
Speaker 1: was an incredible hoax basically that unfolded. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen, so their headline says it all a
Speaker 1: pro Israel agitator shouts kill the Jews and gets everyone
Speaker 1: else arrested.
Speaker 3: Okay, So there were pro.
Speaker 1: Palestine protesters at Northeastern, as at many other college campuses.
Speaker 3: They were doing their thing.
Speaker 1: Someone within Israeli flag shows up and tried to incite
Speaker 1: the group and start a chant that said kill the Jews. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is a counter protester. This isn't on the
Speaker 1: Palestine side, this is on the Israeli side. They say,
Speaker 1: killed the Jews as a provocation. Then Northeastern uses the
Speaker 1: excuse of the pro Israel's killed the Jews provocation to
Speaker 1: have one hundred pace full protesters arrested on Saturday. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna show you just to tell you that this, you know,
Speaker 1: the way it happened is the way that I'm describing.
Speaker 3: There was there were reporters.
Speaker 1: There was an NPR reporter there who confirmed it, and
Speaker 1: we also have video of the incident. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: play the video. It's a little bit hard to discern,
Speaker 1: so I'm just gonna describe what happens.
Speaker 3: Then well we'll watch it.
Speaker 1: But you see them sort of gathered the you know,
Speaker 1: pro palace time people, and then you hear this individual
Speaker 1: with an Israeli flag say kill the Jews, trying to
Speaker 1: get that chance started, and everyone booze him and then
Speaker 1: moves on to the chance that they actually wanted to do.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to how this unfolded.
Speaker 6: Okay, kill the.
Speaker 7: Jews, anybody, don't anybody, So there you go.
Speaker 1: This individual shows up, tries to cause trouble, gets booed,
Speaker 1: and everybody moves on. But this is used as the
Speaker 1: pretext to arrest everyone. When confronted with this set of facts,
Speaker 1: here was the response from a Northeastern University spokesperson. Put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. The fact that the phrase
Speaker 1: kill the Jews was shouted on our campus is not
Speaker 1: in dispute. The Boston Globe, a trusted news organization, reported
Speaker 1: it is a fact. There's also substantial video evidence any
Speaker 1: suggestion that repulsive anti Semitic comments are sometimes acceptable, depending
Speaker 1: on the context is reprehensible. That language has no place
Speaker 1: on any university campus. Okay, but you didn't even arrest
Speaker 1: the dude who said killed the Jews. You rested the
Speaker 1: people who booed him, Like I mean, it's just it's
Speaker 1: so preposterous. But this is very emblematic of a lot
Speaker 1: of what is on I'm not saying there aren't any
Speaker 1: bad concidents, and you know, things that you shouldn't say
Speaker 1: or I wouldn't say, or whatever.
Speaker 3: But this was huge.
Speaker 1: This was spread everywhere. That's not going to get picked
Speaker 1: up by all kinds of beet. They're chanting kill the
Speaker 1: Jews in college camps. No, some pro Israel person came
Speaker 1: in as an agitator and enchanted it and got booed
Speaker 1: because you know what, many of the organizers and demonstrators
Speaker 1: are themselves Jewish, which is always buried and erased by
Speaker 1: all of the mainstream media coverage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I also just want to presuppose this question.
Speaker 2: Why should any want to be arrested for saying this?
Speaker 8: Is that?
Speaker 2: Is that a violet?
Speaker 3: Thank you?
Speaker 2: I checked again. That is totally within the bounds of
Speaker 2: the first you know, people get angry whenever I say
Speaker 2: things like this, like, that's clearly an incitement of violence.
Speaker 2: It brushes up but against It's like, no, it's not
Speaker 2: unless it's actually literally quite targeted to an individual. You
Speaker 2: were allowed to say basically whatever you want in this country,
Speaker 2: as I think you should. I don't think people should
Speaker 2: be arrested for shouting quote unquote kill the Jews on
Speaker 2: a college campus, even if they were saying it in
Speaker 2: earnest and of the although, of course, and I will
Speaker 2: just just please apply it's not my law. I've stole
Speaker 2: it for many others. If something seems quote unquote too
Speaker 2: good to be true, it usually is. If your pro
Speaker 2: israel I saw Ted Cruz is putting this out there,
Speaker 2: there's no ambiguity. This is what they're shouting. It's like,
Speaker 2: just have a moment of self reflection, dude, because I
Speaker 2: think about it too. Every time. It's the other way,
Speaker 2: you know, anytime some narrative just seems too convenient for
Speaker 2: the right, it's like perfectly on the nose. I'm like,
Speaker 2: you know, maybe could be a little bit something, and
Speaker 2: without fail, if you wait twenty four hours, it will
Speaker 2: usually fall apart. And everybody who spread it initially looks
Speaker 2: like an idiot. You know that's it's almost certainly. And
Speaker 2: in these highly charged scenarios, people have every incentive in
Speaker 2: the world to make things up, to instigate. Think back
Speaker 2: to the swastika, you know, anecdote that I've re laid here. Yeah,
Speaker 2: back to the racism once. You know how many instances
Speaker 2: of quote unquote racism on college campuses. The girls they
Speaker 2: got bullshit.
Speaker 3: The girl they got stabbed in the eye.
Speaker 2: Yes, that we stabbed in the eye.
Speaker 1: I lived literally like brushed up against her with the
Speaker 1: Pealestinian flag and.
Speaker 2: These going down all directions. Yeah, I lived through these
Speaker 2: here in d C. I remember when I was in Cosrok,
Speaker 2: women are being attired for wearing a burkup bullshit. It
Speaker 2: was completely made up. Instance. While we were in DC,
Speaker 2: complete moral panic. The police were called, hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars were spent, like putting police officers on corners.
Speaker 2: She made the entire thing up. I mean, it's like
Speaker 2: with every single time, people have every incentive, media attention,
Speaker 2: and you know, in this case, to smear others. This
Speaker 2: has happened so many times. Agent provocateurs, we know that
Speaker 2: they exist. Just just be weary. But I'm just going
Speaker 2: to come back to almost our initial plot, Crystal, our
Speaker 2: initial block, which is, if you live on the Internet,
Speaker 2: and if you live in the world of just Smollett,
Speaker 2: and you know every instance that I just described, you
Speaker 2: should you probably have this more baked in. But if
Speaker 2: you live in the cable world, how often do you
Speaker 2: hear like the Justy Smalllett thing dever send mec people
Speaker 2: even know that that turned out to be BS because
Speaker 2: they just stopped covering it, like the moment that it
Speaker 2: turned out to be fake. Maybe one or two segments
Speaker 2: same thing on the right wing? How many of these
Speaker 2: things that get played? I was just looking Laura Ingram
Speaker 2: apparently interviewed this woman that stabbed in the eye lady
Speaker 2: three separate times on Fox News. Does Fox have a
Speaker 2: segment that mean you should? If you have any integrity,
Speaker 2: I would, you know, if we said something that wasn't true,
Speaker 2: I'd be like, hey, just everybody knows, you know, it
Speaker 2: turned out it was complete BS if it turned out
Speaker 2: to be you know, whichever way it goes, whether it's
Speaker 2: my narrative or not, I can't believe it. But you
Speaker 2: know how many people who watch Fox, They're not going
Speaker 2: to know to them stabbed in the eye as cannon
Speaker 2: at this point, that's the.
Speaker 1: Issue that's so so true. I mean, it's just listen, guys,
Speaker 1: we live in a big country and there's a number
Speaker 1: of freaks and weirdos out there who are desperate to
Speaker 1: be a victim, desperate to be the center of attention,
Speaker 1: and will go to any links to make that a
Speaker 1: reality for them. Or they're intentional agitators and provocateurs who
Speaker 1: love to stir the pot. Or I mean, we covered
Speaker 1: here on this show incredible in depth reporting on how
Speaker 1: one of the BLM protests in Denver was infiltrated by
Speaker 1: the you know, FBI in formant. It was trying to
Speaker 1: stir them up to like blow up buildings and other
Speaker 1: you know, and embrace more overt violence. So this is
Speaker 1: not It sounds conspiratorial, but these things are real and
Speaker 1: documented throughout history, including through very very recent history. So okay,
Speaker 1: So in the category of I think just desperate to
Speaker 1: be a victim, this next scenario, this video is just incredible.
Speaker 1: I knew Zabur was gonna absolutely love this one. So
Speaker 1: this lady, which you know, I'm very loath to use
Speaker 1: the term Karen, but if it has ever applied, It
Speaker 1: certainly applies. Let's just say a woman in this instance, Okay,
Speaker 1: she's walking her dog. It comes upon she's a I
Speaker 1: think she's at Northeastern. Maybe she comes upon the you know,
Speaker 1: the protesters there, and she completely melts down. She calls
Speaker 1: nine to one one. They're just standing there. They're not
Speaker 1: doing anything to her, nothing to her. She's not in
Speaker 1: sec She's saying, Star Golden, I'm in danger, and I'm
Speaker 1: a Jewish American. She's just literally standing there. She could
Speaker 1: leave at any time. But fortunately someone caught this whole
Speaker 1: thing on video. Just watch how this unfolds.
Speaker 9: Yes, they're right ahead of me right now, they're I
Speaker 9: need Jennifer, I need help. I know that, but they're
Speaker 9: all they're surrounding.
Speaker 4: Let me move.
Speaker 3: No, no, you are free to move. You are free
Speaker 3: to move. She's free to move. You are free to move.
Speaker 3: Right now, she's free to move. She's free to leave.
Speaker 3: She is free to leave. No one is surrounding her.
Speaker 3: She is free to leave.
Speaker 9: Need help, there's one, two, three, four or five, six,
Speaker 9: seven eight. I'm wearing a white and need a shirt.
Speaker 2: I get a job with me.
Speaker 8: I need help.
Speaker 3: You do need help.
Speaker 1: You're not wrong about that. Poor dog is like, can
Speaker 1: we get on with their walk here? Like we're having
Speaker 1: a good time.
Speaker 2: Who walks their dog just straight into the middle of
Speaker 2: a protest and isn't asking for it? Let's be real,
Speaker 2: And she didn't even get anything even when she got there, right,
Speaker 2: But you know, come on, like people need to chill
Speaker 2: if you who thinks they're in danger and then walks
Speaker 2: in the middle off a protest and then even in
Speaker 2: that protest, they're like, lady, you're completely free to leave.
Speaker 2: You're the one here causing a problem. This is all
Speaker 2: on video. You look like an idiot. And that's just like,
Speaker 2: I do not understand. I don't know. There's just such
Speaker 2: a deep narcissism that runs in this country where everybody
Speaker 2: wants to be the victim and they just they they
Speaker 2: think though in the age of social media, that they're
Speaker 2: going to get away with it. It's just astounding. You know,
Speaker 2: this the victim hode complex. You need to walk into
Speaker 2: there and then call the police. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: another thing where we really should have more stringent fines
Speaker 2: and penalties for falsely calling nine to one one under
Speaker 2: false pretenses or false allegations of assault. Because that is
Speaker 2: such bullshit.
Speaker 3: Emergencies to deal with.
Speaker 1: You're like a great panic attack, trying to incite the
Speaker 1: cops to come and like arrest you. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: clearly the goal, right, That's clearly why she walked there
Speaker 1: in the first place. She was hoping something bad would
Speaker 1: happen to her, that she could, you know, call nine
Speaker 1: one one, get the cops to arrest these people who
Speaker 1: were doing absolutely nothing wrong, or herself getting you know,
Speaker 1: the who had Laura Ingram interviewed through Laura Ingram Interviews
Speaker 1: about how she was the subject of an anti Semitic
Speaker 1: attack or what I like. That clearly is her goal,
Speaker 1: and so thank god someone caught it on camera because
Speaker 1: this is the sort of thing that it was just
Speaker 1: this woman recounting what happened.
Speaker 2: Reading local news. I walked my dog into a protest.
Speaker 2: I called nine on one. I felt unsafe. You're like,
Speaker 2: oh my god.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The next thing you know, she's writing a calumn for
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss's thing about how she got stabbed in eye
Speaker 1: or whatever, and Jonathan Green blats on warning Joe talking
Speaker 1: about how this was a hate cry. That's what would
Speaker 1: it could have very easily happened if they hadn't just
Speaker 1: been recording her standing there perfectly safe and all the
Speaker 1: protesters being like, lady, you can leave, Like you're fine,
Speaker 1: go on. Apparently nine to one one also was like
Speaker 1: I think you're good, you can.
Speaker 3: We're moving on here.
Speaker 2: I usually am a critic of nine one one response times,
Speaker 2: but in this particular one, good for them.
Speaker 3: Yes, they have real emergencies to deal with people. Come on.
Speaker 2: There was a highly consequential argument before the US Supreme
Speaker 2: Court on the question of Donald Trump and his immunity
Speaker 2: from prosecution as president of the United States. The reason
Speaker 2: this is very consequential is it specifically focuses in on
Speaker 2: the Jack Smith January sixth indictment against Trump, as it
Speaker 2: relates to whether Donald Trump was acting in an official
Speaker 2: act as president or not while he was undergoing a
Speaker 2: lot of this January sixth false elector scheme, of which
Speaker 2: he is actually being charged with. So we have two
Speaker 2: separate questions lines of questions from the conservative justices and
Speaker 2: the liberal justices. I will give it away to you
Speaker 2: before we even play them. It does appear that the
Speaker 2: conservative majority will side with Trump. But getting into some
Speaker 2: of the actual line of questioning is important to understand
Speaker 2: and tease out kind of what they're getting at for
Speaker 2: the legal merits. Here is Justice Alito with a question
Speaker 2: on that official proceedings and whethersone could be undidted under
Speaker 2: an official act. Here's what it is.
Speaker 5: Mister Sauer and others have identified events in the past
Speaker 5: where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been
Speaker 5: charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,
Speaker 5: that's not really true. This is page forty two of
Speaker 5: your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision
Speaker 5: to in turn Japanese Americans during World War Two? Couldn't
Speaker 5: that have been charged under eighteen USC. Two forty one
Speaker 5: conspiracy against civil rights?
Speaker 10: Today? Yes, given this Court's decision in Trump versus United States,
Speaker 10: in which the Trump versus Hawaii excuse me, where the
Speaker 10: Court said Kramatsu is overruled, I mean President Roosevelt made
Speaker 10: that decision with the advice of his Attorney general. That's
Speaker 10: a layer of that's really true.
Speaker 5: I thought Attorney General Biddle thought that there was really
Speaker 5: no threat of sabotage, as did Jaeger Hoover.
Speaker 10: So I think that there is a lot of historical controversy,
Speaker 10: but it underscores that that occurred during wartime. It implicates
Speaker 10: a potential commander in chief concerns concerns about the exigencies
Speaker 10: of national defense that might provide and as applied article
Speaker 10: to challenge at the time. I'm not suggesting today, but
Speaker 10: the idea that a decision that was made and ultimately
Speaker 10: endorsed by this Court, perhaps wrongly in the Kamatsu case,
Speaker 10: would support criminal prosecution under two forty one, which requires
Speaker 10: under United States versus Linear that the right have been
Speaker 10: made specific so that there is notice to the president.
Speaker 10: I don't think that would have been satisfied.
Speaker 2: So that was an important line of questioning there by
Speaker 2: Justice Alito, specifically the official act or whether you're doing
Speaker 2: something an official act leaves you open for prosecution. They're
Speaker 2: talking about the infamous internment of Japanese Americans. Now we're
Speaker 2: going to flip it and we're going to show you
Speaker 2: here a line of questioning from Justice Soda Mayor around
Speaker 2: whether an official act as president could include, let's say,
Speaker 2: assassination of your political rival. How and what would that
Speaker 2: then be tested under this bounds of absolute immunity, that
Speaker 2: the Trump prosecution or the Trump Defense is arguing, let's
Speaker 2: take a lesson.
Speaker 11: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt
Speaker 11: person and he orders the military or orders someone to
Speaker 11: assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which
Speaker 11: he can get immunity.
Speaker 12: It would depends on the hypothetical, but we can see
Speaker 12: that could well be an official he.
Speaker 11: Could and why because he's doing it for personal reasons.
Speaker 11: He's not doing it at like President Obama is alleged
Speaker 11: to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist.
Speaker 11: He's doing it for personal gain.
Speaker 2: So that is the interesting kind of crux. And it's
Speaker 2: actually a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 3: Well awkward there for the Lobos, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, it is, because they're talking they're like, well, yeah, Obama,
Speaker 2: because you know that was a very clearly like well,
Speaker 2: what about President Obama and the assassination of Anwar Al Alwaki,
Speaker 2: which he basically just greenlit th to this Solicitor General's office,
Speaker 2: even though he was an American citizen and was never
Speaker 2: once convicted of a crime, let alone stripped of his
Speaker 2: citizenship and allowed to be killed by his own government.
Speaker 2: So this gets then to the question about that official
Speaker 2: act where they appears that the court is going to
Speaker 2: split the difference. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. What they are showing from the arguments
Speaker 2: is that they are likely to side with Trump on
Speaker 2: some presidential immunity. What might mean by that is that
Speaker 2: they're they're going to narrow the indictment such that Jack
Speaker 2: Smith is going to have to go back and use
Speaker 2: some legal minutia to argue that much of the Trump
Speaker 2: false elector's schemes happened as in his personal capacity as president.
Speaker 2: The way that they're going to argue that actually does
Speaker 2: comply with some of the facts, Crystal. It gets to,
Speaker 2: for example, some of his off the book's Oval office
Speaker 2: meetings which were not happening in his official capacity, We're
Speaker 2: happening as campaign capacity. Yeah, so they need to go
Speaker 2: back and basically narrow and tailor the indictment after this
Speaker 2: is issued to specify that this happened as campaign Trump
Speaker 2: and not as President Trump. It gets into that question
Speaker 2: of official versus campaign and also not remember we're not
Speaker 2: talking here about the speech or even the actions of
Speaker 2: January sixth. It's often conflated. The actual indictment focuses on
Speaker 2: the false elector scheme specifically, and so they have to
Speaker 2: go back and tailor what is and is not an
Speaker 2: official act in terms of the indictment. Now, the reason
Speaker 2: any of this matters is because A it's narrowing the
Speaker 2: definition of official act of the presidency. But BA procedurally,
Speaker 2: this is almost certainly going to delay the trial until
Speaker 2: after the November twenty twenty four election. At least according
Speaker 2: to the timelines that we've seen. Supreme Court still has
Speaker 2: to issue an opinion on this that Jacksmith would then
Speaker 2: have to go through all the procedural things that you
Speaker 2: have to do. The Trump team throwing everything they can,
Speaker 2: So it does seem very likely now at this point
Speaker 2: that the only case that will come to trial before
Speaker 2: the November election, it's, you know, more likely than not,
Speaker 2: is this stupid Stormy Daniels case in New York City,
Speaker 2: which is astounding.
Speaker 3: It's kind of crazy. I mean, it's very ironic.
Speaker 1: Incredibly, this is the one that actually the one that's
Speaker 1: even ye I mean, yeah, it just a fate, but
Speaker 1: here we are, I mean, it's anyway, with regard to
Speaker 1: these arguments, it looks like four of the conservative justices
Speaker 1: were very amenable to the Trump team's arguments about presidential immunity,
Speaker 1: Roberts being kind of the swing vote, and as Sager
Speaker 1: is indicating, what may happen here is they say, yes,
Speaker 1: you're immune for official acts, but there's a big question
Speaker 1: about how many of the acts that he's actually indicted
Speaker 1: for our quote unquote official acts and how many are
Speaker 1: private acts. And there was a lot of discussion and
Speaker 1: debate that happened in these hearings about how you distinguish
Speaker 1: between the two, because on its face, you might think
Speaker 1: that it's clear, but you very quickly come to realize
Speaker 1: that it's hard to draw the line in a lot
Speaker 1: of instances. And I think with regard to this January
Speaker 1: sixth indictment in particular, i'll read.
Speaker 3: A little bit from that piece.
Speaker 1: We just had up several justices press the Trump team
Speaker 1: on how to distinguish official acts for which a president
Speaker 1: would enjoy immunity under their theory, from private acts for
Speaker 1: which he could still face criminal charges. Chief Justice John
Speaker 1: Roberts in particular asked the Trump team about a scenario
Speaker 1: involving a president's official act appointing an ambassador, but that
Speaker 1: he does in exchange for a bribe. When the Trump
Speaker 1: team conceded that accepting the bribe is p conduct. Robertson
Speaker 1: urged them to explain how the boundary between an official
Speaker 1: act and a private one would come into play. Prosecutors
Speaker 1: could bring charges against the former president for accepting a
Speaker 1: million dollars, Robert queried, or but they can't say what
Speaker 1: it's for. So how do you where do you draw
Speaker 1: that line? Can you say, Okay, this was for appointing investador?
Speaker 1: Is that off limits because that's an official act? So
Speaker 1: it becomes quite murky. Justice Selena Kagan also took up
Speaker 1: this line of questioning.
Speaker 3: She had a series of examples.
Speaker 1: She talked about, you know, signing a form affirming false
Speaker 1: election allegations.
Speaker 3: Would that be private.
Speaker 1: Trump's team said it would be, but they asserted that
Speaker 1: other things like calling the chair of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: would be official. So it was directly relevant to the
Speaker 1: Trump case. So, if you're signing a form asserting, yes,
Speaker 1: these fake electors are real, Arry, we're saying that's private.
Speaker 1: But you're calling the chair of the Republican Party to
Speaker 1: pressure them in this direction, that's official.
Speaker 3: So again it's very murky.
Speaker 1: When asked whether ordering the military, Harry to stage a
Speaker 1: coup so the president could remain in office, was private
Speaker 1: or official. The Trump team suggested it would depend on
Speaker 1: the circumstances, prompting Kegan to say that sure sounds bad,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And you know, previously we had talked about
Speaker 1: how some of the Trump theory that they were arguing
Speaker 1: at the DC Circuit court level was, Hey, the process
Speaker 1: here is impeachment and conviction.
Speaker 3: That's the direction to go through.
Speaker 1: And some of the arguments here really indicated that even
Speaker 1: if let's say Trump was impah over January sixth and
Speaker 1: the attempts to overturn the election and convicted in the Senate,
Speaker 1: they still, under their argument, would be immune from criminal
Speaker 1: prosecution around all of that. But you know, for my
Speaker 1: personal opinion, old fashioned, I think president should have to
Speaker 1: follow the law, whether it's Obama or Trump or anybody else.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the consequence for this case, I mean,
Speaker 1: really is consequential for all future presidents, And you know,
Speaker 1: what they can do and what they feel entitled to do,
Speaker 1: and the way that they frame their potentially future illegal acts.
Speaker 1: So it's very consequential not just for this case but
Speaker 1: moving forward, but specifically for this case. If they do
Speaker 1: what it looks like they're going to do. At the
Speaker 1: very least, it's going to be another significant delay because
Speaker 1: not only may Jack Smith have to taylor the indictment,
Speaker 1: but you're then very likely to have to go through
Speaker 1: a bunch of additional court rulings about where do you
Speaker 1: draw the line is this appropriate or is this not appropriate?
Speaker 1: And that could also have to go all the way
Speaker 1: back up to the Supreme Court. So you know, the
Speaker 1: delay tactics from Trump on this particular case, which I
Speaker 1: would say, you know, putting aside the strength of the
Speaker 1: legal case, which I think, you know could be debated,
Speaker 1: but in terms of what people hate the most about Trump,
Speaker 1: this one is really kind of at the core. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like we're going to come anywhere close
Speaker 1: to any sort of resolution with this before election, is
Speaker 1: the bottom line?
Speaker 2: Well said, So there you go. Part of the reason too,
Speaker 2: there was such a dumb idea to indict Trump if
Speaker 2: you are going to indict him so late in the game,
Speaker 2: because now, congratulations. Honestly, the setupmerica up for even more
Speaker 2: of a nightmare, because now what if he wins. The
Speaker 2: president elect on trial, the current president of the United
Speaker 2: States on trial, if you think these currents are remport
Speaker 2: courses are crazy. Imagine if he's sitting in the damn
Speaker 2: office while this is all happening. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: absolute madness. Let's move on now to the next part.
Speaker 2: This is one that we just couldn't let slide. Howard Stern.
Speaker 2: This is honestly, deeply sad and almost emotional in a
Speaker 2: certain sense. Howard Stern, I mean, was the icon of
Speaker 2: the United States find you know, as the anti establishment.
Speaker 2: The FCC, you know, went after him for being loot
Speaker 2: or you know, cursing on the air. He signed his
Speaker 2: deal with Sirius, he was totally uncensored. And then the
Speaker 2: last seven years or so we've seen a transformation of
Speaker 2: this former renegade basically into like a blue and on liberal.
Speaker 2: And I mean this has been coming now for quite
Speaker 2: some time. But Howard Stern, who, let's all be honest,
Speaker 2: maybe more responsible for pop popularizing Trump than anybody else,
Speaker 2: used to have a standing segment where Trump would call
Speaker 2: in Milania two and the two of them would just
Speaker 2: like discuss like sex and weird, lewd stuff and they
Speaker 2: would get you know, everybody would Everybody loved it because
Speaker 2: Donald would go in with Howard, and there was very
Speaker 2: very popular segments there is now turned again into like
Speaker 2: Trump is a fascist, and this culminates in this recent
Speaker 2: interview where President Biden, who has not done an interview
Speaker 2: with a major news outlet yet including The New York
Speaker 2: Times for his entire presidency, for print media. In terms
Speaker 2: of TV, it's been I think like several I think
Speaker 2: it's been more than a couple of months. Remember Chrystally
Speaker 2: famously skips out on the CBS interview for the Super Bowl.
Speaker 2: He has skipped multiple opportunities for major sit down interviews
Speaker 2: that millions of Americans would watch. Well. He then decides
Speaker 2: to sit down for an hour long interview with Joe Biden. Now,
Speaker 2: in the past this might have actually been important, you know,
Speaker 2: Howard might have actually asked him one or two questions.
Speaker 2: Howard manages to sit with this man for an hour,
Speaker 2: make one piece of news where he offhand He's like, oh,
Speaker 2: are you going to debate Trump? And Biden's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: debate him at some point it doesn't even commit to
Speaker 2: a thing. And then listen to the tongue bath that
Speaker 2: Howard gives his interviewee subject. This is again Howard Sterning
Speaker 2: a former renegade. Take a listen.
Speaker 13: Thank you for doing this today. I want to thank
Speaker 13: you for your compassion. You know, the reason I'm so
Speaker 13: excited to talk to you was because I wanted to
Speaker 13: understand the tragedy in your life and how you dealt
Speaker 13: with it. And you're the kind of leader I love.
Speaker 13: Because we're lucky to have you in the Oval office
Speaker 13: and serving as the father of the country. Because if
Speaker 13: you're a good father to your family what you are,
Speaker 13: I know you be a good father to the country.
Speaker 13: And I want to thank you for providing a calming influence,
Speaker 13: an organized administration post COVID, getting that vaccine out. I
Speaker 13: remember what the world was like at that point, getting NATO,
Speaker 13: getting us to feel comfortable standing up to putin the
Speaker 13: incredible large growth in the jobs, unemployment rate down. I'll
Speaker 13: give you your greatest hits, the lowest uninshored rate in history.
Speaker 13: Four out of five Americans are covered for less than
Speaker 13: ten dollars a month, knocking off a few isis leaders.
Speaker 13: Cutting the emissions in half. I mean, you've always been
Speaker 13: an environmentalist, even the marijuana reform laws. Enough to sitting
Speaker 13: there and fighting that battle. Respect for Marriage Act. What
Speaker 13: the hell is with people with this gasee? Who cares
Speaker 13: if someone's gay? How is it affecting anybody?
Speaker 2: People?
Speaker 13: In love? It's good right, love is good.
Speaker 14: My dad, I said, said, we saw two men kissing
Speaker 14: one another in Rodney Square when I was going in
Speaker 14: to get a license. I looked at him. He said, Joey,
Speaker 14: it's simple. They love each other. That's it.
Speaker 2: That's how I look at it. Do you have a
Speaker 2: question there, Howard? What the hell is that? I can't
Speaker 2: imagine a subject that I would ever interview, even if
Speaker 2: I was enamored by them, especially a politician. I would
Speaker 2: never speak to a politician somewhere.
Speaker 3: Like what the most powerful man on the planet question?
Speaker 2: What are you doing?
Speaker 3: It?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Was honestly, remember how we used to always make fun
Speaker 1: of that slobbering and Arenicle.
Speaker 3: Wallace did, which.
Speaker 2: It was one times.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna talk about this. I'm in my monologue
Speaker 1: about the White House Correspondence dinner where they're calling us
Speaker 1: talking about his decency? His decency? Do you know how
Speaker 1: sickening that is? Here he's sorry, his compassion. Do you
Speaker 1: know how sickening that is? When under his watch tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of Palestonian children have been killed. We've all
Speaker 1: say that images of these babies being amputated with no
Speaker 1: anesthetic on a kitchen table with a butcher knife, And
Speaker 1: you're talk to me about this man's compassion, his compassion
Speaker 1: right now we're going to cover in a little bout
Speaker 1: he's intervening personally to make sure that bab Netal who
Speaker 1: was in charge with war crimes, and you're you're going
Speaker 1: to talk about his compassion and his decency.
Speaker 3: It's just it's so grotesque.
Speaker 1: It really shows you that how simple minded and also
Speaker 1: how the only thing that so many of this is
Speaker 1: very like Beltway mindset.
Speaker 3: All they care about is this like decorum.
Speaker 1: So the fact that he's like not vitriolic towards Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell or whatever is more important to them them than
Speaker 1: the fact that he's aiding and abetting a genocide with
Speaker 1: horrors that we are all appalled by on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: How many images have you seen of the mass graves
Speaker 1: that were uncovered outside of a hospital in Communis you're
Speaker 1: gonna tell me about this man's compassion compassion for who,
Speaker 1: because it's certainly not those people, is certainly not Palestidians.
Speaker 2: I mean I can give even more. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: think about Ukraine bringing us to the brink of nuclear war,
Speaker 2: like continuing that forever. Also the idea that there's some
Speaker 2: well oiled machine there. You know, I was saying while
Speaker 2: the clip was playing to you, they should hire Howard
Speaker 2: as its press secretary because they can't even fire the
Speaker 2: current press like Gosch he's black, even though they literally
Speaker 2: walked to fire, but they're so afraid of the affirmative
Speaker 2: action consequences of firing a black lesbian. That's so much
Speaker 2: of a joke that these people are. So it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, father of this country, the whole father of
Speaker 2: the country, mister decency. I mean, all of this really
Speaker 2: goes to the fact that his son is dead, which
Speaker 2: is obviously tragic and sad, but you know, let's be honest,
Speaker 2: like that's not a qualification for being president of the
Speaker 2: United States. There's a lot of people in this country
Speaker 2: whose kids are dead and or can speak with some
Speaker 2: empathy or compassion or you know, use it as foundational
Speaker 2: experience of their life. I just this is sickening to
Speaker 2: me on so many levels, both because of who Howard
Speaker 2: was and how he got his fame, how he really
Speaker 2: changed American culture, I think for the better, you know,
Speaker 2: opening up challenging a lot of these conceptions of censorious,
Speaker 2: like censorious or government organizations and standards and all that
Speaker 2: was very constraining to speech. And we know that Howard
Speaker 2: thirty years ago, no matter, absolutely would not have stood
Speaker 2: for the current type of environment and all that that
Speaker 2: Biden has brought to the table. But for some reason,
Speaker 2: you know, his brain has just been completely broken. So
Speaker 2: it's sad that that again too, that's the only time
Speaker 2: of interview that Biden will sit for. How can you
Speaker 2: have this?
Speaker 3: That's right?
Speaker 1: As a republic You can see, I mean you can
Speaker 1: see why see why he picked Howard Stern clearly and
Speaker 1: why he won't go and sit with Yeah. I mean
Speaker 1: the New York Times is very favorable towards him, but
Speaker 1: they're going to ask.
Speaker 3: Him something that he's going to have to, yeah, no question.
Speaker 1: Respond to, and I mean he's not equipped, right, So
Speaker 1: that's why he does it is because he can get
Speaker 1: away with it and you can just you know, go
Speaker 1: on like Howard Stern, or go on with some like
Speaker 1: Mindfulness podcast, which is not going to ask him anything.
Speaker 3: Difficult, and you.
Speaker 1: Know, it's a real political problem. It's obviously a moral
Speaker 1: like abyss in terms of what he's done in his
Speaker 1: presidency vis A vi Gaza, but it's a real political
Speaker 1: problem for him because the core value that was kind
Speaker 1: of his like political super power was this sense that
Speaker 1: he's this Listen, I may not agree with him, but
Speaker 1: he's a decent man. He's compassionate, he shows he has
Speaker 1: all this well of empathy from a life that was
Speaker 1: marked by genuine, horrible tragedy.
Speaker 3: Right, but we covered a pole recently.
Speaker 1: I wish I had the numbers in from you right
Speaker 1: now that people don't feel that way about him anymore.
Speaker 1: They don't feel that way about him anymore because you know,
Speaker 1: you look at what he's doing and what he's enabling,
Speaker 1: what he's funding, what he's covering for, and you can
Speaker 1: no longer say like, oh, this is an empathetic, compassionate man.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't hold, especially if you're talking about you know,
Speaker 1: as our pole reflects people who are not getting their
Speaker 1: news from cable news or print media, but cable news
Speaker 1: in particular. The rest of the country is looking at
Speaker 1: what he is not just enabling but facilitating starvation, the
Speaker 1: complete siege, all of these things. I don't feel like
Speaker 1: this is a good, decent, compassionate man. So previously, I
Speaker 1: feel like some comments like this are the ones from
Speaker 1: the White House correspond or whatever. They would have passed
Speaker 1: without a lot of commentary, because there were a lot
Speaker 1: of people who felt that way, who used to feel
Speaker 1: that way about Joe Biden, and that image is falling
Speaker 1: apart by the day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has fell part for a lot of people
Speaker 2: a long time ago. Let's move on now to RFK Junior.
Speaker 2: In the war between RFK Junior and Donald Trump is escalating.
Speaker 2: RFK Junior appears to have really set Trump off with
Speaker 2: some It's either his interview on Bill Maher and specifically
Speaker 2: the vaccine section. So we're going to play for you
Speaker 2: what RFK Junior said with Bill Maher and then we're
Speaker 2: going to show you Trump's responses plan.
Speaker 15: But your vice presidential pick wants to recall the Maderna vaccine.
Speaker 15: That's the one I got. Well, do you agree with
Speaker 15: that recall it?
Speaker 12: I think you know they I make those vaccines need
Speaker 12: to we need to have again true double line. Plet's
Speaker 12: even controlled trials on that. There's twenty five percent of
Speaker 12: Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed
Speaker 12: a COVID vaccine killed killed twenty five percent of Americans.
Speaker 12: Fifty two percent of Americans believed that the vaccines are
Speaker 12: causing injuries including death fifty two percent. Oh, if you
Speaker 12: look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that
Speaker 12: were done that were released of the Fireser vaccine, Moderna
Speaker 12: has not released it. If you look at the Fiser vaccine,
Speaker 12: there was there were twenty two thousand people in the
Speaker 12: placebit group, twenty two thousand people who got the actual vaccine,
Speaker 12: and the people who got the vaccine had a twenty
Speaker 12: three percent higher death rate from all causes at the
Speaker 12: end of that study.
Speaker 15: But that could not be the disease itself.
Speaker 2: Well, so as you can see Arcade Junior versus Bill
Speaker 2: Maher there. But what was interesting is how Trump is
Speaker 2: now handling this. So let's go put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. So Donald Trump puts out this long truth. God,
Speaker 2: the character limit really was good for him. This is
Speaker 2: way too long, says I actually watched for the first
Speaker 2: time in a long time. Ratings challenged Bill Maher's really
Speaker 2: boring interview with RFK Junior RFK, only to find Junior
Speaker 2: is far more liberal than Mar and in fact far
Speaker 2: more liberal than anyone else running as a Democrat, including
Speaker 2: West and Stein. Yet despite this, he has no hope
Speaker 2: as a Democrat because they were able to use their
Speaker 2: typically fascist repression blah blah blah throw them out of
Speaker 2: the party like a dog. So now Junior's a so
Speaker 2: called independent, but he's not. He's a radical left wing
Speaker 2: lunatic trying to have it all way. He says that
Speaker 2: no vaccine is safe and effective and then said I
Speaker 2: would never say I'm not anti vaccine. Where did that
Speaker 2: come from? Mar defended the vaccine, which Junior seemed to agree, Wow,
Speaker 2: and then told him his poll numbers of crash. No
Speaker 2: Republican can vote for this guy. Hashtag MAGA twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: No idea what Trump is trying to say there exactly crystal,
Speaker 2: But but I think what he can sense, at least correctly,
Speaker 2: is that a vaccine politics is disproportionately going to resonate
Speaker 2: with people who are right wing, and that therefore something
Speaker 2: like RFK Junior there citing those numbers which probably disproportionately
Speaker 2: going to be Republicans or Republican leaning voters, and Trump's
Speaker 2: not an idiot. He can read a poll, how many
Speaker 2: internal polls?
Speaker 3: Not?
Speaker 2: Is he probably able to see now that confirm a
Speaker 2: lot of the reporting we've had here on this show
Speaker 2: and elsewhere that RFK Junior actually could end up affecting
Speaker 2: Trump and drawing more from his voters than anybody else
Speaker 2: in the election.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so I think most Americans overwhelmingly have moved
Speaker 1: on from.
Speaker 3: COVID politics as retired. This was years ago now, but.
Speaker 1: There is still a like core base on the right
Speaker 1: in particular that is still like this. This is a
Speaker 1: big thing for them, and it's one of the areas
Speaker 1: where Trump's more vulnerable because he did operational warp speed
Speaker 1: and he continued even as the Republican base went to
Speaker 1: the anti VAXs side pretty hard, he continued to defend
Speaker 1: the vaccines and a time, like face some blowback over that.
Speaker 1: So I think he feels a little bit vulnerable. Not
Speaker 1: that this is going to be a huge wave of
Speaker 1: support from his group to RFK Junior's group, but I
Speaker 1: think he feels that this is an issue where he's
Speaker 1: a little bit vulnerable to losing some percentage points.
Speaker 3: I do want to.
Speaker 1: I mean, he does make a point about RFK Junior
Speaker 1: that I think is fair, which is that he does
Speaker 1: play very like fast and loose with what he actually
Speaker 1: thinks about vaccines. Because the quote that they're referring to
Speaker 1: was from Lex Readman's podcast. Remember this, this is from
Speaker 1: July twenty twenty three. So he was being asked, you know,
Speaker 1: if any vaccines are safe and effective, and he said
Speaker 1: there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. Now,
Speaker 1: what he tries to claim is that he did say
Speaker 1: that some of this is the exact quote, some of
Speaker 1: the live virus vaccines are probably averting war problems than
Speaker 1: they're causing. But then he went on when he was
Speaker 1: pressed and said there is no vaccine that is safe
Speaker 1: and effective.
Speaker 3: So I think it's it's.
Speaker 1: Fair to call him then an anti vaxxerra. Of course,
Speaker 1: he's been one of the leading like funders and organizers
Speaker 1: of an entire movement again, you know, pushing back on
Speaker 1: the idea of vaccine safety. So in any case, this
Speaker 1: is an area where Trump feels like RFK obviously codes
Speaker 1: more right wing, and I think he also is seeing
Speaker 1: some of the polling numbers and realizing this could actually
Speaker 1: be more of an issue for him than it is
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden, because not only do you have a
Speaker 1: couple of polls that show him pulling more from Trump,
Speaker 1: the one we covered last week, what was that Wall
Speaker 1: Street jour NBC News that we covered last week? I
Speaker 1: believe the Wall Street Journal one before that also showed
Speaker 1: RFK Junior taking more from Trump. And then if you
Speaker 1: look at any of these polls, RFK Junior has very
Speaker 1: had approval ratings among Republicans and extremely trash approval ratings
Speaker 1: among Democrats. So logic would indicate that that's probably going
Speaker 1: to be more of a problem for the Republican side,
Speaker 1: although you know, the fact he's Kennedy and all of
Speaker 1: these other factors are a little complicating, not to mention
Speaker 1: the fact that it remains a question how many else
Speaker 1: he's actually gonna end up.
Speaker 2: You can see this too, and some more of the
Speaker 2: attacks that Trump unleashed over the weekend on RFK Junior
Speaker 2: lests put this up there on the screen. He really
Speaker 2: does appear to be zooming in on vaccines, specifically as
Speaker 2: an attack vector. He says, RFK Junior is a Democrat plant,
Speaker 2: a radical left liberal, blah, blah blah. If Republicans knew
Speaker 2: the true story about him, Junior is totally anti gun,
Speaker 2: an extreme environmentalist, a big time taxer, an open border advocate,
Speaker 2: anti military vet. He goes on and on and on,
Speaker 2: and he continues to quote. His views on vaccines are fake.
Speaker 2: He says, I live with RFK Junior in New York.
Speaker 2: Watch him convince Cuomo to make environmental moves that were
Speaker 2: out right nasty. You know, he can go on. It
Speaker 2: would be dead either way. His views are vaccines are fake,
Speaker 2: as is everything else about his candidacy. Let the Democrats
Speaker 2: have RFK Junior. They deserve him, so it is interesting
Speaker 2: to see he's zooming in here.
Speaker 1: FI.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not really again, not exactly clear what exactly
Speaker 2: is trying to do here. We do here have a
Speaker 2: response from RFK Junior. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. And he expanded a little bit this in
Speaker 2: a recent interview. He says, when frightened men take to
Speaker 2: social media, they risk descending into vitriol, which makes them
Speaker 2: sound unhinged. President Trump's rant against me is a barely
Speaker 2: coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should be
Speaker 2: best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate,
Speaker 2: President Trump, who has proven himself the most adapt debater
Speaker 2: in modern American history, should not be panicked to meet
Speaker 2: me on that stage. To preview my arguments, I will
Speaker 2: show how Trump betrayed the hopes of his most sincere followers.
Speaker 2: He promised to end the Ukraine War, then included with Johnson,
Speaker 2: he led big farm. He led big farm on his
Speaker 2: correct bureaucrats run a rough shot over from his President
Speaker 2: promised to cut the deafsit, et cetera. He says, instead
Speaker 2: of lobbing poisonous bombs from the safety of his bunker.
Speaker 2: Let's hear President Trump defend his record to me mono
Speaker 2: I mono, by respectful congenial debate. So he's challenging Trump
Speaker 2: to a debate. Very unlikely that Trump will accept it,
Speaker 2: although one thing I will say it includes more likely
Speaker 2: now Biden has agreed to some sort of debate. Trump
Speaker 2: of course, is chomping at the bit for a debate
Speaker 2: that because of this debate. Apparently the Biden people don't
Speaker 2: like the Commission on Presidential Debates either, so it could
Speaker 2: be that we could see the CPD fall apart and
Speaker 2: if it does, it would be I think more likely
Speaker 2: that RFK Junior may actually be included, maybe as a
Speaker 2: condition either by the Biden campaign or the Trump campaign,
Speaker 2: possibly to try and trip the other side up. If
Speaker 2: we do see the overall debate infrastructure collapse. But I'm
Speaker 2: not one hundred percent sure how it will all shake.
Speaker 3: I mean we should see that. We should see Jill Steyne.
Speaker 1: I would love to, you know, doctor Westaffians up on
Speaker 1: a number of ballots. We should hear from all of
Speaker 1: these candidates. They should be able to compare and contrast
Speaker 1: their ideas. You should have people who have a variety
Speaker 1: of opinions who have to match up against each other
Speaker 1: on a stage and see how they perform. Like, debates
Speaker 1: are not perfect, they're not the end all be all,
Speaker 1: but got at least it's like a little bit of
Speaker 1: a democratic process. So allow us to judge in real
Speaker 1: time what they say under pressure, how they respond to
Speaker 1: actually difficult questions, because now it's far too easy for
Speaker 1: these candidates. And RFK Junior, I mean he's sat with us,
Speaker 1: He sat for a number of difficult, cult challenging interviews,
Speaker 1: and I applout him for that. All of these candidates
Speaker 1: should have to do that. They should have to do that,
Speaker 1: and they should certainly have to get up on a
Speaker 1: debate stage and justify themselves in their.
Speaker 3: Candidacies to the American people. So listen.
Speaker 1: I was glad to hear Biden say he's open to
Speaker 1: a debate. We'll see if that actually comes together, because
Speaker 1: I could still see you know, a lot of times
Speaker 1: what will happen with Biden is he'll say something and
Speaker 1: then his staff will be like, no, no, no, that's
Speaker 1: not really what he meant, and you know, walk it
Speaker 1: back and sort of try to steer him in the
Speaker 1: direction where they feel safest, which is probably the wisest course.
Speaker 1: Probably the wisest course for him is not to debate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. But it did make me a little bit
Speaker 1: hopeful that we might see one when he said that.
Speaker 3: With Howard Stern.
Speaker 1: I could still see them though, like you know, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, Trump doing something that they say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is toom we can't stand on a debate stage
Speaker 1: with him, or you know, no, this moderator's biased, whatever,
Speaker 1: coming up with some excuse at the last minute to
Speaker 1: not do it. So I'm still like only maybe thirty
Speaker 1: hopeful is actually going to happen.
Speaker 2: Good point.
Speaker 1: So, as we reported last week, it is looking more
Speaker 1: and more likely that the International Criminal Court is actually
Speaker 1: going to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Speaker 1: Netnahu and a number of other top Israeli officials. So
Speaker 1: the US has decided to involve themselves in an attempt
Speaker 1: to stop this process. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This will report specifically from the Times of Israel, but
Speaker 1: there were a number of reports across Israeli media. So
Speaker 1: according to those reports, the US is part of a
Speaker 1: quote last ditch diplomatic effort, in other words, threats to
Speaker 1: prevent the ICC from issuing arrest warrants against net Nyaho
Speaker 1: and other Israeli officials. The news site Walla, an analyst
Speaker 1: there writes Netanyahu is quote under unusual stress over the
Speaker 1: prospect of an arrest warrant against him another Israelis by
Speaker 1: the UN Tribunal in the HAGU.
Speaker 3: Which would be a major deterioration.
Speaker 1: They write in Israel's international status, Netnahu is leading a
Speaker 1: quote NonStop push over the telephone to prevent that arrest
Speaker 1: weren't and has focused especially on US President Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Another Israeli media analyst, Haretz Amos Herald writes that the
Speaker 1: Israeli government is working under the assumption that the ICC's
Speaker 1: prosecutor made this week issue warrants for net Yahu. Defense
Speaker 1: Minister Joev Gallant, an IDF chief of staff herzi Heleev.
Speaker 1: Netnahu's latest public statement about the war said forthcoming decisions
Speaker 1: by the ICC could set a quote dangerous precedent, and
Speaker 1: he also said we will never stop defending ourselves. Whereas
Speaker 1: decisions of the court in the Hague will not affect
Speaker 1: Israel's actions, they would be a precedent threatening the soldiers
Speaker 1: and officials of any democracy fighting criminal terrorism and aggression.
Speaker 1: There was also soccer a New York Times report this
Speaker 1: was the first one I'd seen in the New York
Speaker 1: Times that came out just yesterday evening about how imminent
Speaker 1: these potential arrest warrants are. They said in that report
Speaker 1: from the New York Times they had some indication of
Speaker 1: what the arrest warrants may be specific to the Israeli
Speaker 1: officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip and pursuing an excessively
Speaker 1: harsh response to the Hamas led October seventh attacks on Israel.
Speaker 1: According to some of the officials they spoke to the
Speaker 1: Israeli officials who are worried about the potential fallout from
Speaker 1: such a case, that they believe net Nyaho is among
Speaker 1: those who might be named. Is not clear who might
Speaker 1: be charged from Hamas or what crimes would be cited.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear for people, the US and
Speaker 1: Israel are not actually participants in the ICC. The ICC
Speaker 1: doesn't have its own like police force to come and
Speaker 1: arrest Bib net Nyaho. As much as I would personally
Speaker 1: love to see that image. However, there are what one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty four countries that are involved in the ICC,
Speaker 1: and any one of those countries would be obligated if
Speaker 1: they travel to those nations to arrest Bib or Yoev
Speaker 1: Gallant or any other officials who were potentially issued these
Speaker 1: arrest warrants. So, you know, obviously, in terms of the
Speaker 1: international standing of Israel, having your prime minister having arrest
Speaker 1: warrant from the ICC out for war crimes against your
Speaker 1: prime minister is pretty significant development.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're only two foreign leaders that similarly have ICC
Speaker 2: warrants against them. Omar al Bashir, former president of Sudan,
Speaker 2: and then obviously Vladimir Putin as well. Are they going
Speaker 2: to be arrested, Like, let's be real, No, They're going
Speaker 2: to be able to travel far and wide as Putin
Speaker 2: has been able to do. However, Putin has had issues,
Speaker 2: right he wasn't allowed to or he decided not to
Speaker 2: challenge ICC to travel to South Africa for the Bricks Conference.
Speaker 2: There have been various political problems that he has had.
Speaker 2: And look, while I am against the Ukraine Consensus, funding,
Speaker 2: the Ukraine War and all of that, I don't think
Speaker 2: anyone could deny that it's been bad for Russia in
Speaker 2: terms of its international standing, not necessarily their domestic economy.
Speaker 2: It hasn't led to their collapse, That's not what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm saying it certainly has damaged them in the eyes
Speaker 2: of the world, and so similarly, I would say this
Speaker 2: is likely the same effect that this would have, especially
Speaker 2: since the US the Israel not signatories. I was a
Speaker 2: little curious about this Hamas warrants because I hadn't seen
Speaker 2: some of the argumentation around this. It said it was
Speaker 2: considering warrants for these leaders of hamasi As for charge.
Speaker 2: I actually think just look again, in terms of the
Speaker 2: eyes of the world, it would make it a little
Speaker 2: bit more undeniable if they were to do it, And
Speaker 2: so if they did it would be at least politically,
Speaker 2: that would probably be the right thing to do if
Speaker 2: you charge him for October seventh, issue arrest warrants as well. Now,
Speaker 2: again let's be very clear, this body has zero enforcement mechanism.
Speaker 2: There's a reason that Bushier, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: was taken out by a coup in his own government,
Speaker 2: and that Putin similarly will remain the autocrat of Russia
Speaker 2: for as long as he lives and as he wants.
Speaker 2: Because it has no authority itself. It's simply kind of
Speaker 2: a rebuke from the international community. To the extent that
Speaker 2: that matters, difficult to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and war crimes were committed on October seventh, there
Speaker 1: should be accountability for that. There should be war crimes
Speaker 1: trials for everyone who was involved in murdering innocent civilians
Speaker 1: on October seventh, And there certainly should be accountability for
Speaker 1: bby Nan Nahoo and the other you know, government officials
Speaker 1: who've been involved in a siege, creating famine, causing starvation
Speaker 1: to death of babies and children, and of course the
Speaker 1: overwhelming annihilation throughout the Gaza driving one number. We're talking
Speaker 1: about college campus and whatever. So this popped up today.
Speaker 1: Two hundred schools have been targeted by Israel, just as
Speaker 1: one measure of how overwhelming and how much civilian infrastructure
Speaker 1: was just completely obliterated. Not to mention the forty thousand
Speaker 1: plus palestings who've been killed, to overwhelming majority of whom
Speaker 1: were innocent civilians. You know, some seventy percent were women
Speaker 1: and children. So even if you assume all of the
Speaker 1: rest of the men were guilty terrorists, whatever, you still
Speaker 1: have overwhelming numbers who were innocent civilians. So, you know,
Speaker 1: it's discussed that the US would jump in here and
Speaker 1: try to throw their weight around to try to forestall
Speaker 1: these arrest warrants being issued. But you know why they
Speaker 1: do it because it's very uncomfortable for the US as well.
Speaker 1: You know, we want to keep our cloak of supposed morality,
Speaker 1: and so if you've got the ICC out there issuing
Speaker 1: arrest warrant for your bestie bb net Yahoo, that's going
Speaker 1: to be uncomfortable. For the US as well, which has
Speaker 1: gone out of their way to deny that they see
Speaker 1: any evidence of war crimes.
Speaker 3: More on that in a moment.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll say about Israel with regards to
Speaker 1: this is, you know, in some ways their moral standing
Speaker 1: as a country is more important than maybe any other nation,
Speaker 1: because they use that moral standing and the you know,
Speaker 1: the horrors of the Holocaust in order to justify continued occupation,
Speaker 1: continued apartheid state, things that would be seen very clearly
Speaker 1: in different context if it wasn't Israel. This is used
Speaker 1: from a propaganda standpoint to justify this entire state, the
Speaker 1: way that they operate across administrations outside of just bibing
Speaker 1: net and Yahoo. So that's part of why these threats
Speaker 1: to the moral standing of Israel specifically are a particular
Speaker 1: problem for them, and why, at least reportedly maybe even
Speaker 1: though he knows he's not going to actually be arrested,
Speaker 1: why he's very concerned about this and putting a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure in holding emergency meetings to try to figure
Speaker 1: out how to deal with the fallout from what looks
Speaker 1: to be impending as soon as potentially this week arrest warrants.
Speaker 1: But we'll see if the US is able to thwart
Speaker 1: any of those sort of consequences. We have some exclusive
Speaker 1: pulling that is highly relevant to this discussion of Israel's
Speaker 1: conduct in a Gaza strip, and we're taking a look
Speaker 1: at these specifically by partisanships. So how do Republicans, Democrats,
Speaker 1: and independence feel about Israeli military actions, you know, post
Speaker 1: October seventh. Let's put this first one up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So the question here is you know which of the
Speaker 1: following statements comes close.
Speaker 3: To to your view.
Speaker 1: The options are Israel's committing genocide, Israel's not committing genocide,
Speaker 1: and don't know. So you have even actually twenty three
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans saying they think Israel's committing genocide versus
Speaker 1: forty seven percent who say no. On the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: it is quite overwhelming. So forty eight percent a near
Speaker 1: majority say affirmatively yes, eighteen percent say no, only eighteen
Speaker 1: percent and another thirty five percent say don't know. So
Speaker 1: huge plurality, near majority saying yes it's a genocide. If
Speaker 1: you look specifically at Joe Biden voters, by the way,
Speaker 1: within our poll, it is a majority. And then with
Speaker 1: Independence too, you have a plurality who say Israel is
Speaker 1: committing genocide thirty percent versus twenty three percent who say no,
Speaker 1: and forty seven percent who say they don't know.
Speaker 3: So overall you have about a third.
Speaker 1: Of a marriage perkins who are saying, yes, this is
Speaker 1: a genocide. That's pretty astonishing when you consider the way
Speaker 1: that Israel has been viewed with this bipartisan halo for
Speaker 1: decades and decades and decades, and now you have this
Speaker 1: sizable minority of about a third and majority Joe Biden
Speaker 1: voters saying they're committing genocide right now. That's an extraordinary
Speaker 1: shift in public opinion. Let's put the next one up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Also relevant, highly relevant to the question
Speaker 1: of ICC arrest warrants. So the question here is which
Speaker 1: of these statements comes closest to your view. Israel has
Speaker 1: committed war crimes in Gaza, Israel has not committed war
Speaker 1: crimes in Gaza, and don't know. Pretty similar numbers here.
Speaker 1: Twenty seven percent of Republicans slightly hire say yes they've
Speaker 1: committed war crimes, forty one percent say no, thirty one
Speaker 1: percent say I don't know. With Democrats it is the
Speaker 1: majority fifty two percent say yes. Only eighteen percent of
Speaker 1: Democrats say no. And you also have a plurality with
Speaker 1: independence thirty four to twenty two. And let me just
Speaker 1: put this last one up on the screen, saga, and
Speaker 1: get your reaction to all of these.
Speaker 3: Specifically, we asked the.
Speaker 1: Question should Netanyahu be charged with war crimes? With Republicans,
Speaker 1: twenty four say twenty four percent. So according even of Republicans,
Speaker 1: pretty significant say yes, forty two percent say no, thirty
Speaker 1: four percent say don't know. With Democrats it's another forty
Speaker 1: eight percent, it's only seventeen percent say no. So, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: only seventeen percent of your voters think this man shouldn't
Speaker 1: be charged with war crimes, and you're in there intervening.
Speaker 1: Thirty six percent say they don't know. With Independence, you've
Speaker 1: got another pluralities twenty six percent saying yes, should be
Speaker 1: charged with war crimes, only twenty percent say no, and
Speaker 1: fifty four percent say they do not know. So this
Speaker 1: shows you a pretty stark picture of where Americans are
Speaker 1: in terms of their public opinion of Israel and the
Speaker 1: way this war has been conducted, which, again, given the
Speaker 1: way people felt about Israel just a year ago, it's
Speaker 1: pretty dramatic shift.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, It's a titanic shift in terms of the coalition,
Speaker 2: and it will significantly change the way things look for
Speaker 2: the future. This is why I keep saying that things
Speaker 2: in the near term have not changed all that much,
Speaker 2: but things in the long term are significant, to the
Speaker 2: point where the relationship between the American people and Israel
Speaker 2: will never be the same, and the relationship of the
Speaker 2: international community Israel will specifically never be the same and
Speaker 2: probably more radically different than it is here in our nation.
Speaker 2: What that polling is underscores to me is the radical
Speaker 2: shift that's going on amongst the Democrats, but significantly also
Speaker 2: if you do start to break it down by age,
Speaker 2: which we did amongst the eighteen to twenty five or
Speaker 2: to eighteen to twenty nine demographic, even when you self
Speaker 2: select for Republicans and others, you see shifts very very
Speaker 2: different away from the way that younger voters, younger Americans
Speaker 2: view their relationship with Israel as compared to the international
Speaker 2: community and the sixty five plus. So as America ages
Speaker 2: up and a lot of the younger voters become middle
Speaker 2: class Americans or thirty to forty five year olds and
Speaker 2: others with more economic power, probably in general being more
Speaker 2: invested in the political system, there will be a significant change,
Speaker 2: and of course too in terms of the representatives of
Speaker 2: people in Congress who represent them.
Speaker 1: Let me just give you, guys the overall numbers on
Speaker 1: some of these questions. So in terms of whether people
Speaker 1: believe war crimes have been committed in Gaza, you have
Speaker 1: a plurality. This is overall thirty seven percent versus twenty
Speaker 1: seven percent who say no, and the remainder say they
Speaker 1: don't know. With regards to bb specifically and whether he
Speaker 1: should be charged with war crimes, you once again have
Speaker 1: an overall plurality thirty two percent versus twenty six percent
Speaker 1: who say no, and the remainder say they don't know.
Speaker 1: So it is it is quite an extraordinary dramatic shift
Speaker 1: for you know, plurality of Americans to be saying, yes,
Speaker 1: we believe that this man who is the leader of
Speaker 1: Israel should be.
Speaker 3: Charged with war crimes.
Speaker 1: And you know who else agrees with many Americans on
Speaker 1: this is apparently many members of the State Department. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. There was an internal
Speaker 1: memo from the State Department that was just leaked and
Speaker 1: parts of it had been classified, and this journalist was
Speaker 1: able to get their hands on it, with some of
Speaker 1: the most extensive they write and serious to date warnings
Speaker 1: to Secretary Blincoln over Israel's possible non compliance with international
Speaker 1: humanitarian law. Go on to the next piece for some
Speaker 1: of the details. Here, so they say, a joint submission
Speaker 1: from four bureaus Democracy, human Rights and Labor, Population, Refugees, Migration,
Speaker 1: Global Criminal Justice, and International Organization Affairs raised quote serious
Speaker 1: concerns over non compliance with international humanitarian law in the
Speaker 1: Israel's conduct of the Gaza War. The assessment from the
Speaker 1: four bureaus said Israel's assurances were quote neither credible nor reliable.
Speaker 3: You don't say.
Speaker 1: Cited eight examples of Israeli military actions, officials said, raise
Speaker 1: serious questions about potential violations of international humanitarian law.
Speaker 3: Let's go on to the next one.
Speaker 1: These include repeatedly striking protected sites and civilian infrastructure, unconscionably
Speaker 1: high levels of civilian harm to military advantage, taking little
Speaker 1: action to investigating violations or to hold to account those
Speaker 1: responsible for significant civilian harm, and killing humanitarian workers and
Speaker 1: journalists at an unprecedented rate. Now, there were some who
Speaker 1: participated in this memo who diverged from that opinion. But Sager,
Speaker 1: this is important for a variety of reasons, but most
Speaker 1: specifically because it suggests that the State Department is all
Speaker 1: these shipments of weapons are in direct contravention of US law,
Speaker 1: and that Tony Blinken has on his desk information that
Speaker 1: indicates that he is specifically himself violating US law in
Speaker 1: order to continue shipping these weapons.
Speaker 2: Day Isa, Yeah, the lazy law and the humanitarian violation
Speaker 2: is significant problem for them, especially as a lot of
Speaker 2: the evidence in this stuff mounts. This is particularly why
Speaker 2: they're working against the ICC and against a lot of
Speaker 2: the memos and other evidence that they have on their
Speaker 2: own desk, because it puts them in a bind where
Speaker 2: they either have to comply with US law or don't.
Speaker 2: We've already had this instance where they were supposed to
Speaker 2: sanction that IDF battalion based upon a previous report that
Speaker 2: was pre October seventh and some of its conduct. They
Speaker 2: said they were going to do it, or they indicated
Speaker 2: they were going to do it, but then NETANYAHUO and
Speaker 2: the Speaker freaked out and has yet to materialize. But
Speaker 2: you know, it's not the end of that though, because
Speaker 2: if the law and all of that exists. It's either
Speaker 2: going to leak or it's going to go towards Congress
Speaker 2: and people can ask questions about that. But that would
Speaker 2: also require Congress asking the administration why it's not doing
Speaker 2: its job and.
Speaker 3: To actually do something.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, some of these people who claimed
Speaker 1: that they know understood that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid
Speaker 1: and was very likely in contravention of the Lahy law,
Speaker 1: then just turn around and still vote for the weapons.
Speaker 1: So it requires this memo I believe was prepared because
Speaker 1: Congress was pressing on exactly this issue.
Speaker 3: That's the whole reason why this thing exists.
Speaker 1: But then they don't actually you act upon the information
Speaker 1: once it's provided. So in any case, that's what's going
Speaker 1: on there. The US has proof that Israel is committing
Speaker 1: war crimes. Next time you watch one of these enraging
Speaker 1: State Department briefings where they say they're looking into it
Speaker 1: and they don't know and they heard about that, but
Speaker 1: they're going to ask Israel about or whatever, just keep
Speaker 1: in mind Tony Blinkn has multiple reports from inside his
Speaker 1: own State Department telling him, yes, they are committing war
Speaker 1: crimes and they are just choosing to ignore that and
Speaker 1: violate US law in order to continue this onslaught and
Speaker 1: atrocities against Palestinians. All right, there's a little flap between
Speaker 1: Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, who visited some of the student protesters,
Speaker 1: and ADL's Jonathan Greenblat that we wanted to go over
Speaker 1: for you. So first of all, let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to what congress Woman Omar had to say that caused
Speaker 1: this hole.
Speaker 14: Star you think this will translate to the Jewish students
Speaker 14: who are facing anti semitism here on canvas.
Speaker 8: So I actually met a lot of Jewish students that
Speaker 8: are in the Incabinet, and I think it is really
Speaker 8: unfortunate that people don't care about the fact that.
Speaker 6: All Jewish kids should be kept safe and that we
Speaker 6: should not have to tolerate anti semitism or bigotry for
Speaker 6: all Jewish students, whether they are progenocide or anti genocide.
Speaker 3: So that is the part that's head people off.
Speaker 1: And she said, listen, all Jewish students should be safe,
Speaker 1: whether or not they're pro genocide. Like in her you know,
Speaker 1: she believes that as I do, what Israel's doing and
Speaker 1: godda strip is a genocide, and there are people who
Speaker 1: support that. So in her framing and mind those people
Speaker 1: are pro genocide, she's saying, even if they are progenocide,
Speaker 1: they should.
Speaker 3: Be so safe.
Speaker 1: And the people who are anti genocide, who are protesting
Speaker 1: over here should also be safe. And I one hundred
Speaker 1: percent co signed those comments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was funny because the ADL put this out there.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen, it says,
Speaker 2: watch this clip. It features Ilhan walking through Columbia proclaiming
Speaker 2: that Jewish students do not have to tolerate anti semitism
Speaker 2: when they're progenocide or anti genocide. It is patently false
Speaker 2: and a blood libel to sugg You know where does
Speaker 2: this blood libel shit ever end it? Just again, these
Speaker 2: terms have lost on me that any Jewish students are
Speaker 2: quote progenocide. It is gas leading, gaslighting to impute that
Speaker 2: Jewish people are somehow at fault for being harassed in
Speaker 2: menace with signs and logosts literally calling for their own extermination.
Speaker 2: It is abhorrent that a sitting member of Congress would
Speaker 2: slander a group of young people in such a cold
Speaker 2: and oh, oh really, this is how people get killed.
Speaker 3: So you don't think young people should be slandered.
Speaker 2: Al's joologize, I am not holding my breath. Ilhan Omar responded,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. She says,
Speaker 2: this is the progenocide I was talking about. Can you
Speaker 2: condemn this? Is like I've condemned anti Semitism and bigotry
Speaker 2: of all kind. Kill all Arabs. They're all Hamas, all
Speaker 2: grotesquely evil level gasa. So it is quite you know,
Speaker 2: kind of amusing now what people know. I don't use
Speaker 2: the term genocide, war crimes, international law because I think
Speaker 2: all that is fake and it's completely in the eye
Speaker 2: of the beholder. But I do think it is funny
Speaker 2: to me that and this is I've observed this too rhetorically,
Speaker 2: and I saw it in your debate on Piers Morgan.
Speaker 2: The problem that a lot of the pro Israel people have,
Speaker 2: like in that instance, is they are very willing to
Speaker 2: be like, oh, you got to smear these young kids.
Speaker 2: It's not a genocide. These kids are anti Semites, you know,
Speaker 2: they use like catch all language and moralistic language try
Speaker 2: against their opponents. But in general, from what I have noticed,
Speaker 2: from Norm Finkel's to even the most extreme you know,
Speaker 2: pro Palestinian voices, at least in the relative mainstream and discourse,
Speaker 2: are always willing to be like, yes, I do condemn
Speaker 2: October seventh, I condemn anti Semitism. And part of the
Speaker 2: problem is that the pro Israel side is not willing
Speaker 2: to give the same even rhetorical clutch, I guess to
Speaker 2: their opponents, and it just makes them look like either
Speaker 2: like double standard or sissy. Is like here, like you
Speaker 2: can't say that, you know, what is it from the
Speaker 2: river to the sea or whatever, or is genocidal and
Speaker 2: then turn around and then not condemn on your side
Speaker 2: exactly statements like kill the Arabs or level Gossa or whatever,
Speaker 2: because you do agree with that, and you know there's
Speaker 2: a certain you lose the morality whenever that is what
Speaker 2: you're advocating for. And I just want people to be honest.
Speaker 2: Michael Tracy said that recently. He's like, all I want
Speaker 2: is people to be honest. But you can't sit there
Speaker 2: and be using terms like blood libel and going after
Speaker 2: kids and students on the one hand, and then on
Speaker 2: the other hand be upset when other people are going
Speaker 2: to do it straight back at you.
Speaker 1: Okay, so put in green blood statement back up guys
Speaker 1: on the screen.
Speaker 3: What was that?
Speaker 1: That was eighty seven or whatever block we're on seven?
Speaker 3: There we go? All right?
Speaker 1: He says it is patently false and a blood libel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so suggest that any Jewish students are pro genocide?
Speaker 3: Oh really? Oh really?
Speaker 1: Because I just watched you, sir on MSNBC accuse Jewish
Speaker 1: Voice for Peace of being an Iranian proxy Ala Hesbola
Speaker 1: or Humas. And I know you for a fact believe
Speaker 1: that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. You literally just
Speaker 1: slandered and smeared Jewish students as being genocidal yourself. And
Speaker 1: now you're upset when ilhan Omar actually accurately characterizes some
Speaker 1: positions as pro genocide.
Speaker 3: So save it, save it.
Speaker 1: And it's so true what you're saying, Zagera is like
Speaker 1: this is really not complicated. And this goes back to
Speaker 1: this whole one of the you know, discourse talking points
Speaker 1: or whatever about the student protesters right now, it's like
Speaker 1: they don't even know what they're tie. These kids, I
Speaker 1: don't even know what they're protesting. They don't understand. But
Speaker 1: some of these things are complic I like the history,
Speaker 1: if you know all the ins and outs. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: it's complex, it's a lot to know, but you can
Speaker 1: also very simply have a moral standard of killing innocent
Speaker 1: civilians is wrong. It was wrong when it happened on
Speaker 1: October seventh, and it's wrong when it happens when Israel's
Speaker 1: doing it. That isn't hard, it's not complex, and if
Speaker 1: you pull people, I think the overwhelming majority will agree
Speaker 1: with that sentiment. But you have to apply it across
Speaker 1: the board. And when we've had months and months and
Speaker 1: months of the slaughter only happening on one.
Speaker 3: Side of the equation, guess what.
Speaker 1: They can't acknowledge that, yes, killing innocent civilians is wrong
Speaker 1: because they're faced with day after day after day of
Speaker 1: kids and women and schools being bombed, a church is
Speaker 1: being bombed, in hospitals being bombed. So you have to
Speaker 1: just either pretend that's not happening or butt hamas it
Speaker 1: to death. And at this point it's just it's worn
Speaker 1: completely thin. So they can't take that clear moral position
Speaker 1: because their whole thing would fall apart if they did so.
Speaker 1: In any case, hilarious fake freak out over ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: saying something that is correct, and also it is very
Speaker 1: consistent frankly, even if it's raised in a way that
Speaker 1: makes people uncomfortable with American principles, which is, listen, even
Speaker 1: if you have speech that is so abhorrent as for
Speaker 1: it to be pro genocide, even those people should be protected.
Speaker 1: Even they should be safe, even if they are saying
Speaker 1: something that is, you know, advocating for a crime against humanity,
Speaker 1: even those individuals deserve to be safe. Now that sounds controversial,
Speaker 1: but it is a bedrock principle of America, something you know,
Speaker 1: that is incredibly dear to me and I think many
Speaker 1: other people in the nation. The other the last thing
Speaker 1: I'll say about green Blatz thing is like, you know,
Speaker 1: Jewish people are just like any other people, Like some
Speaker 1: are going to have good views, bad views, be good people,
Speaker 1: bad people, et cetera. And the fact that they're Jewish
Speaker 1: doesn't take criticism like you still have to be able
Speaker 1: to criticize people. It doesn't doesn't mean like any sort
Speaker 1: of criticism is off the table, if so facto because
Speaker 1: they're Jewish. But that's exactly what he and Adl and
Speaker 1: many elite politicians, Richie Torres.
Speaker 3: And all these other people.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what they want, which is in and of
Speaker 1: itself a form of racism, saying like no Jew can
Speaker 1: is able to hold that viewpoint. It's like no Jewish
Speaker 1: people are complex like everybody else and have a wide
Speaker 1: variety of opinions and are able to be anywhere on
Speaker 1: the spectrum, even places on the spectrum that I find.
Speaker 3: To be horrified.
Speaker 2: My most controversial opinion is that Jews are just like
Speaker 2: everybody else and should be treated as Yeah, and I
Speaker 2: think that about blacks, whites, whatever, Indians, any other group.
Speaker 2: I don't think you should be treated specially. I guess
Speaker 2: that's very controversial and equal application of the law, something
Speaker 2: that we allegedly were founded on and fought a civil
Speaker 2: war for.
Speaker 1: But I think sectarianism is very destructive and framing this
Speaker 1: as like a religious conflict is very dangerous and destructive,
Speaker 1: and it's not accurate when you have Jewish voices for peace,
Speaker 1: when you have so many protests movements organized by Jews
Speaker 1: who are anti Zionist Jews, it's.
Speaker 3: It's a political conflict.
Speaker 1: It's a conflict at its core over land and morality
Speaker 1: and protection of civilians. That's what the conflict is about.
Speaker 1: And the minute that you make this into this like
Speaker 1: clash of civilization's religious conflict. That's part of why this
Speaker 1: has gotten so has drawn out for so many decades,
Speaker 1: because that actually confuses the situation and makes it much
Speaker 1: more difficult to resolve.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, absolutely, all right, move on. Fun story, last story.
Speaker 2: This has had this in the show. It's just yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean fun for some psychotic some others might say,
Speaker 2: let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: South Dakota Governor Kirsty no has written a new book
Speaker 2: and brags about killing her fourteen month old dog. And
Speaker 2: I'm not exaggerating here at all. I'm going to read
Speaker 2: you directly from what she said. She said Cricket was
Speaker 2: a wire hair pointer about fourteen months old. It was
Speaker 2: a female dog that quote had an aggressive personality who
Speaker 2: she was trying to train as a hunting dog. She
Speaker 2: took Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs. Noam
Speaker 2: says she had hoped to come calm the young dog
Speaker 2: down and teach her how to behave Unfortunately, Cricket ruined
Speaker 2: the hunt, going out of her mind with excitement, chasing
Speaker 2: all those birds and having the time of her life
Speaker 2: aka What Dogs Do. Nom then describes calling Cricket using
Speaker 2: an electric callar to attempt to bring her under control.
Speaker 2: She says that nothing worked. On the way home after
Speaker 2: the hunt, she stopped to talk to a local family.
Speaker 2: The dog escaped and attacked the family's chickens. She said
Speaker 2: she was simply untrainable, behavior like a trained assassin. When
Speaker 2: Noam finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog whipped around
Speaker 2: to bite me after she was after she was grabbed.
Speaker 2: Through it all, she says, Cricket was just the picture
Speaker 2: of pure joy. She then writes, I hated that dog,
Speaker 2: dangerous to anyone she came into contact with, worse than
Speaker 2: worse than useless as a hunting dog. At that moment,
Speaker 2: I realized I had to put her down. It was
Speaker 2: not a pleasant job, but it had to be done.
Speaker 2: And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job
Speaker 2: needed to be done. And she talks about killing a
Speaker 2: nasty male goat that was also on their property. So
Speaker 2: basically what she describes here is murdering a fourteen month
Speaker 2: old dog that was acting like a dog. Now I've
Speaker 2: seen some justification for this, like whoa, you know? What
Speaker 2: do you look? The dogs are tools like everything else. Yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe in eighteen twenty five. You know today there are
Speaker 2: actually a ton of charities that are out there, animal rescues, etc.
Speaker 2: That specifically take hunting dogs that didn't pass training. There's
Speaker 2: tons of I'm sure they exist in South Dakota too.
Speaker 2: And she's trying to play this off as some like
Speaker 2: hard scrabble living on the land thing. Again, let me
Speaker 2: just repeat, we are not on the frontier times. There
Speaker 2: is no reason to conduct yourself this way. It's completely psychotic,
Speaker 2: especially when you're bragging about it and trying to make
Speaker 2: yourself appear tough. This is what she This is her
Speaker 2: defense after this all came out. We love animals, been
Speaker 2: tough decisions like this happened all the time on a farm. Sadly,
Speaker 2: we had to put down three horses a few weeks
Speaker 2: ago that had been in our family for twenty five years.
Speaker 2: If you want more real, honest and politically incorrect stories
Speaker 2: that'll have the media gasping, pre order no back. She's
Speaker 2: fundraising off this now, trying to sell more of her
Speaker 2: crappy copies of her book. Bragging about killing a fourteen
Speaker 2: month old dog. I mean, it's totally psychotic. It's not
Speaker 2: like the dog was even sick.
Speaker 3: Yeah, at fourteen months old, this was puppies. This is
Speaker 3: still a puppy.
Speaker 1: This is still this dog is still developing, and there
Speaker 1: are so many other options available to you than just
Speaker 1: like she dragged it into some gravel pin shot it
Speaker 1: in the head. I was bothered by the goat too.
Speaker 1: I actually grew up with We had pet goat.
Speaker 2: One of my friends has a nasty goat. They don't
Speaker 2: shoot it of.
Speaker 1: One of our goats was very sweet, yeah, and the
Speaker 1: other one was a little scary. Angela was a little
Speaker 1: bit scary. Okay, we didn't in the head like it
Speaker 1: was fine. You just knew how to deal with goat. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And goats are highly intelligent and social. The little the
Speaker 1: other one who was named after me, she was named Chrissy.
Speaker 1: She's always try to come in the house like she
Speaker 1: was a dog. She was like it had like commands.
Speaker 1: She understood what these are very intelligent animals and for
Speaker 1: you to just like, you know, crully, think this is
Speaker 1: your only option and then the sickness of thinking this
Speaker 1: is going to like she wrote.
Speaker 3: This a political book.
Speaker 1: This is part of her bid to become Trump's VP
Speaker 1: pick that you think this is gonna make people think
Speaker 1: better of you, Like, how little do you think of
Speaker 1: Republican voters or the American people in general that you
Speaker 1: think murdering a puppy is gonna make them feel. Oh,
Speaker 1: she's tough and she makes the tough choices, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I have seen some people defending her, which is gross.
Speaker 1: But I have also seen a lot of bipartisan revulsion,
Speaker 1: which is understandable.
Speaker 2: Majority of people are repulsed by yes, and that's why
Speaker 2: she's had to clean it up. Since let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. Her latest statement is, and understand why people
Speaker 2: are upset about a twenty year old story of cricket,
Speaker 2: which you put in your book. By the way, nobody
Speaker 2: else brought this up. The book is filled with honest
Speaker 2: stories of my life, good and bad days, challenging, painful decisions,
Speaker 2: blah blah blah blah blah. The fact is South Dakota
Speaker 2: law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can
Speaker 2: be put down. Given that cricket had shown aggressive behavior
Speaker 2: toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Now,
Speaker 2: keep in mind, we're only taking this lady's word for it.
Speaker 2: We have no idea if any of this even happened.
Speaker 2: What she's talking about is if somebody's dog goes and
Speaker 2: kills somebody else's chickens or property, and then even then
Speaker 2: there's a whole animal process that goes through whenever you
Speaker 2: decide to put a dog down. It's one of the
Speaker 2: most extraordinary things you could do whenever it comes to
Speaker 2: for animals, like getting the state to order that a
Speaker 2: dog be put down after a variety of incidents. Various
Speaker 2: states have different laws, but she says, whether running the
Speaker 2: ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my
Speaker 2: responsibilities to anyone else to hand, even if it's hard
Speaker 2: and painful, I follow the law. I was being a
Speaker 2: responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. So I'll just reiterate
Speaker 2: the original justification is very clear. She's like, I hated
Speaker 2: the dog and it didn't it didn't do what I
Speaker 2: wanted it to do. And I know multiple people actually
Speaker 2: who have rescued hunting dogs, people dogs who didn't pass
Speaker 2: hunting training or whatever, which I understand, you know, not
Speaker 2: every dog or whatever is cut out for it, but
Speaker 2: you know, we're not living on the frontier where you
Speaker 2: got to kill him for literally no reason. And she's
Speaker 2: bragging about it as if it somehow makes her, you know,
Speaker 2: big and strong. You know, putting down a horse that's
Speaker 2: been horrifically injured, that's one thing that's sad. And you know,
Speaker 2: even then, you know there's conversations or whatever, but here
Speaker 2: there's not. There's no justification on it whatsoever. It's just
Speaker 2: I murdered this dog, and that makes me big and strong,
Speaker 2: and that's why you should buy my book and give
Speaker 2: me twenty dollars.
Speaker 3: Believe.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Crazy, And apparently she's kind of fallen in the Trump
Speaker 1: VP yeah esteem.
Speaker 3: Anyway, we'll see.
Speaker 1: I mean, I had seen reporting previously that any governor
Speaker 1: of a state that has like extreme abortion laws like
Speaker 1: South Dakota does, heartbeat laws like South Dakota does. I
Speaker 1: didn't think about that had fallen in Trump's consideration, so
Speaker 1: she may have been off the table already. Also, Trump
Speaker 1: apparently hates dogs, so I don't know if he would
Speaker 1: have a problem with the story in particular. But the
Speaker 1: latest is that he's considering Doug Bergram.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's something.
Speaker 1: I guess that'd be a dig because he was North Dakota, right,
Speaker 1: he was South Dakota.
Speaker 2: There was like a rivalry there. You know Doug would
Speaker 2: be bad choice just purely for money purposes. He's a
Speaker 2: billionaire somebody who could fund his campaign. Trump's got money
Speaker 2: issues first campaign, doesn't want to spend any of his own.
Speaker 3: He's certainly not going to like mean ount charisma.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, there won't be any like that.
Speaker 2: I feel like he'd be like Mike Pants and just
Speaker 2: be like, all right, whatever you know, do whatever you want.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't really buy it, though, I think I
Speaker 1: guess at this point, I'm thinking maybe Tim Scott might
Speaker 1: be the Yeah.
Speaker 2: I've said this before. I think all three of these
Speaker 2: people have an equal chance. I think if it was
Speaker 2: going to be a woman, I still think it's going
Speaker 2: to be because at least he has got no abortion baggage.
Speaker 2: She's got this whole Harvard thing going for her right now,
Speaker 2: you know, because she's the one who started that whole
Speaker 2: like moral panic about the Ivy League university.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Trump loves her because she served as one of his
Speaker 2: spokespeople for his defense and the impeachment. She knows she's
Speaker 2: very combative on social media and it's total loyal and
Speaker 2: she's socially liberal. Like you know, in the past, you've
Speaker 2: been attacked by the right wing for being more socially liberal,
Speaker 2: like she voted for the Equality Act in like twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: So this is somebody who's very much more like trumpist.
Speaker 2: That's if he wants a woman, if he wants a
Speaker 2: black person just for media purposes, affirmative action candidate, it
Speaker 2: would be Tim Scott. If he's feeling really safe and
Speaker 2: he wants an ideological ally, I think he's gonna pick
Speaker 2: Jade Vans. All three of those things all depend on
Speaker 2: the polling whenever it comes right up to the convention.
Speaker 2: I think it's basically an equal shot for all three
Speaker 2: of those. But we'll see, Crystal, what do you take
Speaker 2: a look at well.
Speaker 1: As powerful politicians, elite media denizens, and Hollywood celebrities all
Speaker 1: gathered in DC this past weekend for the annual White
Speaker 1: House Correspondence Day, they're met with exactly the welcome that
Speaker 1: they deserved. Free Palestine protesters confronted these elites with their
Speaker 1: own hypocrisy and complicity and sanctioning horrifying atrocities against Palestinian civilians,
Speaker 1: chanting shame on you at these people who are at
Speaker 1: worst actively funding and supporting a genocide, and at the
Speaker 1: very least comfortable with celebrating those who are backing a genocide.
Speaker 1: At one point, a giant Palestinian flag was actually unfurled
Speaker 1: from a window of the venue itself, the d C
Speaker 1: Hilton Hotel that has played host to this event for
Speaker 1: many years. Protesters even staged a die in to honor
Speaker 1: the one hundred plus journalists who have been killed by
Speaker 1: the IDF in Gaza, was complete with blood spattered press
Speaker 1: vest visual reminder that while these so called journalists were
Speaker 1: putting on ball gowns in their luxury hotel suites, Palestinian
Speaker 1: journalists we're facing starvation, arrest, torture, and execution for the
Speaker 1: crime of doing their job. The message of these target
Speaker 1: protests was right on tip target. Of all the in
Speaker 1: group spectacles in DC, none has become more grotesque or
Speaker 1: more emblematic of the utter bipartisan immorality of American elites
Speaker 1: than the White House correspondence dinner. The idealized notion of
Speaker 1: this event is that for one evening, the press and
Speaker 1: the politicians they put aside the combative relationship meant to
Speaker 1: typify interactions between the powerful and the journalists who hold
Speaker 1: them to account, and two together recommit the bedrock importance
Speaker 1: of the First Amendment in a fierce independent press by
Speaker 1: taking comedic jabs at one another. Given the partisan toothlessness
Speaker 1: though of most of the press, and the raging hypocrisy
Speaker 1: of everyone involved. In reality, the White House Correspondents Dinner
Speaker 1: is just a showcase of elite coziness, disconnect, and self congratulation. Now,
Speaker 1: this year's circus, though of privilege, reached a new low,
Speaker 1: occurring as it did, amidst the Washington improved genocide and Gazo,
Speaker 1: which has the distinction of being the deadliest and most
Speaker 1: dangerous conflict for journalists ever in history. In fact, it
Speaker 1: appears that on the very day of these festivities, two
Speaker 1: more Palestinian journalists were killed by the IDF. This would
Speaker 1: be in addition to the one hundred and forty two
Speaker 1: members of the press who had already been killed by
Speaker 1: the IDF and at least forty who had been arrested. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: our great ally, the supposed only democracy in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: is promising to shut down media outlets like Al Jazeera
Speaker 1: for their coverage of Gaza and largely blocks the Western
Speaker 1: press from even covering this conflict from the ground at all,
Speaker 1: and Of course, as these politicians were patting themselves on
Speaker 1: the back for their brave commitment to the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: they were busy cheering on an authoritarian crackdown on college students.
Speaker 1: Hundreds more students and some faculty were arrested over the weekend.
Speaker 1: At one event, officers assaulted seventy three year old Green
Speaker 1: Party candidate Jill Stein with a bicycle for the crime
Speaker 1: of protesting against US government support for a foreign government's
Speaker 1: atrocity filled war. While the politicians sent in the cops,
Speaker 1: their media allies ran cover by smearing the protesters as
Speaker 1: violent anti Semitic terrorists, platforming the ADLs Jonathan green Blatt
Speaker 1: to call them Iranian proxies. And by the way, Julian,
Speaker 1: no Sange, He's still in prison now. None of this
Speaker 1: stopped attendees from their typical smug, self satisfied rituals and
Speaker 1: empty peons to freedom of speech principles that they clearly
Speaker 1: do not actually believe in.
Speaker 3: You know, I had actually held.
Speaker 1: Out some hope that maybe some brave soul would offer
Speaker 1: at least an echo of two thousand and six. Even
Speaker 1: Colbert his set at that White House Correspondence dinner during
Speaker 1: the height of the Iraq War, and.
Speaker 3: To George W.
Speaker 1: Bush's face, it was actually genuinely courageous, the comedian in
Speaker 1: the room, exposing the war hungry journalists and the Yokan
Speaker 1: in chief himself. I should have known better, though not
Speaker 1: that I thought Colin Yost had that in him, but
Speaker 1: I thought maybe someone would say something uncomfortable for the
Speaker 1: bipartisan elites in the hotel ballroom. Not even close. Instead,
Speaker 1: the pageantry seemed almost an intentional middle finger to the
Speaker 1: protesters in the streets who were demanding these pro war
Speaker 1: elites feel at least a little bit of shame. It
Speaker 1: was zero shame to be found in that room. Here
Speaker 1: is Colin Yost closing out the night, slabbering all over
Speaker 1: Joe Biden for his supposed decency and the decency by
Speaker 1: extension of the entire establishment press corps. If you can
Speaker 1: stomach it, take a listen.
Speaker 4: My grandpa voted for decency, and decency is why we're
Speaker 4: all here tonight. Decency is how we're able to be
Speaker 4: here tonight. Decency is how we're able to make jokes
Speaker 4: about each other and one of us doesn't go to
Speaker 4: prison after we go to the Newsmax after party. And
Speaker 4: when you look at the levels of freedom throughout history
Speaker 4: and even around the world today, this is the exception.
Speaker 4: This freedom is incredibly rare, and the journalists in this
Speaker 4: room help protect that freedom, and we cannot ever take
Speaker 4: that for granted. So, mister President, I thank you for
Speaker 4: your decency on behalf of my grandfather, and I thank
Speaker 4: all of you, almost all of you, for your decency
Speaker 4: as well. I am very honored and grateful that you
Speaker 4: invited me here tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, and good night.
Speaker 1: Your decency. It literally nauseates me to hear these words
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 3: But they are actually just too perfect.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has helped to murder tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: kids in the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands more are
Speaker 1: starving as we speak. A million have been displaced, how
Speaker 1: many orphaned, how many will spend their lives disabled by
Speaker 1: amputations and severe trauma. And you have the gall to
Speaker 1: call this man decent? Why because so pat Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: and Mike Johnson on the back as they fund their
Speaker 1: genocide together.
Speaker 3: It is so twisted, proving.
Speaker 1: Once again the reigning ideology in Washington is decorum, delusion
Speaker 1: and sociopathy. While Palestinian journalists were being killed, they took
Speaker 1: time out of the evening to honor one of the
Speaker 1: chief White House stenographers of this war, Israeli journalist Baroque Revied,
Speaker 1: writes for Axios. He's contributor to CNN. The former IDF
Speaker 1: soldier turned journalist has been the foremost recipient of White
Speaker 1: House leaks about how upset Biden is with net Yahoo.
Speaker 3: He's upset, He's really upset, he is really really upset.
Speaker 1: Failed attempt to gaslight Americans into thinking Biden gives a
Speaker 1: shit about Palestinian slaughter while not moving American policy a single.
Speaker 3: Iota of Revied.
Speaker 1: The White House Correspondence Association wrote, quote Barock Revie's reporting
Speaker 1: and displayed deep, almost intimate levels of sourcing in the
Speaker 1: US and abroad. Intimate levels of sourcing. Indeed, even the
Speaker 1: single mention of Gaza came in typical, sanitized, accountability free language.
Speaker 1: NBC's Kelly O'Donnell said, quote, since October, about one hundred
Speaker 1: journalists have been killed, most of those deaths in Gaza,
Speaker 1: according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Speaker 3: Really who killed them?
Speaker 1: Kelly, how many of the people in the room have
Speaker 1: ever mentioned these press murders a single time. As for
Speaker 1: Biden himself, these dozens of murdered Gaza journalists, they didn't
Speaker 1: come up even once. But he did raise a toast
Speaker 1: to his supposed commitment to democracy.
Speaker 14: Move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments
Speaker 14: and the distractions, the side shows that have come to dominate,
Speaker 14: to sensualize our sensationalize our politics, and focus on what's
Speaker 14: actually a stake. And I think in your hearts you
Speaker 14: know it. It was at State the stakes couldn't be higher.
Speaker 14: Every single one of us says rose to play a
Speaker 14: serious role to play making your democracy endures, American democracy.
Speaker 14: I have more of my role, but all due respect,
Speaker 14: so do you. In the age of disinformation, credible information
Speaker 14: that people can trust is more important than ever. And
Speaker 14: that makes you, and I mean it's from the bottom
Speaker 14: of heart, makes you more important than ever. So tonight
Speaker 14: I'd like to make it to to a free press,
Speaker 14: to an informed citizen room, to an American where a
Speaker 14: freedom and democracy endure. God bless America.
Speaker 1: You know, Joe, kind of hard to find incredible on
Speaker 1: this whole democracy thing. When you rig the primary so
Speaker 1: you had no opponent, when you're putting out statements smearing
Speaker 1: those who protest against your policies as racist, justifying a
Speaker 1: brutal police crackdown when a lobby representing foreign government interests
Speaker 1: has vastly more influence than your average American citizen. So
Speaker 1: spare me your warnings about how democracy is on the ballot.
Speaker 3: Now to the.
Speaker 1: Protesters, God bless you. I hope none of these people
Speaker 1: can go anywhere without hearing about the children they are
Speaker 1: helping to starve, the journalists they are helping to kill.
Speaker 1: American people are with you, The world is with you.
Speaker 1: And one day all these smug assholes running cover for
Speaker 1: or active prosecuting a genocide, they're going to pretend they
Speaker 1: were on your side all along. But we we will
Speaker 1: never forget t Sager. I know you're a big fan,
Speaker 1: and if.
Speaker 2: You want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become
Speaker 2: a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. All right, guys,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for watching me. Really appreciate you.
Speaker 2: I and know it was a long one today, but
Speaker 2: we had a lot of exclusive content that we wanted
Speaker 2: to fit in there. And we love you and we'll
Speaker 2: see you all tomorrow,