Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots of big stories this week, So
Speaker 1: Saga and I will break down how Scotus is going
Speaker 1: to play a key role in twenty twenty four after Colorado,
Speaker 1: of course, attempting to kick Trump off of the ballots.
Speaker 1: That we'll get into all of that, and we have
Speaker 1: some polling about how people's initially how people are initially
Speaker 1: reacting to that move by Colorado. We also have some
Speaker 1: dramatic developments in the Middle East, you know, things escalating
Speaker 1: between the US and the Huthies out of Yemen, so
Speaker 1: we'll tell you what's going on there. We also had
Speaker 1: to pull some of the most insane comments that are
Speaker 1: coming out of Israel. There were so many of them
Speaker 1: it was hard to choose, and we felt we needed
Speaker 1: to devote an entire segment just to showcasing a few
Speaker 1: of them for you. So we'll bring you that as well. Also,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party once again trying to cancel democracy in
Speaker 1: order to quote unquote save democracy. We'll give you the
Speaker 1: latest developments there. Sager's taking a look at the ib
Speaker 1: leagues and we've got a little bit of like attempted
Speaker 1: holiday cheer for you here at the end. We've done
Speaker 1: some year end superlatives that will all be good reveal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the minute that you go negative on these this year,
Speaker 1: it will get immediately very dark. So we're trying to
Speaker 1: look at silver linings. We're looking at the best moments
Speaker 1: of the year, what we're looking forward to, those sorts
Speaker 1: of things, all the kay things off.
Speaker 3: Before we do that.
Speaker 2: This is the last chance, last big show of the year.
Speaker 2: So if you can, if you're able to take advantage,
Speaker 2: we've got the breaking points discount right now for the
Speaker 2: yearly membership.
Speaker 3: We already have the Colorado stuff going on.
Speaker 2: So we promised you a crazy election and it's certainly
Speaker 2: going to be crazy. So if you can help us
Speaker 2: out for the entire election year, you can go ahead
Speaker 2: and take advantage of that Breakingpoints dot com. As I said,
Speaker 2: we've got some other Christmas merch all those other things
Speaker 2: that are available on our website, and we appreciate and
Speaker 2: love you all so much. One last thing, Crystal, can
Speaker 2: I just say is that we discovered, as we had
Speaker 2: pointed out before, the number one way that our show
Speaker 2: grew by basically double this year on podcasts was you
Speaker 2: guys sharing it. So if you can't afford it or
Speaker 2: any of that, if you could just do us a
Speaker 2: favor and text the show to a friend of yours,
Speaker 2: send an episode or any of that that you think
Speaker 2: would be helpful to them, it really does help us out.
Speaker 2: Or talk us up at the dinner table. That's one
Speaker 2: thing you could do for us maybe this holiday season.
Speaker 2: But let's go ahead and start with us cotus. As
Speaker 2: we were talking about, there has been a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff going on in the last two days, Colorado's Supreme
Speaker 2: Court ruling four to three to block Trump of availability
Speaker 2: on a Republican ballot, this setting up a major Supreme
Speaker 2: Court challenge. The basis of this being alleging that he
Speaker 2: has committed quote in insurrection and has violated the cause
Speaker 2: of the fourteenth Amendment equal protection cost. So what does
Speaker 2: all of that mean and does President Biden agree? He
Speaker 2: wighed in yesterday on the tarmac at Air Force One.
Speaker 2: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: Well, I think you start shurtening yourself. Evident he saw
Speaker 4: it all on whether the fourteenth nine of the five.
Speaker 4: I let the court make that decision. But he certainly
Speaker 4: supported any insurrection, no question about it, none, zero. And
Speaker 4: he seems to be doubling down on about everything anyway.
Speaker 2: President Biden saying that there's no question he committed in
Speaker 2: an insurrection. I guess also at the same time leaving
Speaker 2: it up to the court. This has also thrown things
Speaker 2: into the GOP primary. Vivik Ramaswami honestly a genius move
Speaker 2: in my opinion, being like, you know what, I will
Speaker 2: drop out, Crystal, if I will drop out and pull
Speaker 2: myself off the ballot if they are allowed to block
Speaker 2: Trump now setting and throwing the gauntlet to Nikki Haley
Speaker 2: and to Ron DeSantis. DeSantis was asked about this on Newsmax.
Speaker 2: Here's what he had to say, and real quick.
Speaker 1: Fellow GP twenty twenty four presidential candidate that Graumaswami saying
Speaker 1: he will remove himself from the Colorado ballot unless Trump's
Speaker 1: eligibility is restored.
Speaker 5: Would you do the same.
Speaker 6: No, I think that's just playing into the left. I
Speaker 6: think the case will get overturned by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: But I've qualified for all the ballots, I'm competing in
Speaker 6: all the states, and I'm going to accumulate the delegates necessary.
Speaker 6: That's the whole name of the game in this situation.
Speaker 3: So it would just be playing to the left.
Speaker 2: Crystal, This just does demonstrate all the difficulty of running
Speaker 2: against Trump. And I thought that those two clips actually
Speaker 2: show some of the political conundrums and dynamics that we
Speaker 2: have right now.
Speaker 3: We got the president and most of the Democrats.
Speaker 2: They agree, like I guess at a rhetorical level of
Speaker 2: quote unquote, insurrection was committed. This all actually started. You
Speaker 2: were the first person who ever showed it to me. Actually,
Speaker 2: of those Atlantic articles of there's law professors who.
Speaker 3: Are laying out this legal theory.
Speaker 2: Only took a matter of three months to go all
Speaker 2: the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: And now we're going to have it.
Speaker 2: Effectively has to be challenged sometime just in the next
Speaker 2: two weeks before January fourth, that's the deadline before Colorado
Speaker 2: is allowed to implement this, and presumably the High Court
Speaker 2: is going to take up this challenge. But politically this
Speaker 2: has set up some crazy dynamics, but legally too. What
Speaker 2: we've discovered is that the Court's ruling on this will
Speaker 2: set the rule for all fifty states. This is not
Speaker 2: an election decision, because if they rule on the side
Speaker 2: of the Colorado Supreme Court, they would decide that for
Speaker 2: the entire country, Donald Trump is not allowed to remain
Speaker 2: on the ballot. This probably the most significant electoral case
Speaker 2: I think since Bush versus Gore, and that's just the
Speaker 2: first of many cases that will be appearing before the
Speaker 2: Court this year.
Speaker 5: No doubt about it.
Speaker 1: So this is not a state election law issue. That's
Speaker 1: why it would be relevant for the entire country. This
Speaker 1: has to do directly with this provision in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: which was originally put in place you following the Civil War.
Speaker 5: It was used most often during.
Speaker 1: Reconstruction to bar people who had, you know, been traitorous
Speaker 1: against our own country from ever holding office again.
Speaker 5: And you know, just to give people.
Speaker 1: The text of what that says, This is section three
Speaker 1: of the Civil War era fourteenth Amendment. It says, quote,
Speaker 1: no person shall hold any office civil or military under
Speaker 1: the US who have previous, having previously taken an oath
Speaker 1: as an officer of the United States to support the
Speaker 1: Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
Speaker 1: or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort
Speaker 1: to the enemies thereof. So anybody who held has to
Speaker 1: be barred, you know, from holding office if they engaged
Speaker 1: in an insurrection.
Speaker 5: Left unsaid, here is.
Speaker 1: How you determine because someone engaged in an insurrection, and
Speaker 1: that has never been decided, and so in that way,
Speaker 1: I actually think it's very appropriate that this go to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, for you know, the not that I
Speaker 1: have a lot of confidence in this court at this point.
Speaker 1: I think it's a very partisan entity. Three of the
Speaker 1: nine justices actually put on the court, of course by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. But I do think that is the appropriate
Speaker 1: place for them to adjudicate how should this provision in
Speaker 1: the Constitution actually be applied. And you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of hot takes down there. Perhaps my take is
Speaker 1: the hottest of all, which is actually I think it's
Speaker 1: a very tricky legal question. I don't think that it
Speaker 1: is clear cut in either direction. Now, a lot of
Speaker 1: the analysis that I've seen, effectively people who are opposed
Speaker 1: to this decision, it effectually seems like they just don't
Speaker 1: think that this should be in the Constitution at all,
Speaker 1: That they think it should be left to the voters.
Speaker 1: I think that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. It's
Speaker 1: not one that I happen to agree with. I think
Speaker 1: it's appropriate for a state to have the means to
Speaker 1: bar people who have engaged in traitorous or rebellions or
Speaker 1: insurrections against the state, to prohibit them from holding office.
Speaker 1: So I do think it's appropriate that something like this
Speaker 1: be in the Constitution. But then this type of legal
Speaker 1: questions this raises is primarily, as I said, who are
Speaker 1: the officeholders? That was actually what the lower Colorado Court
Speaker 1: got hung up on, as they said, well, technically, we
Speaker 1: don't think that the presidency qualifies as an office under
Speaker 1: this particular provision. That was the piece that the Colorado
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said, No, we think by the plane reading
Speaker 1: Dictionary definition, the President of the United States would qualify.
Speaker 1: And then the key question is okay, well, what's your
Speaker 1: definition of an insurrection and what's your definition of whether
Speaker 1: someone engaged in it? And who is it up to
Speaker 1: to determine? Does it have to be determined by an
Speaker 1: Act of Congress? That's one possibility. That's what some other
Speaker 1: courts have ruled, because there have been something like eighteen
Speaker 1: cases so far on the same challenge in different states.
Speaker 1: All of them have been rejected except for this one.
Speaker 1: The other question then becomes, okay, well does the state
Speaker 1: court have the ability and the jurisdiction to be able
Speaker 1: to rule on this question? So there are all kinds
Speaker 1: of very difficult and frankly unprecedented legal terrain here to navigate.
Speaker 1: And so, like I said, actually I actually think it
Speaker 1: is entirely appropriate that this go to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: for them to say, listen, this is the meaning of
Speaker 1: the text, this is how it's determined, this is the
Speaker 1: standard going forward. And also, let's be clear, it is
Speaker 1: almost unimaginable that this court is going to side with color.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I actually I don't think there's a chance it could
Speaker 2: go nine. Oh, I really do believe that, although maybe
Speaker 2: seven to two or something like that. From my court watcher,
Speaker 2: so I would split the difference. I don't think that
Speaker 2: people are saying that the clause itself is appropriate. It's
Speaker 2: just that the bar needs to be a lot higher. So,
Speaker 2: for example, if we think about the Civil War, taking
Speaker 2: up arms and fighting for the Confederate States and literally
Speaker 2: fighting against your own country. One of the reasons why
Speaker 2: they have that provision in there was specifically about people
Speaker 2: who were officers of the United States military.
Speaker 3: Or take Jefferson Davis.
Speaker 2: He was literally a sitting senator for the state of Mississippi,
Speaker 2: I mean, genuinely committed treason. And yet this is where
Speaker 2: I think treason, the word itself, the eventual punishment for it,
Speaker 2: our public understanding of it. Let's think about it. I
Speaker 2: believe the Rosenberg were the last people who were put
Speaker 2: to death for committing treason. Bob Hanson, the FBI spy
Speaker 2: from two thousand and July two thousand and one, I
Speaker 2: believe he also could have qualified for the death penalty
Speaker 2: because he was actively caught spying for Russia, but he
Speaker 2: eventually pleaded guilty.
Speaker 3: And all that.
Speaker 2: Those are about as far as I go for what
Speaker 2: treason and that should look like.
Speaker 3: And I think the same.
Speaker 5: Thing in this provision.
Speaker 3: No no, no.
Speaker 2: In terms of how we publicly understand it, as in
Speaker 2: for example of Hillary Clinton going on television and accusing
Speaker 2: Tulci Gabbard of committing treason. She called her a Russian spy.
Speaker 2: That's outrageous to me because to me, the word treason,
Speaker 2: the idea of the public understanding and the legal definition
Speaker 2: has to remain incredibly, incredibly high and used only in
Speaker 2: the rarest of circumstances when it truly qualifies. I think
Speaker 2: insurrection too, is one there where we had a political,
Speaker 2: a civic and a legal understanding of that time of
Speaker 2: what it means to take up rebellion against the cause
Speaker 2: of the United States and the United States government. That
Speaker 2: is not even close to arriving at that bar for
Speaker 2: their where I think we are right now where I
Speaker 2: do think this comes into anti democratic territory. Now that
Speaker 2: being said, I agree, I'm glad that it's going to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and I hope they set the bar
Speaker 2: as high as I just said, where unless you literally
Speaker 2: declare a civil war against the United States, actively use
Speaker 2: your office as a government holder at the federal level,
Speaker 2: and you violate your oath and you work against those
Speaker 2: industry aid and to bet genuine enemies to foreign governments
Speaker 2: or others.
Speaker 3: That's one separate thing.
Speaker 2: But a political understanding here where we've already had the
Speaker 2: political means to deal with this, and that was called
Speaker 2: impeachment and Trump didn't get impeached. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: something where I talked about previously. People can go roll
Speaker 2: it if they want. I think it was like January seventh,
Speaker 2: maybe January eighth. I did an entire monologue about this
Speaker 2: about why I eventually thought that the debt resolving this
Speaker 2: through small d democratic means, to me, remains the best
Speaker 2: possible avenue. I don't disagree that it's very legally we
Speaker 2: should have something like this on the books, especially if
Speaker 2: we consider what the country and the environment and all
Speaker 2: of that were at the time. But there's also a
Speaker 2: reason it basically wasn't used for over one hundred years.
Speaker 2: And think we're even close to anything like that, nor
Speaker 2: should we be.
Speaker 1: I so, the definition of insurrection in the Merriam Webster
Speaker 1: Dictionary is an act or instance of revolting against civil
Speaker 1: authority or an establish government. I think January sixth meets
Speaker 1: that definition. I mean very very I mean he does
Speaker 1: it because very clearly what they were there to do,
Speaker 1: and they were all say, in seventeen seventy six, and
Speaker 1: they certainly saw themselves as revolutionaries engaged in an act
Speaker 1: to try to it was Keystone cops right. The fact
Speaker 1: that they had very little chance of succeeding doesn't really matter, though.
Speaker 1: The intent was to block the workings of our government
Speaker 1: and the peaceful transfer of power. So I don't think
Speaker 1: it's crazy to label this an insurrection, but again, I
Speaker 1: think it's tricky, right.
Speaker 5: The other question, there are First.
Speaker 1: Amendment issues here too, in terms of whether Trump's speech
Speaker 1: that he gave that day, you know, is that protected
Speaker 1: political speech or because he was, you know, effectively inciting
Speaker 1: this insurrection, does that then you know, get excluded from
Speaker 1: the qualification of political speech. Again, I think these are
Speaker 1: difficult legal questions, but there's a reason why, and we'll
Speaker 1: get to the pulling a little bit. There's a reason
Speaker 1: why I think a majority of the country is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I support it, because if you just look at the
Speaker 1: plain faced reading of this text that no person shall
Speaker 1: hold any office if they shall have engaged in insurrection
Speaker 1: or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort
Speaker 1: to the enemies thereof majority of the country I think
Speaker 1: looks at that and goes, yeah, that rings kind of true.
Speaker 1: So that's why I think it's entirely appropriate for this
Speaker 1: to go to the Supreme Court. The reason Sagaway said
Speaker 1: that a lot of people it seems to me like
Speaker 1: they're not arguing the legal merits of the case, they're
Speaker 1: just arguing that this really shouldn't be a clause in
Speaker 1: the Constitution is because if you're just appealing to, like,
Speaker 1: you know what, it should be the voters that decide period,
Speaker 1: end of story. I do think that's a legitimate position
Speaker 1: to hold. It's not the one that I happen to hold,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's a legitimate position. But that
Speaker 1: means you just don't think that this should apply in
Speaker 1: any instance. Part of the reason why this hasn't been
Speaker 1: used in one hundred years is because we haven't seen
Speaker 1: this particular set of packs and circumstances ever unfold before us.
Speaker 2: I just think it's I don't think it comes even close.
Speaker 2: I mean, the reason I could say BLM is they
Speaker 2: burned down a police station. That's revolt against civil authority.
Speaker 5: But are I'm trying to overturnal election?
Speaker 2: That's my thing, it's be ludicrous to prosecute them. They
Speaker 2: should be prosecuted for property damage, not for insurrection. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is one of those where even this whole, like
Speaker 2: you said, Keystone cops trying to get electors change and
Speaker 2: all that, that has all been dealt with at a
Speaker 2: very basic legal matter rising to this, and this is
Speaker 2: the other thing about insurrection as we commonly understand it.
Speaker 2: From the Civil War time period, this was legally defined
Speaker 2: by acts of Congress, yes, by the Republican Congress. Also,
Speaker 2: I should note much of that provision and of that
Speaker 2: time was when the Southern States no longer had any
Speaker 2: political ability to exert their will in Congress because of
Speaker 2: the radical Republicans that were in charge of that time.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I'm not even against that. I think
Speaker 2: it was probably a good thing. But the legal understanding
Speaker 2: and the questions around insurrection and who was a legitimate
Speaker 2: officer and whether they violated their court and what that
Speaker 2: all meant, that all changed around eighteen eighty and such
Speaker 2: forth as we came to a reconciliation part and we
Speaker 2: moved on past reconstruction. There's a lot of debates and
Speaker 2: things about that time.
Speaker 3: At the country.
Speaker 2: But this is my point, is that the bar needs
Speaker 2: to be so incredibly high, as in like the Rosenbergs
Speaker 2: literally passing along nuclear secrets to the Russians, or Benedict Arnold,
Speaker 2: or quite literally Bob Hanson.
Speaker 5: Treasons Again, no question, different question.
Speaker 3: Yeah, But.
Speaker 1: In what way is January sixth not an act or
Speaker 1: instance of revolting against civil authority? I mean, it seems
Speaker 1: to me the textbook definition of that. But then again,
Speaker 1: if you well, no, that's not true.
Speaker 3: It could be applied that way.
Speaker 1: We have have you ever seen an instance maybe two thousand,
Speaker 1: but have you ever seen an instance where you have
Speaker 1: people being incited by a president to go and march
Speaker 1: on the Capitol and try to overturn the legitimate election results.
Speaker 1: We have not seen that before. To say this is
Speaker 1: just like any other protest, you know, and I know
Speaker 1: this is one of the arguments, and you see this
Speaker 1: from you know, some of my compatriots on the left
Speaker 1: of basically like, this is a slippery slope and it's
Speaker 1: going to be used against us, and I am sensitive
Speaker 1: to that, but I do think that this is different
Speaker 1: of character and kind than anything we have seen. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was shocking to us on that day when we
Speaker 1: saw this unfolding. If you read the you know, messages
Speaker 1: of what these people thought they were doing, they clearly
Speaker 1: thought they were doing an insurrection. They thought that they
Speaker 1: were revolutionaries. They believed that they were patriots in this moment,
Speaker 1: but they definitely had a revolutionary furnivor and were trying
Speaker 1: to overturn legitimate election results. So are their tricky legal questions?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 3: Do?
Speaker 1: I think it's difficult to say, Okay, does this technically
Speaker 1: meet the definition? Does it technically meet the definition of
Speaker 1: he engaged in it or you know, was aiding and
Speaker 1: abetting it.
Speaker 5: I think that's difficult.
Speaker 1: I think the free speech questions are difficult, but I
Speaker 1: just can't see how people just dismiss it out of hand.
Speaker 1: And most of the people who I see doing that,
Speaker 1: they don't actually engage with any of the legal arguments whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So again, there is an appropriate place to adjudicate these
Speaker 1: difficult legal questions. That is the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 1: United States. And so I think it is good that
Speaker 1: this is going there now. I think it's good it's
Speaker 1: going there in an expedited fashion. I wish I had
Speaker 1: more confidence in the court, but it is what it
Speaker 1: is at this point in history. And the other The
Speaker 1: last thing I'll say on this too is you know
Speaker 1: some of the like the freak ount I guess on
Speaker 1: the right over this is like, we know it's going
Speaker 1: to be overturned. This is one challenge out of eighteen.
Speaker 1: It's good that he's getting his due process. This is
Speaker 1: going through the process right now, and you know what
Speaker 1: the end result is going to be. It's probably only
Speaker 1: going to innore to his benefit in the Republican primary.
Speaker 1: And it's very very very like ninety nine percent likely
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court is going to overturn it anyway.
Speaker 3: That very true.
Speaker 2: That said, it's one of those moments of like, oh wow,
Speaker 2: they would do it if they could. And I think
Speaker 2: that's where I mean think about it too. It's like
Speaker 2: when people freak out about an abortion law in Texas.
Speaker 2: They're like, oh my god, if these people get power,
Speaker 2: this is what they want to do on a national level.
Speaker 5: But those actually getting acted power.
Speaker 2: In Texas, but they got this is the coleraded Supreme
Speaker 2: Court's overridden.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's just put it.
Speaker 2: Then a right wing state wants it to I mean,
Speaker 2: this happens all the time. You have a Mississippi or
Speaker 2: Florida or whatever that passes some law. They know it's unconstitutional,
Speaker 2: they pass it anyway. Then Democrats are like, look what
Speaker 2: they would do if they possibly could, and then it
Speaker 2: goes to the Supreme Court and it gets struck down.
Speaker 2: These are, of course people have a not even a right.
Speaker 2: I think they should freak out about it, just from
Speaker 2: a small, d democratic level. I just think again, to
Speaker 2: come back to the bar and what it looks like.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, it's DAP absolutely should go to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: I'm glad it is.
Speaker 2: I'm glad it actually will get resolved early rather than
Speaker 2: have all this stuff playing out now years.
Speaker 3: I would say the same for January sixth. But Trump
Speaker 3: has never been convicted of insurrection.
Speaker 2: That's another thing is that there was well it's complicated,
Speaker 2: but back in the Civil War time there was a
Speaker 2: military tribunal and military understanding and the terms of appomatics
Speaker 2: and the terms of I forget where Sherman accepted the
Speaker 2: other surrender, but there was a commonly we led understanding
Speaker 2: of the Union Army as blessed by the Commander in chief,
Speaker 2: of what it looked like and what the terms of parole. Now,
Speaker 2: these were all laid out at the time and such
Speaker 2: that you stayed within that you would no longer you know,
Speaker 2: you could be eventually rehabilitated, and Congress itself could decide
Speaker 2: that you were no longer and you were able to
Speaker 2: run for election.
Speaker 3: This is all long you know, Reconstruction era stuff.
Speaker 2: We haven't had a single one of those types of
Speaker 2: understandings with Trump, which is again why I don't even
Speaker 2: think it comes close.
Speaker 1: To the fil What to you in terms of like
Speaker 1: if something, if a different set of facts had unfolded
Speaker 1: on January six, what to you would meet the ball?
Speaker 2: So if our Congress passed a law that said January
Speaker 2: sixth itself was considered.
Speaker 5: To be you think this should be in the hands
Speaker 5: of Congress.
Speaker 2: I think it should be in the hands of the
Speaker 2: Commander in chief and of the Congress. We should commonly
Speaker 2: come to an understanding of which and then should then
Speaker 2: be challenged and tested within the court where we can
Speaker 2: have a genuine understanding and have a total democratic buy in.
Speaker 2: This act was itself a insurrection.
Speaker 1: So it's not necessarily that January six doesn't quitqualify. It's
Speaker 1: that you don't think that the Colorado Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: the appropriate venue to determine. Oh absolutely, But if the
Speaker 1: Congress had passed an act that said, yes, January sixth
Speaker 1: was an insuraction, need.
Speaker 2: Say, absolutely absolutely, I would just as we did under reconstruction,
Speaker 2: as we understood what rebellion was, as we understood what
Speaker 2: Confederates were. This is about both democracy, about law, and
Speaker 2: about the way that we I mean, let's go go
Speaker 2: to the next one here, please, so we can put
Speaker 2: this up on the screen. This is why I do
Speaker 2: think is complicated and gets to what you're talking about,
Speaker 2: which is that the Supreme Court about being disqualified for insurrection,
Speaker 2: and they specifically point to people like Zebulon Vance in
Speaker 2: eighteen seventy five, who was a genuinely unreconstructed Southerner and
Speaker 2: Confederate who is disqualified from holding office. And this gets
Speaker 2: to the question then of how it's interpreted in the
Speaker 2: modern era. And actually, Colorado is not the first time
Speaker 2: that this has happened to them. So let's go to
Speaker 2: the next part. You found this where the presidential hopeful
Speaker 2: shows that a naturalized citizen who wanted to run for
Speaker 2: president despite not being American born, lost his bid. Why
Speaker 2: because he contended under the Constitution's requirement that the US
Speaker 2: born provision violates equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: This is something that Jenks put forward previously. A magistrate
Speaker 2: judge actually ruled that it did not affect the validity
Speaker 2: of the Constitution's distinction between natural born and naturalized citizens.
Speaker 2: He eventually appealed that decision, and a panel of the
Speaker 2: tenth US sort of appeals back to the judge who
Speaker 2: found that the state has a legitimate interest in leaving
Speaker 2: him off of the ballot if he cannot assume the office.
Speaker 2: This gets to a little bit of the interpretation of
Speaker 2: that Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Let me explain why this matters and is relevant to
Speaker 1: this particular case. It's because one of the legal questions
Speaker 1: here is whether the state courts are the appropriate venue
Speaker 1: to decide constitutional ballot issues. So, even though this is
Speaker 1: a different constitutional ballot issue, in this instance, not only
Speaker 1: did the did the original the Colorado I believe state
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decide that, yes, it is an appropriate venue
Speaker 1: for us to decide we have an interest directly in
Speaker 1: deciding these constitutional ballot issues. But the other thing that's
Speaker 1: interesting is when it went up to the US Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, and they agreed with the Colorado State Court.
Speaker 1: Guess who is on the US Circuit Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: Meels Corsi. So that particular legal question, that's why that's
Speaker 1: relevant here. Now, there are a host of other legal
Speaker 1: questions as I've been discussing the First Amendment issues, what
Speaker 1: is an insurrection? How do you determine is this provision
Speaker 1: of the Constitution what they call self executing, meaning that
Speaker 1: you can just apply it based on its sort of
Speaker 1: plane face meaning, or does it require an Act of
Speaker 1: Congress in order? As Saga is suggesting, that's what he
Speaker 1: thinks it should be at least that it requires an
Speaker 1: Act of Congress to set forth. Okay, here's the definitions,
Speaker 1: here's how it here's how it operates, here's how we determine,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Again, all of these things are sort of
Speaker 1: open ended because we have so had so little precedent
Speaker 1: in terms of using this provision after the Civil War. So,
Speaker 1: you know, it's as I said, I do think it's
Speaker 1: a complicated legal question. I don't think that it is
Speaker 1: like easy. I think these are tricky things. But when
Speaker 1: you look at the just basic definition, if you look
Speaker 1: at the plain English language interpretation of what this provision says.
Speaker 1: It does seem like it applies to me. It does
Speaker 1: seem like it applies, I think to me January sixth.
Speaker 1: I think it's very easy to classify it as an
Speaker 1: insurrection when you consider the intent and what the people
Speaker 1: involved were in understanding their business on that day, what
Speaker 1: they were up to on that day. Obviously Trump was
Speaker 1: the whole reason they were there was because of Trump, Right,
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's crazy to look at this
Speaker 1: and go, yeah, this is appropriate. And again I come
Speaker 1: back to I think it is also appropriate to have
Speaker 1: a provision like this in the Constitution. I think a
Speaker 1: state has an interest in protecting, you know, the protecting
Speaker 1: the country from people who have attempted to subvert it
Speaker 1: in the past. I think that's like a basic sort
Speaker 1: of tenet of statehood.
Speaker 3: Finally, I don't disagree that it shouldn't.
Speaker 2: I mean, at a certain point, whether we agree or
Speaker 2: not on the Constitution doesn't matter because it ain't going
Speaker 2: to change.
Speaker 3: So it's there.
Speaker 2: The forty Amendment is long time test of time, so
Speaker 2: it is what it is. As for the intent thing, though,
Speaker 2: this is where I just disagree because For example, if
Speaker 2: I join a cult and I kill somebody in cold
Speaker 2: blood or killed somebody because of my religious beliefs, Am
Speaker 2: I going to get prosecuted for religious crime, especially if
Speaker 2: it doesn't fall within their hate crime provision? No, even
Speaker 2: though that would be definite, that would be defined as
Speaker 2: a religious act of war, whatever you could want to
Speaker 2: call it rhetorically, I would be prosecuted under the state
Speaker 2: of Virginia or DC or wherever it happened to resign
Speaker 2: and I would kill that person, they would prosecute me
Speaker 2: for murder if it fell within a hate crime provision.
Speaker 3: Then they could add on you know whatever. These are well.
Speaker 2: Commonly understood within statute of which they can be applied
Speaker 2: and adjudicated through the legal system that have now stood
Speaker 2: the test of time forever. You know, a common understanding
Speaker 2: of something like a hate crime, for example, I mean
Speaker 2: that stuff gets thrown around all the time. There's a
Speaker 2: reason that the judge gets to actually rule as to
Speaker 2: what it is and what it's not. We could sit
Speaker 2: here on a news show and call something a hage crime.
Speaker 2: That's fine within the First Amendment, but that's not how
Speaker 2: the law works. So I just think saying like how
Speaker 2: it appears, you know, based on our individual understanding. That's
Speaker 2: not how you know, interpreting the constitution the law, nor
Speaker 2: should it work both from a civil code and a
Speaker 2: criminal code. It's like, well within an actual understanding through
Speaker 2: the legal system.
Speaker 1: So I guess sally quite a lot of precedent of
Speaker 1: using the dictionary definitions of terms and even looking back
Speaker 1: at what was the dictionary definition of the term during
Speaker 1: the time period when this amendment was instituted to try
Speaker 1: to determine what was the meaning clanface meaning at the time.
Speaker 1: So it's not like you have to be some secret
Speaker 1: decoder to figure things out. A different judges apply this differently.
Speaker 1: Some of them do take more of the like secret
Speaker 1: secret decoder approach that was. I mean, for example, it
Speaker 1: feels preposterous the lower court ruling that the presidency is
Speaker 1: not in office of.
Speaker 5: The United States. You look at that and you're like, what,
Speaker 5: that's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you look at this provision versus
Speaker 1: that provision and maybe at the time and they should
Speaker 1: have specified it in particular, and you know there are
Speaker 1: other courts who have thought that as well, and that
Speaker 1: part is sort of in dispute. So there are different
Speaker 1: ways of analyzing this, but I just want to point
Speaker 1: out that it is not unusual or you know, out
Speaker 1: of the realm of what's appropriate. Just just look at
Speaker 1: the dictionary definition of these terms and what the people
Speaker 1: writing you know, this text at the time, what they
Speaker 1: would have thought that these words mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that you and I are opening up originalism
Speaker 2: and interpretation and living constitutions.
Speaker 5: And there are many schools of thought on how to.
Speaker 3: Do this, loyally tearing their hair.
Speaker 1: And let's also be clear, like I've said this many
Speaker 1: times before, all of that sort of goes out the
Speaker 1: window because of the partisan nature of the courts, where
Speaker 1: you know, I have no doubt that when it gets
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, they're going to find whatever legal rationale
Speaker 1: that they want to do what they want to do,
Speaker 1: and they'll sort of fill in, you know, backfill the
Speaker 1: legal justification after the fact. So it's not like I
Speaker 1: think that these people are all like just calling balls
Speaker 1: and strikes and trying to faithfully apply some sort of
Speaker 1: an approach.
Speaker 5: Not at all.
Speaker 1: But there are plenty of instances where just looking at
Speaker 1: the dictionary definition is actually how people approach these rulings.
Speaker 1: And you know, we really are in unprecedented territory. We
Speaker 1: haven't seen something like what happened on January sixth before.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen a president like Donald Trump before. We
Speaker 1: haven't seen, you know, this set of facts and circumstances
Speaker 1: in quite a long time. So again, difficult decisions, and
Speaker 1: I think it's appropriate to be left to this proom.
Speaker 2: Cool, it'll be fun, Crystal. I'm looking forward to hearing
Speaker 2: and seeing what happens. Let's go to the next part here,
Speaker 2: and this is a political question which I think is
Speaker 2: easier to talk about. Let's go and put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. Democrats actually supporting the Colorado ruling
Speaker 2: eighty four to eight, Independence, forty eight to thirty five,
Speaker 2: Republicans who oppose at sixty six to twenty four, so
Speaker 2: the overall support number stands at fifty four oppose at
Speaker 2: thirty three. Keep in mind this was a relatively quick
Speaker 2: one sample of three four hundred people from you gov,
Speaker 2: but still significant, the very first poll that we've actually
Speaker 2: seen on this direct question of the support for the
Speaker 2: Colorado court ruling disqualifying Trump from the primary ballot. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part here, please, And this is
Speaker 2: important as well. Is that this has now put forward
Speaker 2: a political campaign on Democratic states. Lieutenant governor of the
Speaker 2: state of California is now writing to the Secretary of State,
Speaker 2: Shirley Weber to explore every legal option to remove former
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump from California's twenty twenty four presidential primary.
Speaker 2: I would expect in the coming days that almost every
Speaker 2: Democrat or at least hard blue state is going to
Speaker 2: try and pursue this in terms of their lieutenant governorships.
Speaker 2: Of course, it will eventually get adjudicated at the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court level, but they will try to get it to
Speaker 2: be done. It does show you, though, that this is
Speaker 2: tremendously politically popular with a lot of the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: and frankly not even particularly injurious whenever you look at
Speaker 2: the independent number and publicans and I think that's where Crystal,
Speaker 2: we can agree at least on this is I mean,
Speaker 2: I think on a question like this, the public opinion
Speaker 2: actually doesn't matter because if this is the legal question,
Speaker 2: but because people are probably looking at it in the
Speaker 2: way that you are is like did he do it
Speaker 2: or not? And most people do think Trump at the
Speaker 2: very least most people think Trump acted badly on that
Speaker 2: day and I think this is probably the lens of
Speaker 2: which they're looking at it.
Speaker 3: They're like, yeah, I would agree with that something like that.
Speaker 2: Maybe they don't necessarily understand their legal ramifications of everything
Speaker 2: we're talking about, but as an actual political question, I
Speaker 2: think that they can. I think this fits even the
Speaker 2: Republican number of the twenty four percent.
Speaker 3: That exactly matches.
Speaker 2: But it exactly matches the number of Republicans In a
Speaker 2: recent New York Times Santa pol who said that Trump
Speaker 2: shouldn't be on the ballot if he's convicted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it's the same thing.
Speaker 2: It's just people who, you know, within the Republican Party,
Speaker 2: the Nikki Haley voter who's really consolidating right now and
Speaker 2: actually like doing pretty well in New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: I think that's where it comes down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is a very normy reaction here of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: January six was bad, and maybe it is appropriate that,
Speaker 1: you know, we take these sort of extraordinary measures against him,
Speaker 1: and just looking at the text here.
Speaker 5: That seems like it fits.
Speaker 1: So I was actually surprised though that the numbers were
Speaker 1: this strong in favor of it, just because it is,
Speaker 1: you know, it is an extraordinary move.
Speaker 5: There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: It is a dramatic move to take a leading president
Speaker 1: v leading presidential candidate off the ballot. I don't deny
Speaker 1: that whatsoever. So I was I was actually a little
Speaker 1: surprised to see a twenty point margin in favor of
Speaker 1: that court decision, and in particular, I mean, I wasn't
Speaker 1: surprised at obviously eighty four percent of Democrats support it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't not surprised to see that a plurality forty
Speaker 1: eight percent of Independence support it. I was surprised to
Speaker 1: see that basically a quarter of Republicans are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's appropriate given the fact that Trump is
Speaker 1: still such a dominant figure within the Republican Party.
Speaker 5: I wonder if that number will.
Speaker 1: Move as the news cycle really kicks in and the
Speaker 1: very very clear and hard partisan lines on this question
Speaker 1: sort of kick in, and if there's more of a
Speaker 1: rally to, you know, a sort of like tribal instinct
Speaker 1: or partisan rallying around what this question means. I wonder
Speaker 1: if you don't see that support on the Republican side dip.
Speaker 1: But I was, I was kind of surprised by this
Speaker 1: instant poll reaction myself. I thought that there would be
Speaker 1: more of a fifty to fifty split on this question.
Speaker 3: I would have assumed so too, although I mean, I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 2: It also is one of those where on January sixth
Speaker 2: you saw Republicans are like, yeah, he acted badly, but
Speaker 2: I also think he's the best candidate.
Speaker 3: So people have complicated feelings about all of this.
Speaker 5: Inconsistent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people are deeply inconsistent, which is part of the
Speaker 2: why it's fun to cover politics. Let's cover this next
Speaker 2: one up on the screen. Fifty three percent previously had support,
Speaker 2: for example, the prosecution Christal. That almost exactly matches the
Speaker 2: number who support the ballot barring of the ballot, which
Speaker 2: is why I think it's all coming down to a
Speaker 2: question of like, do I think Trump back to badly?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I also will say, for all the stories that we
Speaker 2: do here, which are totally legitimate, in which I genuinely
Speaker 2: still believe I think Trump does have you know, I
Speaker 2: would give him the edge even though I think it's
Speaker 2: near a coin toss. Is this still an albatross around
Speaker 2: his neck? Most people, the more the question of like
Speaker 2: do you like Trump and do you support his personal conduct?
Speaker 2: Or January sixth, anything related to stop the steal. We've
Speaker 2: seen people like Doug Mastriano, all these other Carrie Lake
Speaker 2: and many of these other places they lost big and
Speaker 2: deep red country when a generic Republican was doing very
Speaker 2: well on the ballot. So I would not count this
Speaker 2: an abortion out that could still sink him at the
Speaker 2: end of the day.
Speaker 3: And Trump is his own worst enemy.
Speaker 2: For example, remember Sean Hannity kept trying to get him
Speaker 2: to endorse mail in balloting during his town hall and
Speaker 2: he just wouldn't do it. Yeah, when he has a
Speaker 2: religious belief in his head as he does that he
Speaker 2: believes the election.
Speaker 3: Was stolen from him, he will never drop it.
Speaker 2: Guys ever, And so if somebody's going to challenge him
Speaker 2: on it, poke him Biden, or somebody starts to get
Speaker 2: on that, he'll give his rant about dominion voting systems.
Speaker 5: You know what was interesting to me.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys saw this poll floating around,
Speaker 1: but there was a des Moines Register poll, this like
Speaker 1: a very high quality poll of Iowa caucus goers, and
Speaker 1: they asked them all these different, like very inflammatory comments
Speaker 1: that Trump has made, Like does that make you more
Speaker 1: likely to support him? Less likely or it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and the headline from this was that his comments about
Speaker 1: poisoning the blood of America make more Republicans more likely
Speaker 1: to vot formed than less likely. It was forty two
Speaker 1: to twenty eight. But actually there was the one that
Speaker 1: had the most negative impact on Iowa Coccas goers.
Speaker 5: Was a little surprising to me.
Speaker 1: It was twenty twenty election fraud justifies terminating parts of
Speaker 1: the US Constitution. That was overwhelmingly negative. There were only
Speaker 1: fourteen percent that said it made them more likely to
Speaker 1: support Trump, and there were forty seven percent who actually
Speaker 1: who said this makes me less likely to support Trump, which,
Speaker 1: you know, I just I found that interesting. It was,
Speaker 1: like I said, it was surprising to me. It also
Speaker 1: made me feel like maybe Ron de Santis and Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley and co. Have been too nervous about talking about
Speaker 1: any of this. I mean, this appears to be the
Speaker 1: most damaging comment that he's made, and I haven't heard
Speaker 1: any of them bring it up really at all. So
Speaker 1: there's that. But it also does show you that even
Speaker 1: within a Republican base that overwhelmingly does think that the
Speaker 1: election was stolen, there's a discomfort with the level of
Speaker 1: disorder and chaos and certainly a direct attack on the
Speaker 1: Constitution that Trump has floated in the past.
Speaker 3: Yeah, definitely, I think that.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, it's the reason why is that people
Speaker 2: who even let's say for at least most Republicans I
Speaker 2: know with people who are like, yeah, the election was stolen,
Speaker 2: they don't mean it.
Speaker 3: And the way that Trump actually meets.
Speaker 2: It, they're like, well, Mark Zuckerberg, you know, censored the
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden laptop story, and that's election interference. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean conceptually yes, but that's not what Trump is saying.
Speaker 2: And I think that having to often grapple when it's
Speaker 2: truly like in your face and sometimes with Trump makes
Speaker 2: people uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: That's that I still think people a lot of people
Speaker 3: are ever going to vote for him.
Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure I agree though, because with DeSantis,
Speaker 2: he's got to win over Trump voters too. Nikki Haley
Speaker 2: has always been just an anti Trump candidate. She's a
Speaker 2: return to yesteryear, so of course going to get yesterdayear
Speaker 2: type voters. But if you actually want to win an
Speaker 2: outright majority, that would require winning actual maga people, and
Speaker 2: maga people support Trump as a cult of personality. Let's
Speaker 2: not even put aside like anything that you know, whether
Speaker 2: they support or believe anything, it's more about protecting him.
Speaker 2: The individuals. Yeah, that's where I mean, they've always been
Speaker 2: in a tough press.
Speaker 1: I always thought it was impossible, Like I from the
Speaker 1: beginning have said, like, I don't think that there is
Speaker 1: a strategy that they could deploy that would be successful.
Speaker 1: And I still think that that is the case. However,
Speaker 1: polling does at this point show that this is actually
Speaker 1: more not his election fraud claims, but the chaos and
Speaker 1: the lawlessness surrounding those election fraud claims are more of
Speaker 1: a liability for him with Republicans than I had really thought.
Speaker 5: That's I guess that's what I appoint in.
Speaker 1: I don't have to say, like, listen, DeSantis tried the
Speaker 1: tiptoe around criticizing Trump thing, and how's it working out
Speaker 1: for him?
Speaker 5: How's the working out for any of them? How's the work?
Speaker 1: I mean the most sort of like shameless sick of
Speaker 1: is vivig Ramslomi And what's he yet?
Speaker 5: Five percent? Right now?
Speaker 1: So it's not like the strategy of just pretending like
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't exist, or more or less praising him and
Speaker 1: occasionally throwing like a little sideways job at him. It's
Speaker 1: not like that was successful either, so they may as
Speaker 1: well have actually rand as stance losing to Chris Christy
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire right now, which is pretty extraordinary in
Speaker 1: and of itself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, that's a whole other conversation, I think.
Speaker 2: Anyway, we wanted to also give people a taste too
Speaker 2: of how this is us Mike boomerang out on Joe
Speaker 2: Biden and on the Democrats. Let's take a listen to
Speaker 2: what the Texas Lieutenant governor had to say.
Speaker 7: Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight, law, it makes me think,
Speaker 7: except we believe in democracy in Texas, maybe we should
Speaker 7: take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing
Speaker 7: eight million people to cross the borders since he's been president,
Speaker 7: disrupting our state.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there you go.
Speaker 1: Don't threaten me with there with a good time, ess sir.
Speaker 1: Removing Joe Biden from.
Speaker 3: The ballot would be honestly, it would be fun. Well, look,
Speaker 3: we'll see.
Speaker 2: I do think this is certainly going to open up
Speaker 2: a can of worms, although at the same time, if
Speaker 2: Scotus just kills the can of worms, and we're probably
Speaker 2: going to be better off, Why don't we talk about
Speaker 2: broader war?
Speaker 1: All right, So we've had a lot of big developments
Speaker 1: with regards to Israel, and in particular with the Houthis
Speaker 1: attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, which has had
Speaker 1: massive reverberations in terms of global economic activity, in terms
Speaker 1: specifically of Israeli economic activity, and the Hoothies they're looming
Speaker 1: in hard. Go ahead and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They just released this new, very highly produced propaganda video.
Speaker 1: You can see them, you know, in these boats. The
Speaker 1: water looks beautiful, they're you know, have all their weapons,
Speaker 1: they're doing their military trot whatever that is the official
Speaker 1: name for that is. We can go ahead and take
Speaker 1: I think you get the idea here, and I talked
Speaker 1: to you a little bit about this before.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 1: This makes all the sense in the world for the
Speaker 1: Houthies strategically, because one thing that unifies, you know, most
Speaker 1: everybody in Yemen is support for the Palestinian.
Speaker 5: Cause opposition to Israel.
Speaker 1: It gets to show them, you know, taken on the
Speaker 1: biggest bad guys from their perspective in the world, that
Speaker 1: would be the United States of America and frankly given
Speaker 1: us a real bloody nose in the process. So the US,
Speaker 1: because of what an extraordinary impact this is having with
Speaker 1: by the way, and we'll get to this in a minute,
Speaker 1: with very low cost weaponry that the Houthis are deploying here,
Speaker 1: our Defense Department has now announced a new effort to
Speaker 1: try to curb these attacks.
Speaker 5: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So they have announced the creation of an enhanced Naval
Speaker 1: Protection Force operating in the Southern Red Sea, an attempt
Speaker 1: to ward off mounting attacks from Yemen's rebel Houthis on
Speaker 1: merchant shipping. Lloyd Austin, US Defense Secretary said the new
Speaker 1: effort would be called Operation Prosperity Guardian was necessary to
Speaker 1: tackle the recent escalation in reckless houthy attacks originating from Yemen.
Speaker 1: Other participants in the effort, and this is noteworthy, included
Speaker 1: bacherin Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sey Shelles, Way to Go,
Speaker 1: Sey Shells and Spain. New coalition of the Willing here
Speaker 1: just stropped.
Speaker 3: It was like wow, say Shales, congrats.
Speaker 1: Why that is noteworthy is that there were a number
Speaker 1: of our other close Arab allies, in particular Egypt and
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. You notice are not part of that coalition.
Speaker 1: So I think this shows a few things. Number One,
Speaker 1: this is in and of itself escalatory. The fact that
Speaker 1: we are getting more engaged, that we are contemplating direct
Speaker 1: attacks on the hu Thi's, that we have this broader
Speaker 1: military presence, This creates more possibilities of a bigger spark
Speaker 1: and a conflagration. So that's the most important thing to
Speaker 1: keep in mind. Number Two is, once again, it's humiliating
Speaker 1: that this is the coalition. That these are all the
Speaker 1: countries with all of the money and all of the
Speaker 1: things that we do to try to keep these people
Speaker 1: on our side, and when we come to them are
Speaker 1: like we need to do this thing to protect global shipping,
Speaker 1: They're like, no, Because we showed you on an earlier
Speaker 1: show this week that US support, like US approval rating
Speaker 1: in the region has fallen off a cliff. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has like a six percent approval rating in the whole region.
Speaker 1: Every country that's associated with US because of our unconditional
Speaker 1: support for Israel, their approval ratings in the region have
Speaker 1: fallen off a cliff, and it's put them in a
Speaker 1: precarious position with their own populations. So it shows you
Speaker 1: how weak we are too in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: what we're actually able to put together and to respond
Speaker 1: to this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very interesting, and that you were talking about
Speaker 2: the astometric piece. I want to spend some time on
Speaker 2: this because it's something that highlighted. It's actually even more
Speaker 2: stark than I had laid out previously. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. This gives you people a taste. There is
Speaker 2: a two million dollar missile that we are currently using
Speaker 2: to shoot down two thousand dollars drones. They say that
Speaker 2: the shortest range options are the evolved Sea Sparrow missile,
Speaker 2: designed to fire at targets less than five nautical miles away,
Speaker 2: costs one point eight million dollars per shot for targets
Speaker 2: inside one nautical mile for another weapon system. Let's go
Speaker 2: to the next part here, please, And they say, by contrast,
Speaker 2: experts are now estimating the Hufy one way attack drone,
Speaker 2: primarily Uranian made, costs just two one thousand dollars. The
Speaker 2: larger ones cost twenty thousand dollars. So just let that
Speaker 2: sink in. Their most advanced attack drone, which has now
Speaker 2: disrupted tens of billions of dollars of cargo and added
Speaker 2: untold millions of dollars in gas for the amount of
Speaker 2: fuel that these companies have to pay to now go
Speaker 2: around the Horn of Africa. We now are seeing that
Speaker 2: it costs two million dollars for each one of these missiles.
Speaker 2: And it demonstrates why terrorism is very often a very
Speaker 2: good trade on behalf of people who just have the
Speaker 2: will to be able to subject yourself to a two
Speaker 2: million dollar missile or possibly get wiped out by a
Speaker 2: US carrier, because if you keep it going for long enough,
Speaker 2: you can couse some massive and serious damage to the
Speaker 2: overall global economy. Right now today, it is the most
Speaker 2: significant shipping crisis since Ukraine. And I know that's not
Speaker 2: a very long period, but I mean pre Ukraine that was,
Speaker 2: I mean probably the biggest disruptive to global shipping in
Speaker 2: modern American or modern global history. I think since the
Speaker 2: fall of the Soviet Union, we've never seen anything so
Speaker 2: crazy like that. We're having really a poly crisis in shipping.
Speaker 2: There is Ukraine, there is now the Red Sea, and
Speaker 2: actually there's a drought in Panama and the sea levels
Speaker 2: in Panama right now in terms of ability for the
Speaker 2: supertankers to go through is I think it's lower than normal,
Speaker 2: which is causing all kinds of chaos inside the Panama Canal.
Speaker 2: This is causing huge problems right now for Egypt in
Speaker 2: terms of their revenue. They could go broke if they
Speaker 2: don't get the fees that they normally do for the Suez.
Speaker 2: So there's all kinds of crazy fortieth order effects that
Speaker 2: are a result of this policy. And I do think
Speaker 2: this is the single most precarious choke point because one
Speaker 2: attack drone kills one wrong guy, one US sailor, that's right,
Speaker 2: one British sailor, that's it, game over, And the most situation.
Speaker 1: The more we involve ourselves here, the more targets there
Speaker 1: are there are, the more possibilities there are that one
Speaker 1: of our men and women gets killed in this operation.
Speaker 1: So this is tremendously increasing the risk. And I'll get
Speaker 1: to in a second the fact that now we've got
Speaker 1: a bunch of like hawkish national security like former CIA
Speaker 1: democrats who are like, this thing we're doing with Israel
Speaker 1: is not in our national security interest whatsoever. But the
Speaker 1: economic impact is already tremendous. It's tremendous globally, but for
Speaker 1: Israel in particular, is pretty devastating. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This is a report from how Retz on
Speaker 1: the economic war. Their headline here who Thi's open new
Speaker 1: and dangerous front in Israel's economic war. Attacks on Israel
Speaker 1: link ships threaten a key route for Israeli exports and imports.
Speaker 1: Fortunately for Israel, global trade is also at risk in
Speaker 1: the Red Sea. And the reason they say that's fortunately
Speaker 1: is because it's dragging us into it, so that's why
Speaker 1: it's a good thing for them. The Huthis have said
Speaker 1: the most their targeting is really linked ships or ships
Speaker 1: that are heading to Israel, but the linkage has.
Speaker 5: Been a little loose thus far.
Speaker 1: That's why the imperative to have this like global response
Speaker 1: to protect the shipping lanes. They write this piece that
Speaker 1: the Huthi attacks are pinching Israel's maritime trade. Cargo traffic
Speaker 1: at a loot port is down by eighty percent, eighty
Speaker 1: percent cost.
Speaker 5: Of marine insurance.
Speaker 1: This is also really important for Israeli owned and now
Speaker 1: presumably israel Israel bound vessels is soaring. Companies like Israel
Speaker 1: Zim are re routing their ships away from the Red Sea.
Speaker 1: Heave then go around Africa instead, a change that adds
Speaker 1: two weeks to the voyage. All of this will add
Speaker 1: to the cost of imports, which will be passed on
Speaker 1: to the Israeli consumer. And they also said it's reasonable
Speaker 1: to assume that many foreign shipping companies are going to
Speaker 1: opt to avoid stopping in Israeli ports altogether, to avoid
Speaker 1: the risk of their vessels being targeted. So Israel obviously
Speaker 1: the war has imposed a tremendous economic cost on them
Speaker 1: from the number of reservists that they've called up. It
Speaker 1: really has sort of stopped the regular economy. Any tourism
Speaker 1: obviously is basically stamped out. People are mostly not going
Speaker 1: about their normal lives, so spending is way down. I
Speaker 1: saw there expecting the Israeli economy to shrink by a
Speaker 1: fifteen percent annual rate in the fourth quarter.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean that is a huge number.
Speaker 2: They both face immen's short term costs. So I think
Speaker 2: we've talked about it before. The war costs something like
Speaker 2: one hundred to two hundred million dollars a day just
Speaker 2: in terms of paying all these reservists. Then they've got
Speaker 2: one of the largest internal displaces, how would you say it, displacements?
Speaker 2: There we go, all right, my language is back the
Speaker 2: largest internal displacement I believe in the history of the
Speaker 2: State of Israel, because you have all of the people
Speaker 2: near the Lebanese border and near Gaza who have been
Speaker 2: resettled and they're paying for all their hotel bills. So
Speaker 2: you've got huge portions of the country of where people
Speaker 2: have been uprooted from their homes inside of Israel and
Speaker 2: who are staying in Tel Aviv or any of the
Speaker 2: more metropolitan areas. So if that costs a ton of money,
Speaker 2: then all these prime aged working mails are in the military,
Speaker 2: they're in reserve, they're not working their jobs. Then you've
Speaker 2: got all these Palestinians who and Arabs who were working
Speaker 2: and coming across the border in Israel, who are now
Speaker 2: no longer coming across. So you have a major poly crisis.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, for the Israeli economy, that's not the
Speaker 2: short term. And then on the long term, look, they've
Speaker 2: already said we're not going to let any these Palestinians
Speaker 2: back in anymore. I mean, that was thousands of people
Speaker 2: who were working in day labors, any kind of lower
Speaker 2: end work. They're like, well, maybe we can bring people in,
Speaker 2: bring people in from where and it's Israel's a tiny
Speaker 2: little country, so then you'd have to worry about housing.
Speaker 3: I mean their.
Speaker 2: Structural problems I think right now economically and also in
Speaker 2: terms of their employment and workforce especially too. It looks
Speaker 2: more and more likely to me, and I've seen a
Speaker 2: lot of speculation around this that they are going to
Speaker 2: have to militarily occupy Gaza for at least some time.
Speaker 2: Right that's going to take a tremendous, tremendous amount of
Speaker 2: people in the Israeli army.
Speaker 3: Days.
Speaker 2: People can't return back to work, let alone continue to
Speaker 2: run their business, and that puts the country continued in
Speaker 2: a wartime footing for quite some time. So this could
Speaker 2: seriously cost them for a long time, and I would
Speaker 2: urge them to think about that too.
Speaker 1: The other thing that Adam Tooze was writing about, which
Speaker 1: is that you know, listen, capital has no loyalty of course,
Speaker 1: so they're looking at not only this war and you know,
Speaker 1: the massive shipping catastrophe and the fact that everyone in
Speaker 1: the world is like opposed to what's happening there except
Speaker 1: for us. Apparently they're thinking about also the you know,
Speaker 1: the tumult in the country with Netanyahu in charge before
Speaker 1: the war and his corruption and his attempts to overhaul
Speaker 1: the judiciary, and the fact that you had these mass
Speaker 1: disruptive protests for months and months on end. So there
Speaker 1: was already a pullback of capital and a foreign direct
Speaker 1: investment in particular. This is only going to accelerate that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, there's a grassroots boycott, divestment and
Speaker 1: sanctioned movement that seeks to sort of like take capital
Speaker 1: away from Israel. IM sure, it's had very minimal impact
Speaker 1: frankly on the Israeli economy. This is like a sort
Speaker 1: of a capital strike that they could be facing because
Speaker 1: they just want to make money and they're not going
Speaker 1: to want to put up with risks and chaos and
Speaker 1: you know, psycho like reactionary right wing governments and the
Speaker 1: tunnel that it's creating. So it really does create a
Speaker 1: long term problem for them. And you might say, well, okay,
Speaker 1: we threw the entire like actual economic sanction playbook at
Speaker 1: Russia and they've been more or less okay, you know,
Speaker 1: they've spun up a war economy and things haven't been amazing,
Speaker 1: but they've they've managed to hold on Dyance went years
Speaker 1: preparing for potential levying of sanctions, and their economy is
Speaker 1: structured very differently. The Netanyahu government had intentionally relied aggressively
Speaker 1: on foreign direct investment in order to spur and build
Speaker 1: their economy, so they have much greater exposure here.
Speaker 3: In terms of that act, they're not even remotely the same.
Speaker 2: Russia is a population of what like one hundred million
Speaker 2: maybe more people. They have a vast expanse, they have
Speaker 2: a huge amount of resources. Israel is like a tiny
Speaker 2: sliver of the Middle East. They don't have the same
Speaker 2: level of access to ports that they control. They don't
Speaker 2: have a real navy. I mean, I could go on
Speaker 2: forever in terms of they don't have an industrial base.
Speaker 2: Their population all right, they've mobilized the entire thing. They
Speaker 2: are relatively at the limits of that For the amount
Speaker 2: of more people that could they could bring in, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's totally, in completely It's much more like Japan or
Speaker 2: Taiwan or any of these other island nations which relied
Speaker 2: dramatically on foreign capital and on foreign resources to be
Speaker 2: able to keep their basic like Western way of life going.
Speaker 2: So it's not even remotely the same, and it does
Speaker 2: demonstrate a lot of the procarity that they're in yeah.
Speaker 1: Right now, because remember ultimately, you know, I mean economic
Speaker 1: pressure was part of what led to the South Africa
Speaker 1: apartheid regime. And so the fact that you have this
Speaker 1: amount of potential economic pressure being applied possibly in the
Speaker 1: long term, I mean, that could be a pressure point
Speaker 1: for the Israeli government in terms of the decisions that
Speaker 1: they make in the future. I tease this before put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, in terms of these I
Speaker 1: was shocked to see this letter based on who has
Speaker 1: signed off on it. So this is Chrissy Hoolihan tweeted,
Speaker 1: I'm calling in the Biden administration to use all of
Speaker 1: our nation's leverage to shift the Israeli military stride and
Speaker 1: defending itself against us. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is
Speaker 1: unacceptable and and this is the key part, not in
Speaker 1: line with American interest. The signatories here, Jason Crow, Christy
Speaker 1: hulihanho I just mentioned Abigail Spanberger, shocked at that one, Mikey,
Speaker 1: Cheryl Seth Moulton, and Alissa Slotkin. So these are like
Speaker 1: former members of the military, former agents in the CIA
Speaker 1: who are saying this, we had a something's got to change.
Speaker 5: This is a disaster.
Speaker 1: Now they claim they care about the humanitarian piece. I
Speaker 1: suspect much more that they are concerned about the devastating
Speaker 1: impact this is having on our national security and the
Speaker 1: fact that it is putting our people at greater risk,
Speaker 1: our unconditional support for Israel.
Speaker 5: Let me just read you a little bit of this letter.
Speaker 1: They say, Dear President Biden, We're deeply concerned by Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Netanya Who's current military strategy in Gaza, the mounting
Speaker 1: civilian death told humanitarian crisis are unacceptable, not in line
Speaker 1: with American interests, nor do they advance the cause of
Speaker 1: security for our ally Israel. We also believe it jeopardizes
Speaker 1: efforts to destroy the terrorist organization Hamas and secure the
Speaker 1: release of all hostages.
Speaker 5: So take that in.
Speaker 1: They're saying that the approach is actually hindering the ability
Speaker 1: to eradicate Hamas. This is something we've been saying from
Speaker 1: the beginning. This actually creates more radicalization. And you can
Speaker 1: look at our very recent track record, or you can
Speaker 1: go back a lot further and look at that track
Speaker 1: record as well, to see the way that these actions
Speaker 1: will almost inevitably create blowback and increase the radicalization that
Speaker 1: you are trying to root out.
Speaker 5: So the fact that these very like.
Speaker 1: I would describe them as not even normy like sort
Speaker 1: of more right leaning democrats, more hawkish Democrats, are now
Speaker 1: like whoa, whoa. Something's got to change here and change fast.
Speaker 2: That was very noteworthy to be the only thing I
Speaker 2: would speak up on their behalf is that all of
Speaker 2: them were at least involved in some way in Iraq
Speaker 2: and Afghanistan. And I don't think anyone who's served in
Speaker 2: that war can't help but look at some of the parallels.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and be like, some difference, this is idiotic. Let's
Speaker 1: go you know where it was a disaster.
Speaker 3: Urge people to do. People should go listen to Tim Dillon.
Speaker 2: He was recently on Joe Rogan, and Tim was apparent
Speaker 2: he was talking about in his hilarious way, he was
Speaker 2: a former Iraq war supporter actually in his old days,
Speaker 2: and he gave some of his.
Speaker 3: Perspective about Israel and Gaza and all that.
Speaker 2: And the reason I think so is that he'll both
Speaker 2: make you laugh and make very deeply profound points at
Speaker 2: the same time. And he made a lot of what
Speaker 2: we talk about here, but he did it a lot
Speaker 2: funnier than.
Speaker 5: Let's move on.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned before, there have been so many just
Speaker 1: utterly insane and gas lighting and wild comments coming out
Speaker 1: of Israel that we felt the need to devote an
Speaker 1: entire segment to them to go through some of the highlights.
Speaker 1: This will not be a comprehensive survey of the list
Speaker 1: of wild comments that have been made, but just to
Speaker 1: give you a sense of the discourse that is coming
Speaker 1: from not just like random Israelis, but from political leaders
Speaker 1: with power, from journalists and analysts who were on TV
Speaker 1: all the time. I want to start with this one
Speaker 1: because this one was in many ways like the wildest,
Speaker 1: although it's a pretty good competition here. So this is
Speaker 1: the Deputy mayor of Jerusalem. She's responding to the reports
Speaker 1: that we covered here that the idea had targeted and
Speaker 1: killed two Christian women at a Catholic church in Gaza,
Speaker 1: and so she's being asked about this. Just take a
Speaker 1: listen to what her response is.
Speaker 5: Take a listen.
Speaker 1: Why is it necessary it is reported to start shooting,
Speaker 1: having snipers outside a church.
Speaker 3: I don't I saw the reports this morning the church.
Speaker 3: There are no churches in gazas so I'm not quite
Speaker 3: sure where the report is there's a Catholic church in
Speaker 3: there isn't there that is Unfortunately there are no Christians
Speaker 3: because they were dry driven driven out.
Speaker 1: By There are, respectfully, there are Christians because I spoke
Speaker 1: to an MP yesterday who has family members in the
Speaker 1: church who are Christians.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know what happen. I don't know who
Speaker 3: was attacked. I didn't see the report.
Speaker 5: I mean there are no churches in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Yes, there Actually, just di is denying reality to try
Speaker 1: to avoid the implications of what the IDF did here,
Speaker 1: which is what the Pope described as terrorism. There are
Speaker 1: no churches in Gaza. Uh, yeah, actually there are. Well,
Speaker 1: there are no Christians at Gaza. Well, actually there are.
Speaker 1: Oh well, the report that I previously claimed that I
Speaker 1: had seen, I actually didn't see that report.
Speaker 5: So I have no idea.
Speaker 3: Yeah, amazing, this is look. I mean.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons I think I also want to
Speaker 2: highlight this too is because I am so deeply annoyed
Speaker 2: by this idea that you know, Israel and Netanyahu, or
Speaker 2: even Israel and the far right are one and the same,
Speaker 2: and that we are not allowed to criticize or to
Speaker 2: look at this country which has much more robust debate
Speaker 2: about itself than we are allowed to have over here,
Speaker 2: and people rightfully, I think, can demonstrate and understand that,
Speaker 2: you know, criticizing a political party or a particular strategy
Speaker 2: does not mean that you are against the entire country's
Speaker 2: right to exist or any of that. And I think
Speaker 2: a lot of people also wanted to nine about a
Speaker 2: pretty decent segment of Israeli politics, which agrees with some
Speaker 2: of these statements, which are I think antithetical to our
Speaker 2: ends and their ends. But their ends are their business.
Speaker 2: They can decide. At the very least, though, we need
Speaker 2: to have a full visibility into what they want and
Speaker 2: what they are saying. And I think it's pretty unfortunate
Speaker 2: because if we paid better attention, especially to in the
Speaker 2: age of translation of Google translating all that, it's not
Speaker 2: difficult to suss out this is a Western country. They
Speaker 2: have sets just like this in Tel Aviv. They're sitting
Speaker 2: on them and talking about it in Hebrew. You can
Speaker 2: go and look if you want, and if that's too
Speaker 2: hard for you, you can read the English Israeli pressed, which
Speaker 2: often translates that all for you. And yet we try
Speaker 2: to get all of our A lot of people, especially
Speaker 2: you watch cable so much of us filtered down through
Speaker 2: so many levels, you just have a totally hijacked and
Speaker 2: different view of what it all looks like. You think everyone,
Speaker 2: I honestly think you would think that everybody is eminently
Speaker 2: reasonable in Israel, and then everyone in Palestine is like
Speaker 2: some how or everyone in Hamas in Gaza is like
Speaker 2: some sort of hummas flag waving terrorists. It just like
Speaker 2: couldn't be more further from it. There's all the nuance
Speaker 2: and it is completely lost.
Speaker 1: The other thing is, I want to play the next one,
Speaker 1: but if you heard any Palestinian or Palestinian supporter saying
Speaker 1: some of these things, like everyone in this country would
Speaker 1: know about it, every politician would be getting asked about it,
Speaker 1: it would be played on a loop. And yet these
Speaker 1: things are like said in the open commonly in Israel,
Speaker 1: and our politicians just pretend like they don't hear it,
Speaker 1: they don't see it, and that it's some just like
Speaker 1: purely targeted ethical mission and war that's being engaged in
Speaker 1: in the Gaza strip. It's just if you listen to
Speaker 1: their own comments and then look at what they're doing
Speaker 1: on the ground, it becomes undeniable, what is happening in
Speaker 1: front of your eyes. So here's our next example. This
Speaker 1: is an Israeli journalist, Shimone Ricklin. He says, I am
Speaker 1: for the war crimes. I don't care if I am criticized,
Speaker 1: and I honestly don't care. He goes on, I am
Speaker 1: unable to sleep if I don't see houses being destroyed
Speaker 1: in Gaza. What can I say? More and more and more,
Speaker 1: more houses, more buildings. I want to see more of
Speaker 1: them destroyed. I want there to be nothing for them
Speaker 1: to return to. In the Torah, it says they must
Speaker 1: return to the salt of the earth, and they must complain.
Speaker 1: This is why we cannot reach a solution. And that
Speaker 1: is what war crimes mean to me. So I'm for
Speaker 1: the war crimes.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the honesty, actually, and this is something we've
Speaker 1: talked about, something Daryl Cooper talks about. The far right
Speaker 1: in Israel has always been much more upfront about the
Speaker 1: project they're engaged in, about what their goals are, about
Speaker 1: what they actually want, and I think this man is
Speaker 1: being very honest about his perspective.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 1: By the way, someone pointed out and I confirmed he's
Speaker 1: wearing a pin there in that segment, it's a stern
Speaker 1: Gang pin. So to give people a little bit of
Speaker 1: the sense of the history here. In the early days
Speaker 1: of the sort of like colonial period of the founding
Speaker 1: of the state of Israel, there were a number of militias.
Speaker 1: The large ones were Haganah, which was the more like
Speaker 1: labor affiliated one. There, Goon which then becomes Lacud, and
Speaker 1: our Gun was already, like you know, they committed all
Speaker 1: kinds of terrorist decks. They were already very far right.
Speaker 1: The stern Gang was the ones that were to the
Speaker 1: right of them. They called themselves terrorists. They referred to
Speaker 1: themselves as terrorists. They actually sought to come to some
Speaker 1: sort of an ally ship with Nazi Germany because they
Speaker 1: thought the Nazis were less of a threat to Jews
Speaker 1: than Britain. So they sought multiple times to come to
Speaker 1: some sort of a deal and accommodation with Hitler and
Speaker 1: the Nazis. They advocated for mass expulsion of all Arabs
Speaker 1: from Palestine and from Jordan. Their publications openly talked about
Speaker 1: a Jewish master race, contrasting the Jews with Arabs, who
Speaker 1: were seen as a.
Speaker 5: Nation of slaves.
Speaker 1: So that's the pin that he's wearing as he says
Speaker 1: that he's for the war crimes.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, it's kind of like Ukraine where they
Speaker 2: ought honesty around these countries and there, what is it
Speaker 2: the honesty around their countries and their political constituencies and
Speaker 2: who matters and who has power with the neo Nazis.
Speaker 2: I mean, a lot of people here just simply don't
Speaker 2: want to acknowledge it. And that's the issue, is that
Speaker 2: you can separate this easily from the state, from its
Speaker 2: people and from what is actually has support. But you're
Speaker 2: right in this that if Palestinians or Arabs and all
Speaker 2: those words, well, i mean look, also you can go
Speaker 2: find those videos too if you want, about Arabs and
Speaker 2: Ammas leaders and all those saying that about Jews. But
Speaker 2: you're right in that there is a lot of disparate
Speaker 2: coverage in the way that it ends up showing up
Speaker 2: in our discourse, especially amongst our elected officials.
Speaker 3: Oh for sure.
Speaker 8: True.
Speaker 1: So let's go next to we met this woman before.
Speaker 1: Her name is Daniell o Weiss. She is the head
Speaker 1: of a Zionist settler movement, and she was interviewed by
Speaker 1: Isaac Chatner previously, she's the one that said effectively like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're building the settlements because the US and others want
Speaker 1: there to be a Palestine state. We don't want there
Speaker 1: to be a Palestinian state. And then she said, it
Speaker 1: is a very very simple thing to understand. Again, honest
Speaker 1: appreciate that. Let's go and put her up on the
Speaker 1: screen about what she wants to happen in Gaza. So
Speaker 1: she says, Gaza must be a rased so that the settlers.
Speaker 5: Can see the sea.
Speaker 1: She goes on, the situation needs to end what we
Speaker 1: did in northern Gaza. We must do it south of Gaza,
Speaker 1: evacuating Gaza of Arabs and building Jewish settlements in all
Speaker 1: of Gaza.
Speaker 5: So making it pretty.
Speaker 1: Pretty clear here, she says the settlers they want to
Speaker 1: see the sea, and in order to see the sea,
Speaker 1: all homes in Gaza must be destroyed.
Speaker 5: There are no homes or Arabs left in Gaza.
Speaker 1: This, she says, is a logical and romantic demand. That
Speaker 1: is her perspective is that Gaza should be you know,
Speaker 1: the parking lot image of Gaza. And again just laying
Speaker 1: it out here, what she has an idea of what
Speaker 1: she wants the day after conversation to be like, and
Speaker 1: you wonder why NATANYAHUO is so like reluctant to come
Speaker 1: forward with what his plan is. It's because people like
Speaker 1: her are a important part of his electoral coalition, of
Speaker 1: his governing.
Speaker 3: Cold incredibly important.
Speaker 2: As Glenn points out, Israelis, when speaking in Hebrew, are
Speaker 2: often more candid and truthful about the real goals in
Speaker 2: Gaza than their American supporters, and both parties are. And
Speaker 2: this is the settler issue is one that has been
Speaker 2: long condemned by bipartisan administrations here in Washington. It's against
Speaker 2: our official posture from the State Department. It's so much
Speaker 2: so that President Biden even proposed sanctions or entry delay
Speaker 2: on people who espouse this or have been involved in
Speaker 2: violence from entering the United States. But you know, the
Speaker 2: political circumstances right now the time are basically like are
Speaker 2: you with them or are you not with them? And
Speaker 2: I just don't know why it's so difficult to even
Speaker 2: parse through this and just be like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: definitely you think it's horrible what happened on October seventh.
Speaker 2: I definitely think Hamos needs to go. I think your
Speaker 2: military strategy is bad. I think some elements of your
Speaker 2: society are totally out of control, and you should probably
Speaker 2: you know, do something about that at the very least
Speaker 2: just for international cooperation perspective. I also think this is
Speaker 2: why Netanyahu's position is just so terrible, both for Israel
Speaker 2: and really for the long term prospects of the nation,
Speaker 2: is because by fusing himself with the state, he has
Speaker 2: made it here in this country too, such that criticism
Speaker 2: of him is being called anti Semitic. Well, a lot
Speaker 2: of people are just gonna be like, Okay, I'll take
Speaker 2: that trade because I disagree entirely that erodes long term support.
Speaker 2: And then saying here where if he's so politically held
Speaker 2: by these people in his political constituency, then how exactly
Speaker 2: are we supposed to ever see this come to an end?
Speaker 3: That's my problem.
Speaker 5: And Danielle is not alone.
Speaker 1: Put the last the tear sheet that we have at
Speaker 1: the end. Put this up in the screen. She's not
Speaker 1: alone in wanting to destroy all of Gaza and destroy
Speaker 1: all of the homes. This was an Israeli politician on
Speaker 1: the radio is David Azuli, the head of the town
Speaker 1: of Matula in northern Israel. He called on Israel to
Speaker 1: forcibly eject Palestinians in Gaza to Lebanon, flatten the besieged
Speaker 1: enclave and turn into a museum, just like in Auschwitz,
Speaker 1: the of course concentration camp in Poland. Quote after October seventh,
Speaker 1: instead of urging people to go south, we should direct
Speaker 1: them to the beaches. The Navy can transport them to
Speaker 1: the shores of Lebanon, where there are already sufficient refugee camps.
Speaker 1: Then a security strip should be established from the seat
Speaker 1: of the Gaza border fence, completely empty, as a reminder
Speaker 1: of what was once there. It should resemble the Auschwitz
Speaker 1: concentration camp. Of course, one point one million people, one
Speaker 1: million of which were Jews, were killed by Nazi Germany
Speaker 1: in that concentration camp, and that's what he is saying
Speaker 1: he wants to see.
Speaker 2: It was interesting, actually, as Auschwitz came out with a
Speaker 2: statement they say memory of victims of Auschwitz has at
Speaker 2: times violated and instrumentalized. In various statements, David appears to
Speaker 2: wish to use a symbol of the largest cemetery in
Speaker 2: the world to some sort of sick, hateful, pseudo artistic
Speaker 2: symbolic expression calling for acts that seemed to transgress any civil, wartime,
Speaker 2: moral or human laws that may sound as a call
Speaker 2: from murder of the scale at kind Auschwitz puts the
Speaker 2: whole honest world face to face with a madness that
Speaker 2: must be confronted and firmly rejected. We do hope is
Speaker 2: really a thority will react to such a shameful abuse,
Speaker 2: as terrorism can never be a response to terrorism. I
Speaker 2: thought that was pretty significant to come from the Auschwitz
Speaker 2: memorial itself. Who they do not. I also want to
Speaker 2: make it clear they basically just protect the legacy of Alshroth.
Speaker 2: They are not political in any way. They only come
Speaker 2: out when people either mistakenly refer to Auschwitz or use
Speaker 2: it in this context.
Speaker 5: I want something else to be turned in protect.
Speaker 2: The memory of the people who all died there. And
Speaker 2: if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend that
Speaker 2: people go and visit or any of the concentration campsites
Speaker 2: in Poland in order to get a view, to see
Speaker 2: it for yourself, and also to understand where they are
Speaker 2: coming from too. And I really do respect them for
Speaker 2: coming out and seeing.
Speaker 3: Something like that.
Speaker 1: The last one saga I thought you would enjoy, in
Speaker 1: particular because this is the girl Boss Israeli minister. This
Speaker 1: is the woman who is the Israeli Minister for the
Speaker 1: advancement of the status of women. So a little bit
Speaker 1: of identity politics being played here by the net Yahoo government.
Speaker 1: Let's see what this enlightened liberal feminist has to say
Speaker 1: about what she wants to see.
Speaker 5: And God, I don't care about Gaza.
Speaker 3: I literally don't care. For all I care.
Speaker 5: They can go out and swim in the sea. I
Speaker 5: want to see dead bodies of terrorists. Who oh, there
Speaker 5: you go, there you go.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll say on this saga of why
Speaker 1: I think these things are important too is because there
Speaker 1: is a long, multi decade attempt to paint Palestinians as
Speaker 1: the soul obstacle to peace. There is no doubt that
Speaker 1: extremists on the Palestinian side have blocked, for example, the
Speaker 1: Oslo Accords, have been opposed to it, have sought to
Speaker 1: undermine it. But when you hear these comments, and when
Speaker 1: you read the Likud party charter, which talks about from
Speaker 1: the river to the seat, when you see Natan Yahoo
Speaker 1: bragging about thwarting a Palestinian state and saying, hey, you
Speaker 1: got to stick with me if you want to block
Speaker 1: a Palestinian state forever. This provides some context of the
Speaker 1: type of viewpoints and analysis that are not just present,
Speaker 1: but quite dominant in his political coalition, which is governing
Speaker 1: the state of is right now. And if you're not
Speaker 1: dealing with that, if you're not reckoning with that, then
Speaker 1: you're just living in a complete fantasy land and the
Speaker 1: results you're going to get are going to match the like,
Speaker 1: you know, total disconnect from reality that you're working with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is another issue I have too with a
Speaker 2: lot of older politicians and even people who don't understand
Speaker 2: the country is they use Biden in particularly lives in
Speaker 2: like a gold in my are Israel.
Speaker 3: It's like bro, that's been less fifty years away.
Speaker 2: And look, America's changed a lot in fifty years, but
Speaker 2: not even close to as much. Is the amount of
Speaker 2: demographic change that they have had versus what we've had
Speaker 2: actually makes our immigration problems look very different, just in
Speaker 2: terms of their make up, their politics where things have gone.
Speaker 2: And I think that's actually one of the bigger problems
Speaker 2: that we face in this is that people may have
Speaker 2: gone in the nineties or in the eighties.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what I see this a lot with India.
Speaker 2: For example, a lot of people who immigrated to the
Speaker 2: United States from India in the eighties have this idea
Speaker 2: of India as like this led by the Nehrus and
Speaker 2: the Congress Party, and then they go back and they're like,
Speaker 2: what the hell is going on here? I'm like, Yeah,
Speaker 2: the country changed all lot and ever since you left.
Speaker 2: It turns out that when there's a new party in town,
Speaker 2: the entire civic understanding of the country change in a
Speaker 2: single generation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that doesn't really happen here, but it.
Speaker 2: Does happen in the rest of the world all the time,
Speaker 2: and so you have to update your understanding of that.
Speaker 2: And that's something that a lot of politicians refuse to do,
Speaker 2: even though we're living in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: And you can go watch it all for yourself if.
Speaker 5: You care too.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And that's the other thing, is this whole freak own
Speaker 1: about like oh my god, the kids on TikTok, like
Speaker 1: their views are so different, Like yeah, because these videos
Speaker 1: are getting views on TikTok.
Speaker 3: And they have no.
Speaker 2: Individual understanding of the time period I'm talking about. Because
Speaker 2: I'm even just on the cusp of like I remember
Speaker 2: the aud barocks and all those other people who were
Speaker 2: in charge. But the vast majority of my life has
Speaker 2: been spent under this type, and I can vaguely remember
Speaker 2: some of it.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're ten years younger than me, you
Speaker 3: can't remember forget any of that. Yeah, it doesn't even exist.
Speaker 1: That's very true. That's a very good point. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, let's move on to other threats to democracy.
Speaker 1: We discussed the concern about Trump's name being taken off
Speaker 1: the ballot in Colorado.
Speaker 5: Well, the DNC many they're just the same thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, they're just not even hiding that they
Speaker 1: want to cancel democracy. In terms of the Democratic primary,
Speaker 1: we've got more states that have just decided. Even though
Speaker 1: we've got Dean Phellows, we've got Mary and Williams, and
Speaker 1: we also have Jank hugre Eve. Though there's you know,
Speaker 1: constitutional questions around his bid, he does have opponents, and
Speaker 1: they're just canceling primaries in states with no real reason.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. This is from Mary Anne.
Speaker 1: She says the DNC is at it again. We discovered
Speaker 1: the Massachusetts Democratic Party intends to include only Joe Biden
Speaker 1: as their primary candidate on the Massachusetts ballot. She goes
Speaker 1: on to say that the dumb chair there is misplaced
Speaker 1: attempt at protecting Joe Biden rob's Massachusetts Democrats of their
Speaker 1: voice and choice in the upcoming election. This action is
Speaker 1: a flagrant violation of DANC rules and process.
Speaker 5: She goes on to.
Speaker 1: Explain, I want to read this because this is specific
Speaker 1: to the Massachusetts process. She says, I've actively campaigned in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of State has a discretion to include FEC
Speaker 1: filed candidates who have received national media coverage, which I have,
Speaker 1: she definitely has. We hope Secretary of the Commonwealth will
Speaker 1: protect Massachusetts voters from that state's attempt at circumventing democracy.
Speaker 1: Massachusetts not alone. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: These are the states now that have just said we're
Speaker 1: just going to anoint Joe Biden, don't want to hear
Speaker 1: from the voters, don't want to even get them to
Speaker 1: give them a chance, or you know, cast about, don't
Speaker 1: even want to pretend like we're doing anything other than
Speaker 1: just giving Joe Biden our full support. Tennessee, North Carolina, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: and as we had.
Speaker 5: Covered before, Florida.
Speaker 1: So this is pretty wild, Like Democrats claim to be
Speaker 1: wanting to protect democracy, and they're running to protect democracy,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I mean, this is without any sort of recourse,
Speaker 1: no court process whatsoever. Just we're not going to have
Speaker 1: a contest, So we're.
Speaker 2: Not going to happen because Biden is winning by seventy
Speaker 2: percent in the primary.
Speaker 3: So why don't you just let that go? Why don't
Speaker 3: you just let the vote happen.
Speaker 2: He can get seventy five percent, he can get be
Speaker 2: coordinated out after he won the election. There's no reason
Speaker 2: to even do it. It's just to set the precedent
Speaker 2: of like nobody is allowed to dismis at all. The
Speaker 2: last national poll I saw only add Marianne at thirteen
Speaker 2: percent and Dean Phillips five So it's.
Speaker 3: Like, why do you even care? Yeah, why do you care?
Speaker 3: I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it seems preposterous that they would be worried.
Speaker 1: But I do think that they feel more fragility than
Speaker 1: they probably should, just because you know, they see the
Speaker 1: polls of people overwhelmingly like we want another choice?
Speaker 5: Is there another choice?
Speaker 1: And so I think they're fearful that if there's a
Speaker 1: recognition that, oh, you actually do have other options and
Speaker 1: there is an actual way of like, all right, well
Speaker 1: who are the candidates and what do I think? And
Speaker 1: do I want to go in another direction? I think
Speaker 1: they're very fearful of that dynamic playing out, and so
Speaker 1: that's where these incredibly heavy handed tactics come in. And
Speaker 1: let's not forget also, I mean there have been heavy
Speaker 1: handed tactics from the beginning, just in terms of rearranging
Speaker 1: the primary states to front load the ones that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden feels most secure in South Carolina first and foremost.
Speaker 1: Now that's created some problems for him. Actually a New
Speaker 1: Hampshire which has in there. I think I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's a law or constitution that they have to
Speaker 1: be the first in the nation primer. They're going forward
Speaker 1: with it. Joe Biden is not going to be on
Speaker 1: the ballot. There's like a writing campaign for him, but
Speaker 1: that actually created more of a risk for him than
Speaker 1: there would have been. So in a certain way, their
Speaker 1: heavy handed tactics have kind of like backfired. It's manifesting
Speaker 1: the thing that they're terrified of. Dean Phillips weighed in
Speaker 1: on this as well. Man, there have been some hatchet
Speaker 1: jobs on Dean Phillips lately too. We're going to get
Speaker 1: into that in a minute. His caucus, his fellow caucus
Speaker 1: members are furious with him.
Speaker 5: It's stepping out on of line.
Speaker 1: He says, Democrats cannot be the party of democracy while
Speaker 1: shamelessly suppressing it.
Speaker 5: President Biden.
Speaker 1: Party leaders must be on the record about whether they
Speaker 1: support the suppression of Democrats. No wonder Americans under thirty
Speaker 1: plan to vote for Trump over Biden by six points.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look good for him, and he is
Speaker 2: kind of laying it all out on the line we
Speaker 2: should highlight. I think this probably gets to what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, is that they don't want any outlet, especially now,
Speaker 2: for some of the anger over Biden.
Speaker 3: You found this particular clip.
Speaker 2: NBC News interviewed some young voters who said that they
Speaker 2: won't vote for Biden.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen. Do you plan on voting for
Speaker 3: him this time? Laura, No, No, not anymore.
Speaker 9: The twenty three year old was part of the surgeon
Speaker 9: young voters in the liberal Dane County that helped Biden
Speaker 9: flip the battleground state three years ago. He's now angry
Speaker 9: at the President over his support for Israel's invasion of Gaza.
Speaker 5: He is allowing this war to happen and is funding
Speaker 5: this war.
Speaker 3: I don't know what will happen if I don't vote
Speaker 3: for him, but I know it won't be me supporting that.
Speaker 10: On climate, on COVID responses, tell his and his administration,
Speaker 10: we're doing really great work. But I think after October seventh,
Speaker 10: the question became a matter of human rights.
Speaker 2: Interesting, yeah, so on Israel, But you know, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of other reasons. You're already seeing some discontent I
Speaker 2: think on student loans or for example, that was just
Speaker 2: on the left. So these people who think, I think
Speaker 2: theyll probably vote for Cornell West or something, or maybe
Speaker 2: it's not vote period, which is a totally fine choice,
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: I think voting is probably the most likely scenario. But
Speaker 1: I mean that is the reality is outside of the
Speaker 1: Democratic primary, they are likely to have other.
Speaker 5: Choices on the ballad.
Speaker 1: I just saw Quinnipiac pole come out, and the numbers
Speaker 1: with eighteen to thirty four year olds are pretty stunning.
Speaker 1: So Biden is at thirty three percent with eighteen to
Speaker 1: thirty four year olds in this Quinnipiac poll. Trump is
Speaker 1: at twenty rfk Junior is at twenty four but Cornell
Speaker 1: West is at six, Jill Stein's at ten.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and you know it was also interesting to
Speaker 1: me Black voters in this poll. So you have sixty
Speaker 1: one percent, think about that, with this supposedly rock solid
Speaker 1: constituency only quote unquote sixty one percent back in Biden,
Speaker 1: four percent backing Trump, fifteen percent with RFK Junior, ten
Speaker 1: percent with Cornell West, nine percent with Jill Stein. So
Speaker 1: people do have other outlets if they just cannot stomach
Speaker 1: what they are watching unfold before their eyes in Gaza,
Speaker 1: with our full support and backing our bombs stamp made
Speaker 1: in America being dropped on these babies and these children.
Speaker 1: They have other options. And so you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: you have people in the Biden campaign who pre presumably
Speaker 1: know how to read a poll and see the way
Speaker 1: that I'm sure it's not one hundred percent because of Israel,
Speaker 1: but the time period in which support among young people
Speaker 1: has fallen off a cliff corresponds very closely with October
Speaker 1: seventh and what has unfolded since then. You know, they
Speaker 1: have to realize this is a gigantic issue with them
Speaker 1: for them, and you know what they're hoping is I
Speaker 1: was thinking about this after we had our conversation about
Speaker 1: Trump's like poisoning the blood comments or whatever.
Speaker 5: What they're hoping is that he says more stuff.
Speaker 1: Like that and people go, you know what, I got it, Like,
Speaker 1: this guy is just too terrible that I got to
Speaker 1: vote for. I gotta stuck it up and vote for Joe.
Speaker 1: That's what they're hoping for. But remember they have to
Speaker 1: basically like run the table on that. They have to
Speaker 1: get everybody to make that calculation and not bail out
Speaker 1: and vote for you know, Coronel West or Jill Stein
Speaker 1: or someone else that's on the ballot. And I just
Speaker 1: don't know if that works this time around now. To
Speaker 1: make the countercase, In that New York Times Siena poll
Speaker 1: that we covered, it was interesting because among registered voters,
Speaker 1: Trump had a lead. Among likely voters, so they apply
Speaker 1: their like likely voter screen, they actually had Biden with
Speaker 1: an edge of two and among people who voted in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, who like actually voted in twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: especially among people who voted in twenty twenty two, Biden
Speaker 1: had a huge lead. So among people who are the
Speaker 1: more reliable voters, his calculation is basically working out. So
Speaker 1: in any case, we'll see, But you know, I think
Speaker 1: it does expose part of why they're engaging these very
Speaker 1: heavy handed tactics, even though you would think that he
Speaker 1: would look at these poles where he's up tremendously and
Speaker 1: be like, Oh, I've got this, it's nothing to worry.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think it more is about denying an escape valve
Speaker 2: of some kind for any of the discontent that's been brewing.
Speaker 2: Now that's right for some time, and that's fundamentally that's
Speaker 2: very undemocratic.
Speaker 1: The last thing I wanted to show you I mentioned
Speaker 1: this like absolute hatchet job on Dean Phillips, who you know,
Speaker 1: I think for people in DC, Democrats in DC, like,
Speaker 1: it's one thing for a Marian Williamson, it's one thing
Speaker 1: for a Jank Huger.
Speaker 5: They're outside the system.
Speaker 1: They already see them as basically like traitors to the cause, right,
Speaker 1: so when they jump in the race, that's one thing.
Speaker 1: But for Dean Phillips, this like centristy, normy Democrat who
Speaker 1: is an elected member of Congress to come out and
Speaker 1: run against Joe Biden. Apparently people have a lot of
Speaker 1: feelings about that. Put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: is from Axios Here are some of the on the
Speaker 1: record quotes that they got from his fellow party members
Speaker 1: in Congress. Representative Robert Garcia called phillips campaign a total joke,
Speaker 1: very disrespectful of the president and the party, saying he's
Speaker 1: torched his reputation. Steny Hoyer, Dean Phillips is not going
Speaker 1: to win any primary. I think he's not helpful to
Speaker 1: the country. Sidney Camlon, jay Do Dove.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I brutalized that. Sorry, Sidney.
Speaker 1: He seems to be taking a page out of the
Speaker 1: Trump playbook. It makes me wonder if he's a real Democrat.
Speaker 1: One senior House Democrat describe the feeling toward Phillips within
Speaker 1: the Democratic Caucus as pure hatred, saying many members are
Speaker 1: pissed about his attacks on Biden, and you know where
Speaker 1: this energy comes from, Sager. It's embarrassing to them.
Speaker 3: Yes, it is, because he's right.
Speaker 1: He's right that Joe Biden is a terrible candidate, that
Speaker 1: they are risking the party in the country's future by
Speaker 1: staying lockstep behind him. His criticisms of Joe Biden are
Speaker 1: by and large accurate, and they feel humiliated that he
Speaker 1: actually has the guts to say it and to actually
Speaker 1: do something about it, while they just sit there, you know,
Speaker 1: snibbling and privately like being worried about how the election
Speaker 1: is going to go, but totally unwilling to step on
Speaker 1: the line.
Speaker 2: I think it will be. I think it's yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean that bad. It also shows you how much of
Speaker 2: a risk it was for him. I still don't quite
Speaker 2: understand it, given the fact that he also he's not
Speaker 2: even going to run for Congress anymore. Maybe he was
Speaker 2: just done and he wants to plant a flag and
Speaker 2: he genuinely who believes it. So more power to him.
Speaker 2: But it shows you too, like when you're in the
Speaker 2: system and you violate the tenets of it by speaking
Speaker 2: out the basic truth even though it knows everybody's true,
Speaker 2: they will come out and they will absolutly destroy your life.
Speaker 2: You won't even be able to get a lobbyist job
Speaker 2: after this. I hope he's rich. I don't know what
Speaker 2: his personal network is.
Speaker 1: Rich Okay, good, he was rich, so he does have
Speaker 1: a safety net there. But listen, I want to give
Speaker 1: him credit, and I don't even really care.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't know him, you know, I thought.
Speaker 1: It was we had a feisty exchange, but I thought
Speaker 1: he was like perfectly, you know, nice and seems like
Speaker 1: a genuine human being when I met, But I don't
Speaker 1: even really care about his intentions.
Speaker 5: Good for him.
Speaker 1: It takes courage to do this, and we've seen how
Speaker 1: hard it is to go against the people that you're
Speaker 1: working with day in and day out, and.
Speaker 5: He actually did it, So kudos to him.
Speaker 1: We can have a disagreement about policies and back and forth,
Speaker 1: although I will say, you just signed on to Medicare
Speaker 1: for all, which I was happy.
Speaker 5: That was interesting, interesting and happy to know.
Speaker 1: But you know, we need to see more of that
Speaker 1: willingness to step out of line from these just like archaic, sclerotic,
Speaker 1: broken party systems that have completely done a disservice to
Speaker 1: American public.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree, all right, soryery looking at well.
Speaker 2: There's been a massive debate in this country in the
Speaker 2: last few weeks over the Ivy League, especially after the
Speaker 2: university presidents refused to say calling for the genocide against
Speaker 2: Jews did not per se violate student code of conduct.
Speaker 2: The debate has a couple of elements. First is the
Speaker 2: free speech implication as to whether such a statement should
Speaker 2: constitute harassment. The second is about hypocrisy of these institutions,
Speaker 2: unquestionably if they would have course answered in the affirmative
Speaker 2: if the group was, say, black people or trans people. Now,
Speaker 2: those who have watched this show already know what I think.
Speaker 2: I think their answers were actually correct. I think I
Speaker 2: don't think any statement should be barred within a First
Speaker 2: Amendment framework unless it does go in the direction of
Speaker 2: actually targeting an individual student. That point should be that
Speaker 2: the entire diversity, equity and inclusion regime, though, is illegitimate
Speaker 2: and dumb, that no group of people period should be
Speaker 2: quote unquote protected. A new front has now emerged in
Speaker 2: this war to get these presidents fired, and that is
Speaker 2: going after the academic credentials themselves of Harvard President Claudine Gay.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Almost immediately after the hearing controversy, the Washington Freebeacon's Aaron
Speaker 2: Siberian reported that significant portions of Claudiine Gay's entire thesis
Speaker 2: appeared to have been copied and entire paragraphs from other
Speaker 2: academic work claimed as her own. Now, despite the frankly
Speaker 2: pretty good evidence that she did in fact commit plagiarism
Speaker 2: in her thesis, the exact act which many Harvard students
Speaker 2: have now been expelled for Over the years, Harvard has
Speaker 2: stood by her. They don't want to bow to the
Speaker 2: cancellation mob. This has only since heightened the effort to
Speaker 2: review her academic record. More recent examples actually show further
Speaker 2: the extent of the alleged plagiarism within her thesis. The
Speaker 2: Free Beacon again reports an official academic report has now
Speaker 2: been filed against Claudine Gay with the Harvard Research Integrity Office,
Speaker 2: detailing over forty cases of alleged plagiarism. The funniest case
Speaker 2: actually is that Gay appears to have lifted entirely a
Speaker 2: section of acknowledgments in her thesis from someone else's dedication.
Speaker 2: But this is where I actually want to stop for
Speaker 2: a moment and make a point to try and connect
Speaker 2: it back to the free speech and debate.
Speaker 3: The entire so.
Speaker 2: Called plagiarism scandal is itself a smokescreen. The problem with
Speaker 2: her is not that she is an imperfect academic. It's
Speaker 2: that her entire brand of academia is a farce and
Speaker 2: a fiction. As I jokingly remarked on Twitter or x
Speaker 2: as the latest have called it. When this scandal hit
Speaker 2: it's impossible to plagiarize when your entire discipline is fake.
Speaker 2: Gay herself is an original of the anti racist school
Speaker 2: of thought. Her entire thesis is racial Gobbledegook that I
Speaker 2: had to go through talking about taking charge black electoral
Speaker 2: successes in the Redefinition of American politics. It's written in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety seven, and the entire document is basically dedicated
Speaker 2: to making the case of quotas and legislators and judges
Speaker 2: who are black in some sort of older school justification
Speaker 2: for DEI and affirmative action decisions made in the post
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five era. Really, the point I want to
Speaker 2: make is this, The problem isn't the integrity of the
Speaker 2: academic work, just the work itself is bad. Gay herself
Speaker 2: is the poster child of everything that's actually gone wrong
Speaker 2: with Harvard. She is not a real academic. Instead, she
Speaker 2: previously was the dean of harvard Faculty of Arts and
Speaker 2: Sciences program, where they promoted her to president. This is
Speaker 2: how they bragged about her accomplishments.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: She created an expansive initiative on inequality in America. Oversaw
Speaker 2: hires intended to bolster Harvard's offering in the areas of
Speaker 2: climate change and ethnic studies, and sanctioned several well known
Speaker 2: professors accused of sexual harassment without due process by the way.
Speaker 2: In other words, she was a BLM Hall monitor, as
Speaker 2: proven by her statements August of twenty twenty, when she
Speaker 2: was the DEI Dean at Harvard, she said, our engagement
Speaker 2: and anti racist action and the infusion of inclusive practices
Speaker 2: into all aspects of our teaching and research mission reflect
Speaker 2: a new sense of institutional responsibility and requires sustained effort
Speaker 2: over time. So again I have a message to those
Speaker 2: who are involved in this fight. The problem is not
Speaker 2: Claudine Gay. The problem is the whole system. If you
Speaker 2: want further proof of destructive ideology and how it goes
Speaker 2: through these institutions, consider, as my friend has pointed out,
Speaker 2: all seven of the Colorado justices who ruled on the
Speaker 2: Trump ballot were appointed by Democrats. The only thing that
Speaker 2: distinguishes the four who ruled to remove Trump is that
Speaker 2: they all attended the Ivy League for law school. The
Speaker 2: three who descended are Denver law graduates. We have two
Speaker 2: ways that we can go in this moment. You understand
Speaker 2: the destructive effect of elite systems themselves that produces and
Speaker 2: promotes Claudine Gay's or you try to get a scalp
Speaker 2: in the name of guarding against fake accusations of anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: Bill Ackman and as people want the latter, and I
Speaker 2: want the former, and I think it's time to very
Speaker 2: much reframe the entire message around this. I'm curious what
Speaker 2: you make of this, Crystal. I've been very annoyed because
Speaker 2: I feel like people are becoming fake hall monitors and
Speaker 2: they're like, well, she didn't improperly, and like, I don't
Speaker 2: care about that, that's not the problem. It's like with
Speaker 2: the genocide comment, it's like, oh, so now we're supposed
Speaker 2: to put Jews in the marginalization category. This is all
Speaker 2: this is an invented scandal in my opinion. So it's like,
Speaker 2: if you want to criticize DEI and go after the system.
Speaker 3: And all that, I'm all on board. But unfortunately I
Speaker 3: don't really see a lot of that.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, that's why I'm so it's.
Speaker 1: Just very clear that the people like Chris Rofo, who
Speaker 1: are most associated with opposition to quote unquote DEI or
Speaker 1: identity politics, like now that it's a different group, they
Speaker 1: don't actually have like consistent principles. And Rufo was very
Speaker 1: open and up front about the way that he wanted
Speaker 1: to plant this plagiarism story in mainstream media. He actually tweeted,
Speaker 1: we launched the Claudiine gay plagiarism story from the right.
Speaker 1: The next step is to smuggle it into the media
Speaker 1: apparatus at the left, legitimizing the narrative to center left
Speaker 1: actors who have the power to topple her then squeeze.
Speaker 5: So just so you know, you do have to give
Speaker 5: it to overw listen.
Speaker 1: Maybe so okay, but you know, the plagiarism stuff is legitimate,
Speaker 1: and so I guess you know, even though it came
Speaker 1: from a bad place, we should still look at it.
Speaker 1: But just be aware it's not like this is like
Speaker 1: a good faith attempt to ensure academic integrity. They're pissed
Speaker 1: off that she said, no, Actually, if you are pro
Speaker 1: Palestinian and you you know, are out of march or
Speaker 1: you're doing a chant or whatever, and you're not harassing
Speaker 1: or bullying or hurting anyone, you have a right to
Speaker 1: do that. She stood up for free speech in the
Speaker 1: way that conservatives have been asking these presidents who stand
Speaker 1: up for free speech, and the minute that it was
Speaker 1: a group that they had a different feeling about, they
Speaker 1: turn on a dime. So that's where this whole conversation
Speaker 1: comes from. And I think it's very important for people
Speaker 1: to understand the context with which these charges are being left.
Speaker 2: This is my thing too, just for re understand. It's
Speaker 2: about principles and systems. If you want to talk and
Speaker 2: critique about them, that's fine, but trying to work in
Speaker 2: this individual way especially. Look, you know, I respect some
Speaker 2: of Chris Rufoe's work, but part of the problem I
Speaker 2: have is that he's willing to sign on, you know,
Speaker 2: to somebody like Acman, where I don't think Acmen is
Speaker 2: even working towards the same end at all. I mean,
Speaker 2: Roofe look to be transparent, has always been after DEI
Speaker 2: he's just a lot more I guess, like politically savvy.
Speaker 5: I can't he but not on this one.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean he wants he wants Jewish people to
Speaker 1: have a special car amount where it's the rules are different.
Speaker 1: I mean that's why he's going after Actually I.
Speaker 3: Don't think he does.
Speaker 2: I think he thinks Acman and this last crusade is
Speaker 2: a useful idiot, And this is a tactical defeat, and
Speaker 2: this is kind of what I was doing this.
Speaker 1: So that's ridiculous because now you're just what you're pressuring
Speaker 1: is for someone to come in who is more censorious, right,
Speaker 1: who was more committed to the things.
Speaker 5: That you supposedly oppose. So it's preposterous.
Speaker 2: I'm with you one hundred percent. They disagree with me.
Speaker 2: They're like, any scalp is good. It just shows the
Speaker 2: system that they have to you know, it's like a
Speaker 2: fuck around and find I guess we're behind the paywall.
Speaker 2: Fuck around and fire out and find out that you
Speaker 2: can do that. I don't think that's going to happen
Speaker 2: at all. I think in that result will be worse.
Speaker 2: They just their tactical thing is like is if you
Speaker 2: can get a scalp and you can show that the
Speaker 2: right has power, then they'll try and you know, come
Speaker 2: to us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what has that power? What has that power gotten them?
Speaker 1: What it's gotten them is more like pro censorship wins.
Speaker 1: Then the left was ever able to accomplish. I mean,
Speaker 1: they did more to enshrine and guarantee there will be
Speaker 1: more censorship on college campuses, and you know, the next
Speaker 1: time that a college student feels unsafe for whatever, that
Speaker 1: they'll have more avenues to pursue that that's what they're
Speaker 1: winning here.
Speaker 3: I only it's fair to say than the left is
Speaker 3: ever accomplished.
Speaker 2: Absolutely absolutely, do you think that anti semitism which bad
Speaker 2: as what happened here?
Speaker 1: Just given what happened here, these presidents they instantly caved
Speaker 1: the minute that there was a backlash to them, saying, well,
Speaker 1: actually the context of the speech matters, and no, if
Speaker 1: it's not bullying or harassment, like that was the right answer.
Speaker 1: And so even after BLM and the left and whatever whatever,
Speaker 1: these presidents actually have the right answer on free speech,
Speaker 1: and that's gone now they all capitulated.
Speaker 2: I would put it this way, is that I still
Speaker 2: do believe that it absolutely is the case if you
Speaker 2: said that about Blacker trans people, that you would be
Speaker 2: gone at Harvard tomorrow.
Speaker 3: And also the fact.
Speaker 1: Is said, but said, what about blacker transport, because that's
Speaker 1: the other piece is it's not like anyone was calling
Speaker 1: for genocide. I agree, So it's preposterous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but under the definition, if I say that little
Speaker 2: kids shouldn't be pluged full of hormones, they would be
Speaker 2: like your anti trans and you're calling for a transgendistor.
Speaker 3: If I think you should ban eighteen year olds or anyone.
Speaker 1: On there, give me an example of that actually happening
Speaker 1: where someone said something that was uncomfortable. I mean, there
Speaker 1: may be examples of that, but in this instance, they
Speaker 1: gave the right answer that can be used then in
Speaker 1: other instant, Well, you said that this was the context here,
Speaker 1: so over here, now that someone is saying they're saying like,
Speaker 1: then you make them commit to the words that they've
Speaker 1: already put out there. But to then demand censorship and
Speaker 1: the interest of well, you would have censored here, so
Speaker 1: I want you to censor across the board.
Speaker 5: That's stupid.
Speaker 3: I'm not even ridiculous. I agree with you completely.
Speaker 2: That's why I did this entire monologu because I'm like, guys,
Speaker 2: it's not about that, It's about the whole IVY League.
Speaker 3: It's about this whole corrupt system.
Speaker 2: But and I don't think unfortunately, if they don't they
Speaker 2: care much about that, I would like to see things
Speaker 2: change completely.
Speaker 3: We would move much more in the direction.
Speaker 2: Instead of having hearings about, for example, what is your
Speaker 2: code of conduct policy on anti Semitism, I'd be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: how much do you guys, how much money you guys make,
Speaker 2: and how much head funge dollars are moving around here?
Speaker 2: Maybe wish pay some taxes on that. That's what they
Speaker 2: actually fear, just so everybody knows in terms of going
Speaker 2: after profits. And hey, how come you guys have more
Speaker 2: administrators than you do students.
Speaker 3: That's pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: You're making these people completely bankrupt and you have no
Speaker 2: share in any of their futures.
Speaker 3: And yet you're all building.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I should send you this from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 2: Do you know where all these new student dollars are
Speaker 2: going to? Granit countertops in dorm rooms?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: I had one hundred year old dorm. It was such
Speaker 2: a piece of shit. And I'm not saying necessarily that's
Speaker 2: a good thing, but I mean the idea that everyone
Speaker 2: should go into deeper debt so that I could have
Speaker 2: slept in a nicer bedroom and had access to a
Speaker 2: lazy river and all these other student services is preposterous.
Speaker 2: So look, this is again a question about systems. What's
Speaker 2: upholding this entire thing? What real fights questions and all
Speaker 2: of them are about and differences in tactics.
Speaker 3: So I do think we agree at least some.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean this is like we may not agree
Speaker 1: on this part, but this is basically like capitalism applied
Speaker 1: to the universe system. The students become the customer they
Speaker 1: put into Why do they put it into place these
Speaker 1: parks to try to attract the student body that already
Speaker 1: has money. Why Because they're the ones and their parents
Speaker 1: who are more likely to give them more money for
Speaker 1: the university. That's the system that you're talking about. But
Speaker 1: you know, on the core level with all of this,
Speaker 1: I honestly I just want to say, I don't know
Speaker 1: if she's played.
Speaker 5: I didn't look at it.
Speaker 1: I literally haven't read the stories because to me, I
Speaker 1: can't get past the fact that there was this fake
Speaker 1: outrage over things that students didn't even say with regard
Speaker 1: to genocide, and then you know, moments later they're backing
Speaker 1: dollars for bombs to be dropped on kids in what
Speaker 1: many scholars are saying is actually a genocide. To me,
Speaker 1: I just can't get past that and what it says
Speaker 1: about the insane priorities and like decrepit, ridiculous, absurd system
Speaker 1: of distraction that we have instead of any form of
Speaker 1: democracy or actual interest in.
Speaker 5: What would be good for the people.
Speaker 1: So I can't get past that part of the story
Speaker 1: to even engage with like Chris Rufo's plagiarism thing.
Speaker 3: That's fair. I will say, CNN covered it and they
Speaker 3: even said the chief.
Speaker 5: That was his goal. He said, let me get this
Speaker 5: into mainstream media and then we'll squeeze. So I guess it's.
Speaker 1: Working got your quest for more censorship is working out.
Speaker 5: I hope you're happy.
Speaker 3: Let's move on, all right.
Speaker 2: So since this is the last show of the year,
Speaker 2: it's been a tough show already, Right, We've had debates,
Speaker 2: we've had discussions, we've had disagreements. We had to find
Speaker 2: a way to wrap things up in a good direction.
Speaker 2: So last time we did the superlative section, we had
Speaker 2: it included some worse things and all that. But this
Speaker 2: time we decided, you know what, if you devolved into
Speaker 2: anything negative, it's just going to get a downer and
Speaker 2: why end the year on such a note. So everything
Speaker 2: from this moment forward is going to be a positive,
Speaker 2: superlative about something that happened this year. So first we're
Speaker 2: doing best moment, Crystal, what.
Speaker 3: Do you got?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So for me, best moment of the year is
Speaker 1: when the UAW, after their historic stand up strike, was
Speaker 1: able to obtain extraordinary gains from all of the Big
Speaker 1: three automakers. It's now set off a wave of organizing
Speaker 1: among automakers that are not currently unionized, including Tesla and
Speaker 1: perhaps the Cherry on Top. The sweetest moment of them
Speaker 1: all was when Jim Kramer, who had been trashing them,
Speaker 1: trashing the president Sean Fain as a Marxist, telling the
Speaker 1: car companies they should just ship all their jobs to Mexico,
Speaker 1: when even he was forced to admit that the auto
Speaker 1: workers had one.
Speaker 5: Take a listen.
Speaker 8: I think that the UAW was underestimated, Paul Way, because
Speaker 8: Fain just beat them everywhere. It was very much grill
Speaker 8: action was very smart. They were completely they were outgained
Speaker 8: at every turn. I mean it was almost like they
Speaker 8: were and Fame was a great NFL coach who really
Speaker 8: figured out all the weaknesses the other team and just
Speaker 8: came in and blew them away.
Speaker 3: And they were blitzing. They were doing right.
Speaker 11: I mean they had like linebacker and squirter blitches and
Speaker 11: safety blitches, and you know they like the other guys
Speaker 11: like the like I love I love Farley and I
Speaker 11: love barring, you know, you know, and I think that
Speaker 11: they were wow what happened? They were in the wow
Speaker 11: what happened?
Speaker 3: Camp?
Speaker 11: And when the game was over, it was just a
Speaker 11: real beatdown.
Speaker 5: Real beat down.
Speaker 1: I love at the beginning saga when he's like they
Speaker 1: were underestimated. It's like by who by you more than
Speaker 1: anyone else? That goes unacknowledged though, but still beautiful to
Speaker 1: see them.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Mine is a good old fashioned, clean fun United America
Speaker 2: and hilarity and horror and shot and frout. And that
Speaker 2: was a congresswoman Loweren Bobert at Beetlejuice. I mean, who
Speaker 2: who cannot help but laugh at this woman just making
Speaker 2: an utter and total fool of herself in public vaping,
Speaker 2: getting kicked out for groping her mate, then ign saying
Speaker 2: and denying actually that she acted this way, forcing the
Speaker 2: employees at this theater to then leak the condemning video
Speaker 2: of this to local news.
Speaker 3: And this one went everywhere.
Speaker 2: It was all everyone's speed. It hit the normy start.
Speaker 2: I even dressed up as Beetlejuice for Halloween as a
Speaker 2: tribute to missus Bobert for reminding me. Rewatched the movie
Speaker 2: so thank you. I've only said beetlejuiceant no twice now
Speaker 2: wons so far. So there were a lot of great jokes.
Speaker 2: There were just there were too many good ones that
Speaker 2: happened as a result of this. So for me, it
Speaker 2: was just good old clash, good old fashioned clean foot.
Speaker 1: It feels like a throwback to more n I agree.
Speaker 1: I agree when we could cover things like that, and
Speaker 1: I have to be like, you know, are we watching
Speaker 1: and ethnic cleansing? Are we watching a genocide? It feels
Speaker 1: good to nostalgically relive Lauren Bobert's night out there at Beetlejuice.
Speaker 5: And you're so right that this really did land.
Speaker 3: With an audience everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, I still maintain that I actually am in support
Speaker 1: of more representation for trashy hose everywhere. I would like
Speaker 1: to see more of this on, you know, among life
Speaker 1: dis among my you know, my political ideology.
Speaker 5: So let's go for more. Try.
Speaker 1: She's actually Grandma too, more trashy Grandma. You had, Kyle
Speaker 1: and I covered the rub map that came. Apparently there's
Speaker 1: been a huge searge in interest in Grandma porn and
Speaker 1: g i lfs, which people can probably interpret them maybe.
Speaker 5: Lauren Bobert spark that you know, I'm just connecting.
Speaker 1: I'm just connecting the dots now that perhaps she was
Speaker 1: the spark and the interest for there.
Speaker 3: Only six years older than I. Oh my god. Okay,
Speaker 3: that's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 5: All right, Next question, we won't judge people's personal decision.
Speaker 3: What do we have?
Speaker 1: Okay, Next we have what are we most excited for
Speaker 1: about twenty twenty four? And mine, I just said pure
Speaker 1: chaos at this point. I mean, listen, Biden or Trump
Speaker 1: or both could die, someone could get thrown in jail,
Speaker 1: someone could be impeached, someone could get kicked off the bat.
Speaker 1: I mean, we just don't even know. And not that
Speaker 1: I'm saying any of these are good things. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that what's so ever, But at this point I'm
Speaker 1: just sort of like in the I guess we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to embrace the embrace, the suck, let it burn, whatever,
Speaker 1: because I think it's going to be an insane year
Speaker 1: and it's very hard for me to come up with
Speaker 1: something that I'm genuinely, like, affirmatively, positively excited about.
Speaker 2: One of the most tough frequent questions we get is
Speaker 2: how do you deal with this?
Speaker 3: How do you deal with the job?
Speaker 2: And to be honest, a detached curiosity has been the
Speaker 2: way that I've eventually landed on. That's the only way
Speaker 2: I think you can actually stay sane and do the job.
Speaker 2: And yeah, that's why for pure chaos, you can't help
Speaker 2: but have some a little bit of excitement about it.
Speaker 2: I love history. It's very rare for people to actually
Speaker 2: be able to know in the moment that you were
Speaker 2: quote unquote living through history. I think most people through
Speaker 2: the nineties they probably thought they were. But unless it
Speaker 2: was the fall of the Berlin waller, well, I guess
Speaker 2: I was eighty nine. So even that the fall of
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union something like that, most likely things are
Speaker 2: gonna pass you by. But you know, with Ukraine, with
Speaker 2: so just in the years that you and I have
Speaker 2: been doing a show together, I mean, what think about
Speaker 2: the things COVID pandemic in the one hundred years January sixth,
Speaker 2: you know, the latest, the Ukraine War, Israel and Hamas,
Speaker 2: I mean, so many of these things, and then now
Speaker 2: to just know to be on the precipice of this,
Speaker 2: I can't help but feel some excitement. At least I
Speaker 2: get to live through something crazy and help make sense
Speaker 2: of it of the world with all of you people.
Speaker 2: So for me, that's an exciting thing. All right, what
Speaker 2: about you once again? I mean, can't hell had to
Speaker 2: put a UFO thing in here. Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: One thing I'm excited about and is that repeatedly from
Speaker 2: people in the UFO community they said this UFO transparency
Speaker 2: is going to be forced in there or not, whether
Speaker 2: the legislation passes or it doesn't. So just even though
Speaker 2: they did a cover up, they blocked all of the
Speaker 2: transparent NICHE transparency initiatives inside of the Senate NDAA, I
Speaker 2: think a lot more people like David Grush are going
Speaker 2: to come forward and tell us a little bit about
Speaker 2: what they know, and I think we will be just
Speaker 2: a tiny little bit step closer to understanding the reality
Speaker 2: and the truth of what is happening.
Speaker 3: So the reality of it.
Speaker 2: Though, I don't think we'll find out, you know, per
Speaker 2: se or whatever in twenty twenty four, but I think
Speaker 2: we'll have more interesting stuff to cover in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four as a result of Dave Gresh coming forward, and
Speaker 2: I'm hopeful for that, or maybe we'll get disproven the
Speaker 2: other way.
Speaker 3: Either way, I'll take it. Indeed, that's good for people.
Speaker 1: So obviously twenty twenty three was a year with a
Speaker 1: lot of clouds, a lot of very dark clouds. But
Speaker 1: that's why we said, all right, well let's try to
Speaker 1: look for a silver lining in some of this. And
Speaker 1: for me, it was the way that we've seen, you know,
Speaker 1: in the wake of Row versus Way being overturned, that
Speaker 1: people have really shown up to try to reclaim or
Speaker 1: protect their rights at the ballot. The abortion rights have
Speaker 1: won in every single ballot test where they have been on,
Speaker 1: you know, where voters have had a chance to go
Speaker 1: and weigh in. They have won in seven different states
Speaker 1: since it was originally overturned in June of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and we just saw one of these in Ohio in
Speaker 1: this past off your election. So to me, that's obviously
Speaker 1: I didn't support Wrote versus Way being overturned, but it
Speaker 1: is at least encouraging the backlash to that, and how
Speaker 1: many people have flooded the polls to try to reclaim
Speaker 1: the rights that they have lost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was interesting. I mean nobody expected it. I
Speaker 2: certainly didn't, so it was stunning. To the whole chaos thing.
Speaker 2: I'll put mine here up on the screen. We can
Speaker 2: put this up there, which is about Ukraine, and that's
Speaker 2: the reality setting in on the ground in Ukraine. And
Speaker 2: that might sound callous, but I really believed since the
Speaker 2: day of the invasion that this was the most precarious
Speaker 2: situation in the world, just because of nuclear weapons. I
Speaker 2: think our policy has just been a total disaster. Thousands
Speaker 2: of Ukraine, tens of thousands of Ukrainian men have now
Speaker 2: been killed. You've got hundreds of thousands who are injured.
Speaker 2: Just yesterday I read a story about a freaking forty
Speaker 2: seven year old guy who was kidnapped off the street,
Speaker 2: too poor to bribe his way out of the draft,
Speaker 2: and now is on the front line, serving in an
Speaker 2: infantry division, and he's upset about it. He says, physically,
Speaker 2: I cannot handle this. I wish I was twenty years younger.
Speaker 2: So look, we need to put an end to this
Speaker 2: situation for the Ukrainian people, for the gold, you know,
Speaker 2: for the good of peace. I still believe, even with
Speaker 2: Israel Hamas and all that this this is one of
Speaker 2: those situations where you are just one bad moment away
Speaker 2: from going hot, and it has been a long priority
Speaker 2: of mine from the day that happened, in order to
Speaker 2: keep and try and stop you know, the ongoing insanity.
Speaker 2: And I think that the vibe shifted completely because of
Speaker 2: the failure of the Ukrainian counter offensive. And I hope
Speaker 2: in the next year that we will see peace come
Speaker 2: to that region, or at least, you know, an attempt
Speaker 2: and an acknowledgment of that for the future.
Speaker 5: That's what I certainly hope.
Speaker 1: So all right, our last category is what was the
Speaker 1: biggest plot twist or what have you got for this one?
Speaker 3: Well, this is what.
Speaker 2: I've been meaning to do for a long time Israel
Speaker 2: hamas happened, so obviously I was just going to put
Speaker 2: it in the show. But it is about Hassan minajh
Speaker 2: And I got to be honest, you know. I did
Speaker 2: a monologue about Hassanmonaj about how the New Yorker exposed him.
Speaker 2: I still think he plays into identity politics, tropes and
Speaker 2: others that I vehemently agree with. But one of the
Speaker 2: stories in that New Yorker article was accused Hassan Minaj
Speaker 2: of lying about how he was rejected from the prom
Speaker 2: because his prom or his like possible prom dates parents
Speaker 2: were racist, And I got to say I listened to
Speaker 2: Hassan's rebuttal whenever it came out, I guess a month
Speaker 2: and a half or so ago, and he convinced me,
Speaker 2: at least on this one point. He absolutely convinced me.
Speaker 2: I'll play some of it for you right now if
Speaker 2: you didn't hear it.
Speaker 12: First, I want to talk about how and why I
Speaker 12: was rejected from PROM. Now, let me first say this.
Speaker 12: I am thirty eight years old with a wife and
Speaker 12: two kids. I do not give a shit about PROM.
Speaker 12: But it's a big story from my first stand up
Speaker 12: special and the New Yorker imply that I made it
Speaker 12: all up and that my race wasn't a factor in
Speaker 12: my rejection. But it was, and I have the evidence
Speaker 12: to prove it.
Speaker 2: He's got Look, he's got like a twenty something long
Speaker 2: minute video, he's got the receipts, he goes through some
Speaker 2: of the other allegations.
Speaker 5: Does he have what like emails or what's.
Speaker 3: Got text messages?
Speaker 2: Emails like her saying this and this acknowledging you know
Speaker 2: that some stuff happened in the past.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, it's on the prompt thing.
Speaker 2: It's there's nobody like she absolutely railroaded him, and on
Speaker 2: some of the other ones, I wouldn't see she railroaded
Speaker 2: him as much on the other ones, but she definitely
Speaker 2: misconstrued some of the things that he said, and she
Speaker 2: did not include the fulsome nature of his response. So
Speaker 2: I got to own up to it, Hassan, I apologize.
Speaker 3: That's one of those where you know, I fell victim.
Speaker 2: I'll say this too about you know, the belief in
Speaker 2: the mainstream media and all that.
Speaker 3: This wasn't even me trusting the New Yorker. It just
Speaker 3: looked factual.
Speaker 2: And I know that reporter I followed her for years now,
Speaker 2: Claire Malone, who used to work over at five three Dates.
Speaker 2: I was like, man, this is Claire Malone's work. You know,
Speaker 2: this is somebody who I know, and I've trusted her
Speaker 2: work for a long time.
Speaker 12: Now.
Speaker 2: The response, you know that, all the way that it
Speaker 2: was presented, it looks totally ironclad. Also, he did not
Speaker 2: have any comment immediately in the aftermath, so you couldn't
Speaker 2: help but just think like.
Speaker 3: Oh god, it was a huge mistake on his part.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, But after the fulsome nature of
Speaker 2: it all came out I'm like, all right, you got
Speaker 2: to give it to the man.
Speaker 3: And I've been meeting to this for a while, So, Hassan,
Speaker 3: here's to you.
Speaker 5: Which has she responded to the fact.
Speaker 3: About the story, which is bullshit? Come on, they haven't
Speaker 3: done a correction. No, no correction. They stand They said
Speaker 3: they stand.
Speaker 5: By it one hundred and that causing a question.
Speaker 3: Now, yeah, exactly. So no, I'm like, is this whole thing.
Speaker 1: It's because that makes it clear, like, oh, this was
Speaker 1: a hatchet job, right, You had a story you wanted
Speaker 1: to tell about this, and you were trying to fit
Speaker 1: the facts into what you wanted to say, and so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and personal consequences from what I can see, I mean,
Speaker 2: he didn't get the Daily I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: if he would want the Daily Show position, but I
Speaker 2: would I would tell him not to take it given
Speaker 2: where that show has gone. But he probably didn't get
Speaker 2: a job up because of it. And you know that
Speaker 2: doesn't that doesn't sit right with me.
Speaker 1: That could also play into why he didn't respond. You know,
Speaker 1: it may have been that they told him, like you
Speaker 1: just never know behind the scenes what pressures he was
Speaker 1: under to just like stay quiet on it and hope
Speaker 1: that it goes away anyway. All right, our apologies to
Speaker 1: Hassan for you know, not believing him in the first place.
Speaker 3: That's right, all right.
Speaker 1: My plot is, do you guys remember back when Mayor
Speaker 1: Eric Adams was elected mayor of New York City and
Speaker 1: the reps this job always the next Democratic presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: and this guy's a superstar and he's shown out a
Speaker 1: win and showing Democrats how it's done well. That has
Speaker 1: now completely flipped to him giving answers like this.
Speaker 5: One, mister Mayor.
Speaker 3: We've come to the end of what was a very
Speaker 3: eventful twenty twenty three.
Speaker 6: Right, So when you look at the totality of the year,
Speaker 6: if you had to describe it, and it's tough to
Speaker 6: do in one word, what would that word be?
Speaker 3: And tell me why?
Speaker 13: New York This is a place where every day you
Speaker 13: wake up you could experience everything from a plane crashing
Speaker 13: into our Trace Center to a person who's celebrating a
Speaker 13: new business that's open. This is a very very complicated city.
Speaker 1: I mean honest with you, I just really wanted to
Speaker 1: play that come in the show because every part of it.
Speaker 1: You know, what really bugs me the most is he
Speaker 1: asked him for one word, and then he says, which
Speaker 1: is two words, and then it just gets more and
Speaker 1: more absurd from there, and he's like, it's amazing you
Speaker 1: wake up and see a plane fly into the World
Speaker 1: Trade Center or someone opening a small business, No incredible city.
Speaker 2: That is one of the most what the fuck moments
Speaker 2: that I've ever seen, where it's like, dude, what is
Speaker 2: wrong with you? Also, if you're a family of nine
Speaker 2: to eleven, right, it's like you'd be like, yeah, that
Speaker 2: was actually the worst day of my life.
Speaker 3: Thanks for reminding me of that. What's wrong with you?
Speaker 1: Incredible? I love to how the interviewer just keeps his
Speaker 1: like interview.
Speaker 2: I feel like he's on too. I feel like he had,
Speaker 2: you know, alistic questions and he didn't even play. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, it is like sometimes when people are talking,
Speaker 2: you've got other stuff and you want to make sure
Speaker 2: you're ready for the next question and all that.
Speaker 3: I don't think he realized what was being said, especially when.
Speaker 1: You're throwing out like the softest of softballs of all time,
Speaker 1: and so yeah, your brain probably just like checks out.
Speaker 1: Like I'm sure he'll say something, you know, Anna dine
Speaker 1: here and we'll move on to the next one or
Speaker 1: wrap it up or whatever, and instead he just gives
Speaker 1: the most ridiculous and hilarious answer of all times.
Speaker 5: I appreciate it. I thank him for that moment. Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 2: I would have expected him just like say a lyric
Speaker 2: from NYC, from Annie or something.
Speaker 3: It's like, what are you doing right?
Speaker 1: It's just like anyway, all right, Thank you Mary Mayor Adams,
Speaker 1: and thank you to all of you for being with
Speaker 1: us this year, trusting us to cover news that has
Speaker 1: been oftentimes very difficult, very challenging, very complex. We are
Speaker 1: going to be off next week, but I'm gonna look
Speaker 1: to do is gonna be out ount but if big
Speaker 1: things break on Israel or anything else, I'll do some
Speaker 1: little updates for you guys. And we also have additional
Speaker 1: content that we're looking forward to you all getting to
Speaker 1: check out. I did a long interview with Norm Finkelstein
Speaker 1: and Sager is sitting down with Tucker Carlson, So definitely
Speaker 1: look for those as well.
Speaker 2: There you go, take advantage if you can. We're gonna
Speaker 2: be releasing them earlier to our premium stubs. Otherwise I
Speaker 2: will see you all in the new year.
Speaker 5: Happy holidays, guys, see you in the new year.