Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Hello, everybody, welcome to Wednesday counter Breaking Points.
Speaker 1: What are we going to call it, Ryan, We'll just
Speaker 1: say brow show counter break, It's point break. Yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: go with that. It's the bro show virtue here, Yes,
Speaker 1: here's the pound.
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 1: It works out.
Speaker 3: I like it.
Speaker 1: People can feel the energy and the loves through the screen.
Speaker 1: So Ryan and I coming off of a hot State
Speaker 1: of the Union joint addressed to Congress by President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is a fifth while occupying the Oval Office, longest
Speaker 1: one in the history books. An hour and forty minutes long,
Speaker 1: and we fell every second of that. Ryan didn't we
Speaker 1: uh wow, my.
Speaker 3: Eyes were heavy when he started. Oh and they did.
Speaker 3: They did not get any lighter by the end. And man,
Speaker 3: it's still Democrats won't applaud for him. And it's so sad. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so sad.
Speaker 1: That's right. Maybe they weren't applauding because they were tired.
Speaker 1: We can ignore the median agent there is seventy years old.
Speaker 1: I was exhausted when we were live at eleven, So
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine being my freaking grandfather having to
Speaker 1: sit through.
Speaker 3: All of the Yeah, if people miss that there was
Speaker 3: this riff that he did where he was just I've
Speaker 3: done this five times. I've done such amazing things, and
Speaker 3: it's just it's just so sad that the Democrats won't
Speaker 3: clap for me. It's so sad. It's real tragedy. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's right.
Speaker 1: I saw somebody saying yesterday they were like, man, this
Speaker 1: is wild. You know half the audience isn't clapping, And
Speaker 1: I was like, yeah, it's the state of you. It's
Speaker 1: called Unfortunately Ryan and I are in the business where
Speaker 1: we cover every single one of these things. People pay attention.
Speaker 1: We're not really sure why, but let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: start with the breaking news that has come out as
Speaker 1: of this morning. This is absolutely the most important thing
Speaker 1: now so far, and that is let's see, We're gonna
Speaker 1: go and put it up here on the screen. A
Speaker 1: decision from the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has upheld the lower court order forcing USAID and the
Speaker 1: State Department to immediately pay two billion dollars ode to
Speaker 1: contractors for work that they have already performed. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsich,
Speaker 1: and Cavanaugh in the dissent, meaning that two of the
Speaker 1: conservative justices, the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett, joining the majority. So what they say here
Speaker 1: is you could see in terms of the text the
Speaker 1: US District Court entering a temporary restraining order and joining
Speaker 1: the government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of Foreign Development
Speaker 1: Assistance Fund. They say the application is denied. So Ran,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this Supreme Court decision? You know,
Speaker 1: actually said here on the show. I was like, you know,
Speaker 1: you should always remember there are wild cards in terms
Speaker 1: of jurisprudence, people like Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Gorsich, Justice Roberts.
Speaker 1: Roberts cares about the legitimacy of the court, Amy Cony, Barrett,
Speaker 1: and Gorsic. There are wild cards in that they're a
Speaker 1: little bit more libertarian, same with Clarence Thomas, and you
Speaker 1: never really quite know which direction that they're going to go.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, I mean it's significant because they deny the
Speaker 1: government saying that they want to put a pause on
Speaker 1: foreign eight spending approximately two billion dollars out the door,
Speaker 1: affirming effectively the governments affirming effectively not only the Constitution
Speaker 1: as it lays out explicitly in terms of Congresses right
Speaker 1: for the power of the purse, but also that the
Speaker 1: government must follow through on that regardless of whatever exactly
Speaker 1: whatever executive action that they might put into place. So
Speaker 1: it's an important legal theory. The Trump administration was trying
Speaker 1: to test and it was struck down by five to four.
Speaker 3: Right the like the Founders, choosing the term executive is important,
Speaker 3: like exact they execute the laws that are passed by
Speaker 3: the people's House and the Senate like that. It's not
Speaker 3: it's not a new body that deliberates on behalf of
Speaker 3: the people. It is. Their job is to faithfully execute
Speaker 3: the laws and you know, USAAD is a separate question.
Speaker 3: You know, they do, in my opinion, a lot of
Speaker 3: important life saving work. They also use that important and
Speaker 3: life saving work as a cover for a lot of
Speaker 3: the soft power and sometimes even harder power you know,
Speaker 3: you know, moves on behalf of a destructive American empire.
Speaker 3: So not here to you know, necessarily defend everything USA
Speaker 3: Idea is doing. But on this narrow point, they are
Speaker 3: looking at, as you said, contracts where the work has
Speaker 3: already been done. This feels pretty basic. Like Congress passed
Speaker 3: the law saying here's amount of money to do this thing.
Speaker 3: The executive then hired somebody to carry out that function.
Speaker 3: Whatever they did. You know, they they distributed food and Nairobi,
Speaker 3: and now they sent the invoice for the thing that
Speaker 3: they were told to do by this contract, and the
Speaker 3: executive says, actually, we're not going to do that. It's
Speaker 3: it's pretty hard to see how you can justify that.
Speaker 3: It's one thing if you say, okay, we don't want
Speaker 3: to do this in the future, Okay, have that fight.
Speaker 3: They already did it and so you got to pay them.
Speaker 3: Is basically what the Supreme Court is saying. And for
Speaker 3: a bunch of my liberal friends who have worried for
Speaker 3: many years that Trump is going to become a dictator.
Speaker 3: One of the things that I've always reminded them is
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court doesn't have any interest in Trump
Speaker 3: becoming a dictator. Yeah, they jealously guard their own power.
Speaker 1: Of course, from the very beginning of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and the invention.
Speaker 3: Exactly of the Review. They they seized power in the
Speaker 3: very beginning.
Speaker 1: See now you and I are cooking, Ryan, Now we're
Speaker 1: talking about invented powers of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they want to those invented powers. You're very right.
Speaker 1: I did want to put up Justice Alito's descent, which
Speaker 1: was joined on it says that today the power grab
Speaker 1: is blistering. He blasts the Court for hubris, self ingridizement,
Speaker 1: and what he calls a stunning and extreme refusal by
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to obey the law and its own precedents.
Speaker 1: Justice Alito dissenting. A federal court has many tools to
Speaker 1: address a party supposed nonfeasance. Self aggrandizement of his jurisdiction
Speaker 1: is not one of them. I would charte a different
Speaker 1: path than the Court does today. So I must respectfully dissent.
Speaker 1: I guess so I read that this is a lot
Speaker 1: of legality and stuff going on here. Alito did not
Speaker 1: seem to disagree with the pretense of the order. It
Speaker 1: was more about the action of ordering the immediate disbursement
Speaker 1: of the funds from USAID. What he was saying is
Speaker 1: that there's an extraordinary amount of other options that we
Speaker 1: could have granted the government instead of deciding to do this. Now.
Speaker 1: I think what is probably happening, and I guess you
Speaker 1: could say this too, is that the court is coming
Speaker 1: out hot at least those who disagree on this, and
Speaker 1: not trying to give any wiggle room or benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt for the future to set a precedent for
Speaker 1: some of the other future forts. Now it's important to note,
Speaker 1: and that's something that the legal analyst Kyle Cheney, who
Speaker 1: we had up there, He's like, some of this will
Speaker 1: still get litigated in a district court in terms of the timeline,
Speaker 1: the feasibility to turn this on, But the argument about
Speaker 1: whether they can turn it off entirely is the one
Speaker 1: that's effectively even quashier the court today.
Speaker 3: Right, and that's why you've seen you know, this classic
Speaker 3: Trump you know, they they came in with a with
Speaker 3: an axe and just they just swung it and just
Speaker 3: hit everything. And then they're like, oh, by the way, hey,
Speaker 3: you can't do that. That's that's illegal. So they started
Speaker 3: sending notes to every single uh contractor saying, you know,
Speaker 3: we have individually decided that your particular contract, you know,
Speaker 3: there is a form letter, but they can tell the
Speaker 3: court that it's in This is an individual decision that
Speaker 3: the executive made. And so while it might be true
Speaker 3: that the executive has to broadly follow, you know, the
Speaker 3: congressional mandates, they obviously have some discretion within that mandate
Speaker 3: of how they carry out that as long as they're
Speaker 3: carrying it out faithfully. And so they tried to like,
Speaker 3: you know, do a do an end run around it
Speaker 3: by kind of you know, reorganizing it, you know, from
Speaker 3: the from the back end, saying well, this particular contract,
Speaker 3: we're not against in general doing things, but specifically this
Speaker 3: when we're shutting down, and this is the court coming
Speaker 3: in and now going one by one and being like, well, no,
Speaker 3: this two billion you have to spend it, which is
Speaker 3: kind of remarkable, like you can't. Obviously they're going through
Speaker 3: a crisis and this is a fight and they're going
Speaker 3: to work this out, but you couldn't actually govern this way,
Speaker 3: you know, Congress passing laws and then the executive shutting
Speaker 3: everything down, and then the Supreme Court individually signing off
Speaker 3: on various contracts that USA AID has cut with different contractors.
Speaker 3: Like that's that's obviously the right standle.
Speaker 1: You're talking just in terms of the process. So it
Speaker 1: does make sense. Yeah, right, especially if you're thinking justee,
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett and Roberts. They're like, okay, like we're just
Speaker 1: gonna nip this in the bud now, so we'll see
Speaker 1: what the fallout is. But it's definitely the most significant
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision yet of the second Trumpet.
Speaker 3: Right, it shows they're going to be players here.
Speaker 1: That's right. And also it's going to be WHI We
Speaker 1: have not yet heard from a White House on this
Speaker 1: exit on the Supreme Court decision. The Press Secretary Caroline
Speaker 1: Levitt will be taking the podium later today, so we
Speaker 1: might be hearing some of that. In terms of other
Speaker 1: breaking news, I know people may have wanted a tariff update.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately Ryan are not able to offer us one right now.
Speaker 1: Right now, we're told that the White House. We'll be
Speaker 1: having an afternoon press conference on the tariffs, where Trump
Speaker 1: is expected to announce that at least some are going off,
Speaker 1: but it's still very very unclear. In terms of the
Speaker 1: overall markets. Let me see where things stand. As you
Speaker 1: and I are talking, S and P is basically flat,
Speaker 1: the taois flat as of yesterday, the futures and all
Speaker 1: of that. I mean, yeah, the market is open right now.
Speaker 1: As you and I are saying, people are basically just
Speaker 1: no wait and hold position to see what Trump ends
Speaker 1: up deciding. Okay, let's get over to the Supreme Sorry,
Speaker 1: the state of the Union and what we had there
Speaker 1: in terms of the reaction from the public. The first
Speaker 1: the top line, which I thought was the most interesting,
Speaker 1: was this from CBS News. Let's go ahead put that
Speaker 1: on the screen. So what we see here is in
Speaker 1: speech Trump was among speech watchers, seventy four percent say presidential,
Speaker 1: seventy four percent say entertaining, seventy one percent say inspiring,
Speaker 1: sixty two percent say unifying, forty six percent say divisive.
Speaker 1: So actually a pretty good reaction there from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The overall snap poll which we have here, views of
Speaker 1: Trump's speech amongst speech watchers was some seventy six percent approved,
Speaker 1: twenty three percent disapproved. Let me do give the caveat here,
Speaker 1: as I do with any and all polling. Apparently the
Speaker 1: polling was, you know, and this actually makes sense, is
Speaker 1: you literally have a you know, a Republican president who
Speaker 1: is giving the who is giving the State of the Union,
Speaker 1: so you may have more Republicans who are those watching?
Speaker 1: So I have it in front of me here, fifty
Speaker 1: one percent of the speech viewers polled identified as Republicans,
Speaker 1: twenty seven percent as independence, and some twenty percent as Democrats.
Speaker 1: We had a reaction, Yeah, twenty percent were Democrats, And
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe Ryan, that is indicative of the strategy
Speaker 1: that we saw from some of the Democrats who just
Speaker 1: kind of walked out, Yes, you know who walked out
Speaker 1: of the speech. And so maybe that was what Chrystal
Speaker 1: was saying, and she was like, I could see this
Speaker 1: going either way. We could have a situation where people
Speaker 1: are like, Okay, I've had too much of this guy,
Speaker 1: I don't even really want to watch, yeah, or people
Speaker 1: are tuning in. Definitely kind of seems to be the latter.
Speaker 1: People who don't like Trump are just not going to
Speaker 1: watch the speech. So what do you make of that?
Speaker 3: If I think about all the Democrats in my life,
Speaker 3: almost none of them would watch this speech, Okay, like
Speaker 3: they just can't stomach the guy. And they you know,
Speaker 3: they will watch the clips on Colbert and they'll they'll
Speaker 3: catch the clips on the YouTube's surface and you can.
Speaker 3: And but as for sitting down for an hour and
Speaker 3: a half and hearing directly from the guy, just not
Speaker 3: going to subject themselves to that.
Speaker 1: I would twenty percent is on the democratic thing.
Speaker 3: Not at all, Yeah, because Republicans.
Speaker 1: Republicans do the same thing.
Speaker 3: You know, even some hate watch Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, some some do. You're right. But the part of
Speaker 1: the problem is in our clip economy, our clip attention economy,
Speaker 1: is that this is how the vast majority of people
Speaker 1: consume everything. I mean, if I saw the ratings were down,
Speaker 1: I would be shocked, you know, I wouldn't be shocked
Speaker 1: at all, because that's basically how news consumption works these days.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you can easily see how you can get
Speaker 3: to seventy seventy five percent with if you know, half
Speaker 3: of them are Republicans and then thirty you know, twenty
Speaker 3: eight percent or independence and roughly half of those independence
Speaker 3: probably actually much more than that, like of those of
Speaker 3: that twenty eight percent plausible, let's say twenty percent or
Speaker 3: like Republican leaning independence. So you add them together, you
Speaker 3: you easily get to seventy five percent, which can then
Speaker 3: be misinterpreted to believe that, like, oh, well, Trump really
Speaker 3: brought the country together. How about that?
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, listen, I don't know. So CNN here
Speaker 1: apparently did some polling reaction as well, snap a pull reaction.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to some of that.
Speaker 4: And what we know is that people who tend to
Speaker 4: be fans or partisans with the president, no matter which
Speaker 4: party the presidents in, tend to tune in more on
Speaker 4: speeches like this. And that's the case in tonight's survey
Speaker 4: as well. Because we're twenty one percent Democrat, forty four
Speaker 4: percent Republican in this sample, thirty five percent independent. That's
Speaker 4: about fourteen points more Republican than the overall general population.
Speaker 4: So keep that in mind when you see these results
Speaker 4: of speech watchers. To the results, what was your reaction
Speaker 4: to Trump's speech? Forty four percent of speech watchers in
Speaker 4: our instant poll tonight say they had a very positive
Speaker 4: reaction to Trump's speech. Twenty five percent somewhat positive, thirty
Speaker 4: one percent negative. How does that stack up against Donald
Speaker 4: Trump's previous addresses to joint Sessions of Conquers or State
Speaker 4: of the Union addresses. Look here, for all the years
Speaker 4: we have data for for very positive reaction, is actually
Speaker 4: his low water mark in all our instant polls after
Speaker 4: his previous addresses.
Speaker 1: Interesting, you know, that actually kind of makes sense to
Speaker 1: me because it was just a much more partisan speech
Speaker 1: than traditionally he would normally give. It actually probably reflects
Speaker 1: more their theory of governance, and how not only theory
Speaker 1: of governance, their theory of winning. Previously, you know, there
Speaker 1: was at least some attempt I think, at least on
Speaker 1: the part of you know, the smart people in the room,
Speaker 1: the John Kellys and all supposedly those great figures to
Speaker 1: try and move him in a different direction, whereas this time,
Speaker 1: I mean it was a campaign speech. You know, basically
Speaker 1: the entire time I saw, like Brit Hume kind of
Speaker 1: on Fox News was kind of concern trolling's like females
Speaker 1: parts in State of the Union I've ever seen in
Speaker 1: my entire lifetime, you know, and these are all I mean,
Speaker 1: I think this is really just illustrative of Trump's role
Speaker 1: in our current system, Like he doesn't care about that,
Speaker 1: and in a lot of ways, the population doesn't care
Speaker 1: about that. A lot of the trappings and the norms,
Speaker 1: institutions and all of that, especially the Republican Party, but
Speaker 1: I think even a lot of the Democratic Party now
Speaker 1: at this point no longer has time for some of
Speaker 1: these older like theories of how you would present this.
Speaker 1: And I just think that this just shows you probably
Speaker 1: what it will always be from now on, you know,
Speaker 1: a Democrat or a Republican, just in terms of how
Speaker 1: you win an election, how you capture your own party.
Speaker 1: So overall, I mean, yeah, I mean, if we're Trump,
Speaker 1: I'd probably be pretty happy. Overall. It's what it's March fifth.
Speaker 1: He still got a decent amount of runway from the country.
Speaker 1: There's some troubling signs. We talked a lot about that yesterday,
Speaker 1: but you know, people generally, you're gonna give you the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt. Yeah, the Democrats are mad, Independents
Speaker 1: kind of like, let's see, he's still funny. The entertaining
Speaker 1: thing is very important, big reason why I think he's
Speaker 1: always been able to deflect a lot of the major
Speaker 1: criticism against him, So any big thoughts, Ryan.
Speaker 3: You're probably right that this will become more of the norm,
Speaker 3: the more partisan speech. But like to your point, there
Speaker 3: was a noticeable dip in how people felt about the speech.
Speaker 3: So it is still the case that people want, at
Speaker 3: least some significant portion of public want that the guy
Speaker 3: to play the role of the president up there, that
Speaker 3: there's something about that that that where we aspire to
Speaker 3: that that sort of thing in our democracy or our
Speaker 3: public whatever you whatever you want to call it. And
Speaker 3: you're right that in Trump's first term, he'd be mister chaos,
Speaker 3: you know, go, you know, rip roaring on Twitter all
Speaker 3: day long, and then when he would get to the
Speaker 3: State of the Union, he'd like be buttoned up and
Speaker 3: he would read off the teleprompter. And remember Van Jones
Speaker 3: famously infamously said he became president tonight, and the liberals
Speaker 3: were like, all right, thank you for at least for
Speaker 3: like an hour and an hour. I think that's important.
Speaker 3: There was only an hour in the past pretending that
Speaker 3: you are a president rather than that you're Trump who
Speaker 3: is occupying the role of the president. And now he's like,
Speaker 3: forget that, I'm just gonna be myself all the time.
Speaker 3: He doesn't have to run.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so yeah, I mean Trump's Trump's.
Speaker 3: So if your Van Jones became unpresident last night, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's right. Actually selfish, did.
Speaker 1: Do we know, teamed? Is there any good Van Jones reaction?
Speaker 1: I'm looking, I don't see anything good. He's usually got.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, when when Jeff Bezos gives you
Speaker 1: a hundred million dollars, you don't really need to work anymore,
Speaker 1: do you. But all right, let's move on interest. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, just just the interest alone, that'll that'll work off.
Speaker 1: I'm not insinuating he was personally paid. Okay, it was
Speaker 1: to one of his fake justice nonprofits. But anyway, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get over to the democratic reaction. Ryan, you and
Speaker 1: I are turning over in our grave at this democratic
Speaker 1: action from Elissa Slotkin, and uh, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: put this one up there on the screen. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go ahead and make it big here, and let's take
Speaker 1: a listen. Alyssa Slotckin, if we all remember, the Democratic
Speaker 1: senator from Michigan barely won her seat, but significant because
Speaker 1: Trump did still win the state, so she wanted some
Speaker 1: Trump voter. She is a former CIA officer biadmission, biadmission,
Speaker 1: a literal former. Yeah yeah, she she outed herself. She
Speaker 1: outed herself for political benefit, and she loves to wear
Speaker 1: her CIA credentials on her sleeve.
Speaker 3: And here was her CIA. By the way.
Speaker 1: That's right, thank you. There is no such thing as
Speaker 1: former CIA, as you and I know. And here's what
Speaker 1: she had to say during her State of the Union reaction.
Speaker 5: He believes in closing up to dictators like Vladimir Putin
Speaker 5: and kicking our friends with the Canadians in the teeth.
Speaker 5: He sees American leadership as nearly a series of real
Speaker 5: estate transactions. As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it
Speaker 5: was Reagan and not Trump in office in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 5: Trump would have lost us the Cold War. Donald Trump's
Speaker 5: actions suggest that in his heart, he doesn't believe we're
Speaker 5: an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn't think we should lead
Speaker 5: the world. Look, America is not perfect, but I stand
Speaker 5: with the majority of Americans who believe we are still exceptional, unparalleled,
Speaker 5: And I would rather have American leadership over Chinese or
Speaker 5: Russian leader any day of the week.
Speaker 3: Woo, all right, there's so much there, and later she says,
Speaker 3: you know, I've watched as democracies have flickered out around
Speaker 3: the globe. It's like, well, that's a rather passive construction.
Speaker 3: How did some of these democracies flicker out? Let's ask
Speaker 3: the Indonesians, or the Brazilians, Argentina and Chileans, Guatemalans others.
Speaker 3: Did your democracy just flicker out? Or where there are
Speaker 3: some CIA operatives involved in pick it out? I've got
Speaker 3: some of that right there goes when it goes your
Speaker 3: we take a listen to it. Yeah, sure, all right,
Speaker 3: let's take a listen to it.
Speaker 5: I've lived and worked in many countries. I've seen democracies
Speaker 5: flicker out. I've seen what life is like when a
Speaker 5: government is rigged. You can't open a business without paying
Speaker 5: off a corrupt official. You can't criticize the guys in
Speaker 5: charge without getting a knock at the door in the
Speaker 5: middle of the night. So as much as we need
Speaker 5: to make our government more responsive to our lives today,
Speaker 5: don't for one moment fool yourself. The democracy isn't precious
Speaker 5: and worth saving.
Speaker 1: So who is doing the knock in there?
Speaker 6: Ryan?
Speaker 3: You know, well, Hermit Roosese just watched Iran's democracy just
Speaker 3: flicker out and just shet a gentle tear.
Speaker 1: At least you were the one knocking on the door.
Speaker 3: You were the woman when she said that she lived
Speaker 3: when a CIA officer is like, I lived and worked
Speaker 3: in countries where they where the democracy flickered out. It's like,
Speaker 3: all right, we're going to round up the first suspect.
Speaker 3: That's you.
Speaker 1: Right, It's incredible, and I hate that you turning me
Speaker 1: like into Howard's in here. I actually do have some
Speaker 1: Howards in behind me, so people, I don't discriminate. I
Speaker 1: still read Howard and James Beard. I actually have assigned
Speaker 1: James Beard behind me, which is crazy. The thing is
Speaker 1: that people need to understand is that if you zoom out,
Speaker 1: I'm really curious to hear what you think about this
Speaker 1: is this is the actual debate, I think between neo
Speaker 1: conservatism and restraint, except in a similar framework today. That's
Speaker 1: not in the Cold War anymore. But back in Cold
Speaker 1: War times there was a very important debate between the
Speaker 1: Kissingerian worldview, which I know you disagree with, that's fine.
Speaker 1: But the Kissingerian worldview was we cannot get rid of
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. We have to live with the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: We have to accept bipolarity in terms of the system.
Speaker 1: We have to we will not be able to pursue
Speaker 1: a strategy of what was called roll back, which was
Speaker 1: a Reaganesque policy, where we're going to roll back the
Speaker 1: borders of the Soviet Union. We are going to pursue
Speaker 1: a policy of existence and of effectively dividing up the world.
Speaker 1: Now there's a ton of criticism of human rights and
Speaker 1: all of that, but the Kissingerian worldview was that democracy
Speaker 1: in and of itself under Nixon and all of that
Speaker 1: was not an end that should be pursued for the
Speaker 1: United States. Instead, the end that should be pursued is
Speaker 1: strategic interest, is economics, is balance, is peace, etc. And
Speaker 1: some of that was keeping communism out of let's say
Speaker 1: the Western hemisphere, but not necessarily because that comports with
Speaker 1: the Munroe doctrine, but not necessarily in Hungary, for example.
Speaker 1: The Reaganesque view, the one that I think Alyssa Slockin
Speaker 1: is saying there, is that no, we are endorsing rollback. Effectively,
Speaker 1: the communism itself is the evil empire. We cannot live
Speaker 1: in a world with the Soviet Empire and in our
Speaker 1: inability to live with that. The pursuit and the policy
Speaker 1: of the United States should always be to push back
Speaker 1: against these borders and to call it out completely. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why I think that's important in this Putin
Speaker 1: Ukraine situation is the Biden previous view. Yeah, we got
Speaker 1: the cat doing some gymnastics behind me. The previous Biden
Speaker 1: policy Putin is a war criminal. We cannot deal with Putin.
Speaker 1: The Putin regime itself is illegitimate from Biden, which means
Speaker 1: that there is no settlement with Ukraine, that Ukraine itself
Speaker 1: is a front line of democracy. Verly, similarly in the
Speaker 1: way that Voice of America was consuming to push democracy
Speaker 1: right in Hungary or any of these so called Soviet
Speaker 1: occupied states. Well, the point here, I think is it
Speaker 1: comes down to then the Trump view of no, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna sit down and we're going to talk and
Speaker 1: pursue a peace deal. Now this view is now majorly
Speaker 1: in contention, but it's flipped where now you have the
Speaker 1: Democrats who are seeing to basically embody this previously neo
Speaker 1: conservative liberal world order view of the world, America the
Speaker 1: exceptional nation and all of that, Whereas now Trump at
Speaker 1: least not the whole Republican Party is pursuing, at least
Speaker 1: in this Ukraine instance, more of a realist foreign policy.
Speaker 1: So I actually think that while it was a small snippet,
Speaker 1: it does say a lot about your previous view of
Speaker 1: the Cold War of the United States conduct, but like,
Speaker 1: more importantly, how to think about conflict in the future
Speaker 1: as we approach more multipolarity in the system.
Speaker 3: You know, I think that democrats and democratic elites in particular,
Speaker 3: as plus the Lindsay Grahams, though the more hawkish Republicans
Speaker 3: of the world, ye, were very energized by being on
Speaker 3: the right side of history after Russia invaded Ukraine, because
Speaker 3: it's good, that's what they did. They lined up troops
Speaker 3: on the border, they marched them in. You can talk
Speaker 3: about what happened before February twenty twenty two, so you're
Speaker 3: blue in the face, But the world and the American
Speaker 3: audience saw troops lining up on a border to and
Speaker 3: doing something they didn't think was happening anymore in this world,
Speaker 3: and Mark you know, marching it and you know, heading
Speaker 3: right for Kiev. And so they this was after fifty
Speaker 3: years of being the bad guys. Whether it was Vie,
Speaker 3: whether it was Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan getting you know,
Speaker 3: and and it came not long after the kind of
Speaker 3: ignoble and and kind of chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which
Speaker 3: good for Biden for doing it. Let me underscore that again.
Speaker 3: But it was embarrassing to the Lindsey Grahams and the
Speaker 3: Democratic hawks of the world. They were really loving finally
Speaker 3: having the ability to speak with moral force and and
Speaker 3: Democrats never then the Democratic base was along for that
Speaker 3: ride because they saw that, know, this is outrageous, how
Speaker 3: can you do this? There was never any allowed, any
Speaker 3: debate within the Democratic Party over how this war would end.
Speaker 3: And so even as the reality was you know, fundamentally
Speaker 3: changing on the ground and Ukraine's you know, second counter
Speaker 3: offensive is fizzling out and they're running out of men
Speaker 3: to throw at the front lines anymore, because of this
Speaker 3: lack of debate, they're the Democratic base is still in
Speaker 3: February twenty twenty two, like we need to defend Ukrainian
Speaker 3: sovereignty and democracy against the evil Putin and so the
Speaker 3: whiplash is just full force. To then see this the
Speaker 3: Republican Party, which has been having these debates about what
Speaker 3: land should be exchanged for peace, and what are the
Speaker 3: conditions that should be agreed to to see that happen,
Speaker 3: Like they're only they're only reactions. That must be a trader,
Speaker 3: and he must be a you know, an autocrat like Putin,
Speaker 3: must be loving Putin. And the whole time it's like
Speaker 3: Russia is not even that big a deal like China is.
Speaker 3: The other is the there are two global powers right now,
Speaker 3: the United States and China, and Democrats really seem very
Speaker 3: fixated on elevating Russia into that instead, like there's some
Speaker 3: like they have some block. I think this is where
Speaker 3: Russia them's in. Yeah, yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: This is where Russia gay comes in. Is that you know,
Speaker 1: you went from a situation where Obama had the correct
Speaker 1: view of Ukraine. Everyone can go and read the Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Goldberg interview with Obama from twenty fifteen where he was like,
Speaker 1: if you want to make an argument that CRIMEA is
Speaker 1: a vital national security interest that's worth US troops, He's like,
Speaker 1: go for it. I don't agree with that, and I
Speaker 1: think that the Russians will always care way more about
Speaker 1: it than we do. He was right, right, He was
Speaker 1: right not to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. If anything,
Speaker 1: the worst thing that Trump did on Ukraine was not
Speaker 1: the perfect phone call. It was to ship javelins to
Speaker 1: the country to escalate the conflict and to increase even
Speaker 1: more of basically this like hawkish approach vice A v. Russia,
Speaker 1: which basically like builds things up to a powder keg
Speaker 1: and explodes in the Ukraine invasion.
Speaker 3: Then you ship the javelins in order to get Zelenski
Speaker 3: to like throw Hunter Biden under the bus.
Speaker 1: Wasn't that whole Yeah, So no, it was he was
Speaker 1: not shipping javelins, right because he wanted to hold up Javeliner.
Speaker 1: So this is the thing is there. It's baked into
Speaker 1: the lore of the United States. Actually, I remember, uh,
Speaker 1: I remember Crystal and I talking about it at the
Speaker 1: time because we covered that impeachment live and it was like, oh,
Speaker 1: did you know it's written in the constitutions that you
Speaker 1: have to send javelin missiles to Ukraine. Like it's like,
Speaker 1: this is an impeachable offense. What it's like, No, let's
Speaker 1: return to the Obama policy. I don't care about saying
Speaker 1: that it was the correct policy. So I do think
Speaker 1: there's a lot to be said about it and uh
Speaker 1: out look. I mean part of the problem is that
Speaker 1: negative polarization means that after that Trump is Zelenski interview,
Speaker 1: liberals who are already on board with the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: they're never coming back from full Ukrainian victory. Now Lensky
Speaker 1: is a hero for them because he stood up to
Speaker 1: Trump or whatever. It doesn't even matter. You can go
Speaker 1: watch our debate with me and Crystal yesterday about who
Speaker 1: was default. But negative polarization means like liberals are all
Speaker 1: in on this war. It is now a religion in
Speaker 1: the same way that Russia Gate was a religion. Is
Speaker 1: that any piece of any kind itself is unacceptable now,
Speaker 1: especially if you've got Michael McCall and you've got Chris
Speaker 1: Murphy and the MSNBC crowd just absolutely losing it the
Speaker 1: choice of Slotkin. I think it's very very important for
Speaker 1: people to see that, yes, while all of the rhetoric
Speaker 1: and all of that is posturing, there are very real
Speaker 1: world implications for policy that are right behind this. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying, you know, Trump, Gaza and all of
Speaker 1: that isn't a very obvious departure from this. I'm only
Speaker 1: speaking very narrowly in the Ukraine context. The other telling
Speaker 1: thing to me Ryan was all of the democratic pundits,
Speaker 1: the professional pundits, being like, she knocked it out of
Speaker 1: the park ten out of ten in her response, the
Speaker 1: most perfect response that a person has ever given. And
Speaker 1: I was like, well, you know, there is that choice
Speaker 1: right now between how people are going to respond to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. A slockin is someone who's like yesterday in
Speaker 1: her response, she's like, yeah, there's waste in the government,
Speaker 1: will help you cut it, but don't do it in
Speaker 1: such a chaotic way. And then you know she voted
Speaker 1: for the Lake and Riley Act, for example, she's been
Speaker 1: trying to be more hawkish on immigration. She's basically like
Speaker 1: radical centrism embodied in a candidate. It's all about institutions,
Speaker 1: it's all about norms. Whereas we also have this Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders response, which was not, you know, a sanctioned one.
Speaker 1: It's kind of what he just decided to do on
Speaker 1: his own, but nonetheless very different in its tone. So
Speaker 1: let's take a listen to some of that.
Speaker 6: So let's be clear about that, well over ninety nine
Speaker 6: of socialist jurny checks are going out to people who
Speaker 6: earned those checks seventy million Americans. Nobody, nobody who was
Speaker 6: one hundred and fifty years old or two hundred years
Speaker 6: old or three hundred years old, just receiving social Jurney
Speaker 6: checks and on and on.
Speaker 3: The lives goal.
Speaker 1: So Bernie is standing up there pretty hard for social security.
Speaker 1: And throughout a lot of his speech yesterday, in terms
Speaker 1: of at least the parts that I've seen that have
Speaker 1: gone out, you could see that there was a huge
Speaker 1: difference in the viewership. Actually, think one of our producers
Speaker 1: sent it, So let me go ahead and pull it up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: here we go. So slock in speech got four five
Speaker 1: hundred views at its height, which is insane. I have
Speaker 1: no like I could pick my nose and I could
Speaker 1: get more live viewers. I'd break the points. That ended
Speaker 1: up at sixty one thousand views, and apparently AOC had
Speaker 1: some twenty thousand on Instagram live in her response. So
Speaker 1: you know, look, it's not everything, but we did just
Speaker 1: come off an election, did we not of proving that
Speaker 1: podcasting and views and YouTube and all of that's pretty important.
Speaker 1: I would say it's pretty important the attention economy and
Speaker 1: all of that. So the only question is is is
Speaker 1: the democratic base going to demand something different, or if
Speaker 1: their leadership gets propelled in people like Slackins and all
Speaker 1: of them are going to try to take the reins
Speaker 1: and to try and to channel that into their view
Speaker 1: of how to respond to trump Ism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there isn't much in the way of the material
Speaker 3: there for the party's kind of faithful opposition to rally
Speaker 3: against these party leaders. There's there's Bernie, you know, the
Speaker 3: squad is kind of disintegrated into their own thing, thrown
Speaker 3: individual things. In twenty twenty two and twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: a pac and Democratic Majority for Israel spent so much
Speaker 3: money like beating back the progressive wing of the party
Speaker 3: that it really you know, nipped it in the PUD
Speaker 3: in a significant way. And so there's just like that,
Speaker 3: the the the conditions are ripe for an insurgency inside
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party. The insurgents just aren't there. And it's early.
Speaker 3: You know, there may be people who identify the opening
Speaker 3: and go for it. It may have to come from more
Speaker 3: of an independent, you know approach like you saw in Nebraska.
Speaker 3: I think there might be candidates trying that elsewhere around
Speaker 3: the country, coming in with a kind of Bernie style
Speaker 3: popularist populism coupled with being on immigration running as independence
Speaker 3: like that, you could see some of that. The party
Speaker 3: is right for getting toppled. Part of leaderships right for
Speaker 3: getting toppled. But you Nancy Pelosi used to say when
Speaker 3: she was running for speakership, you can't beat somebody with nobody.
Speaker 3: And you know, she she often didn't have serious bonus though.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. You know, she never even
Speaker 1: though there were definitely times right where she could have
Speaker 1: easily faced at least some push.
Speaker 3: She always Joe Crowley would have been a serious, you know,
Speaker 3: challenger to her, But that's AOC took care of that. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know. And that was the cycle where she was.
Speaker 3: That was her. That was literally her slogan to run
Speaker 3: again for leader. You can't beat somebody with nobody, Like
Speaker 3: can you can you concoct something less inspiring than that,
Speaker 3: Like you have nothing. You can't beat me because you
Speaker 3: have nothing.
Speaker 1: Respect it almost have to respect it because it's so naked.
Speaker 1: It's honestly just too. It's so open. Yeah, on this,
Speaker 1: on this grand theory, it is really interesting. I want
Speaker 1: to try and find some more Bernie Sanders reaction just
Speaker 1: because it is so striking to watch how different it
Speaker 1: is as opposed to the slock In universe of like
Speaker 1: respectability of the Cold War, of everything is about the chaos,
Speaker 1: which she's basically it's like a suburban strategy to try
Speaker 1: and win the suburban voters. But you know, the difference
Speaker 1: is is that Ryan, as you and I know, the
Speaker 1: suburban voters all voted Democrat. They were the faithful for Kamala.
Speaker 1: It was the working class voters who are the ones
Speaker 1: who abandoned them. I mean, what is it for the
Speaker 1: first time ever a Republican I voters under one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand and Democrats like you have the people who support
Speaker 1: this Reagan stuff. That's not who you need to win
Speaker 1: back right now, whereas it's you know, a very very
Speaker 1: different view. I think that would have to you would
Speaker 1: need to at least even compete from what we yes.
Speaker 3: It's like when when Republicans, you know, Katie Britt did
Speaker 3: that weird deer in the headlights, you know, kind of
Speaker 3: creepy response to buy those insane But but the the
Speaker 3: goal at least you could see was let's put up
Speaker 3: a suburban looking mom because we're good with the NASCAR crowd. Like,
Speaker 3: we don't need another We don't we don't need to
Speaker 3: like up our share with them, and we've got other
Speaker 3: ways to reach them. This is our national audience. Let's
Speaker 3: show that we have normal suburban people who are not
Speaker 3: chaos agents. You know. She she happened to like completely
Speaker 3: botch that that moment, but you could see at least
Speaker 3: the thinking like, try to put somebody normal up there.
Speaker 3: And so Democrats to the rever like, what they need
Speaker 3: is like somebody who's going to reach outside of their tent,
Speaker 3: and instead they got like the person from Central casting
Speaker 3: inside there.
Speaker 1: It was very odd, all right. So I've got one here.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to some of Senator Sanders.
Speaker 6: Well, just give you a very few examples. Trump claimed
Speaker 6: that the twenty twenty election was stolen from him and
Speaker 6: that he won by a land I remember.
Speaker 3: That A lie.
Speaker 6: Trump claimed that the January sixth insurrection was a day
Speaker 6: of love.
Speaker 7: A lie.
Speaker 6: Trump has claimed that millions of undocumented people voted and
Speaker 6: do vote in American elections. A lie. Trump has claimed
Speaker 6: that climate change is a hoax originating in China. A lie.
Speaker 6: Trump has claimed that Ukraine started the horrific war with Russia.
Speaker 6: A lie, and tonight, just tonight, Trump claimed that millions
Speaker 6: of dead people between the ages of one hundred and
Speaker 6: three hundred and sixty. I guess we're collecting social Security checks.
Speaker 6: And that is an outrageous light intended to lay the groundwork,
Speaker 6: but cuts the Social Security and dismantling the most successful
Speaker 6: and popular government program in history.
Speaker 1: So what I find fascinating about that response is it's
Speaker 1: a mix of the greatest hits from MSNBC coupled with
Speaker 1: a little bit of Social Security, which actually is a
Speaker 1: good way to describe progressive liberalism.
Speaker 3: No offense, but it's right. Yeah, they hate Trump as
Speaker 3: much as you do. Why do you hate them so much? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like, you know, they are just liberals in
Speaker 1: many spons.
Speaker 3: Just really like social Security and they want you to
Speaker 3: be a little bit better off. Yeah, they want life
Speaker 3: to be a little less hard.
Speaker 1: I was I was fascinated by yeah, because I saw
Speaker 1: the summary here in the tweet, and I was like, huh.
Speaker 1: I was like, you know, in a way that can
Speaker 1: show you in a certain in a better sense for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. The reason why it would be more effective
Speaker 1: is you get all your MSNBC hits even mister Sanders
Speaker 1: is a huge Ukraine stand which is depressing for anybody
Speaker 1: who's been following for a long time. But you know,
Speaker 1: he's come full circle here for the A to Ukraine
Speaker 1: and all of that. So he's with you on a
Speaker 1: lot of the box checks. But he's a little bit
Speaker 1: better I think it conveying some of this, not that
Speaker 1: they will listen to him at all. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get to the Trump free speech, the free speech order
Speaker 1: or truth, whatever the hell that we're going to call it.
Speaker 1: It's pretty extraordinary, no matter what you have, no matter
Speaker 1: what you think, I'm gonna go ahead and load some
Speaker 1: of this up here. All right. So this is what
Speaker 1: we got here from Donald Trump, President of the United States,
Speaker 1: in a statement yesterday. All federal funding will stop for
Speaker 1: any college, school, or university that allows illegal protests. Agitators
Speaker 1: will be imprisoned and or permanently sent back to the
Speaker 1: country from which they came. American students will be permanently
Speaker 1: expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. No masks, thank
Speaker 1: you for your attention to this matter. Our the organization Fire,
Speaker 1: who have great and deep respect for says here in
Speaker 1: reaction free speech on college campus is a proud American
Speaker 1: tradition on public campuses protected by the First Amendment. President
Speaker 1: Trump's message this morning, combined with other recent executive orders,
Speaker 1: is deeply chilling. Peaceful protests isn't illegal, and the government
Speaker 1: must follow the First Amendment. Misconduct is not free speech
Speaker 1: and must be punished. The president can't force institutions to
Speaker 1: expel students. Students are entitled to due process on public
Speaker 1: college campuses and almost universally on private ones too. As
Speaker 1: Fire knows too well from our work in defending student
Speaker 1: and faculty rights under the Obama Biden administration, threatening schools
Speaker 1: with the loss of federal funding will result in a
Speaker 1: crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask
Speaker 1: questions later. Today's message casts an impermissible chill on student
Speaker 1: protests about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, paired with Trump's twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti Semitism. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, let me say one of the craziest things
Speaker 1: that I mean.
Speaker 3: Ye yeah, well you're on it. Let me add, at
Speaker 3: least to Phonic, who is now Trump's un representative. She says,
Speaker 3: she shared this and says under President Trump, colleges and
Speaker 3: universities will be held accountable. Anti Semitism and anti israel
Speaker 3: hate will not be tolerated on American campuses. Promises made,
Speaker 3: promises kept. And you know, she's in some ways going
Speaker 3: even even further than let's let's let's take the counter
Speaker 3: argument that I've seen a lot from supporters of this initiative.
Speaker 3: They say, look, universities are not entitled to federal funds,
Speaker 3: so it is it is up to the president if
Speaker 3: he wants to give So that is just a absolute, complete,
Speaker 3: fundamental miss understanding and really assault on the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: Glenn Greenwall was talking about this recently and he had
Speaker 3: a really good example that I think will help people
Speaker 3: understand why that's not the case, because and the First
Speaker 3: Amendment law is very clear a government doesn't have to
Speaker 3: offer universities funding, but if they decide to offer funding,
Speaker 3: they cannot punish individual universities exactly based on speech and
Speaker 3: a better way to understand. The example he came up
Speaker 3: with was let's say New York State has an unemployment policy.
Speaker 3: They are not required to give unemployment benefits to anybody,
Speaker 3: but if they do give unemployment benefits, it would be
Speaker 3: wildly unconstitutional for them to condition getting unemployment benefits on
Speaker 3: your support for the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Or race, or think about that, any violation of equal
Speaker 1: protection of First Amendment of the Constitution. Right, the government
Speaker 1: cannot disperse funds based on a capricious standard, doesn't it could?
Speaker 1: It could just not offer funds to anybody you end
Speaker 1: on employment, will stop funding universities? You can, Yeah, that
Speaker 1: you can do. But you can't say, all right, you
Speaker 1: over here are punished for anti Israel hate?
Speaker 3: Like who, right? What's anti and what? And this whole
Speaker 3: thing an illegal protest? What's an illegal protest? Like if
Speaker 3: if you break a law while you're protesting, you can
Speaker 3: be arrested for that, you can be expelled, you can
Speaker 3: be jailed. But but what is an illegal protest?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 3: The First Amendment doesn't just say free speech, It says
Speaker 3: the right to assembly and to petition your government for grievances.
Speaker 1: And why okay again, yeah, I'm sure this will get
Speaker 1: clicked out by my Zionist haters. Why should we care
Speaker 1: if people are quote anti Israel on campus?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 3: Why can be anti America? You can be anti Peru it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't love you know, if somebody is like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm anti America, okay, whatever, if you're aunt, yeah, anti Ukraine,
Speaker 1: anti Russia. You know how many Russia anti Russia protests,
Speaker 1: you pro Ukraine war protests that I walked by after
Speaker 1: the war broke out. You know, I totally disagree with
Speaker 1: these folks. Whatever, It's fine, it's free country.
Speaker 3: At the First Amendment. The First Amendment means you can
Speaker 3: be racist, you can be bigoted, you can be homophobic,
Speaker 3: you can be islamophobic. You know you can. You can
Speaker 3: be an awful person and say awful things and and
Speaker 3: those are the that's the speech that the First Amendment
Speaker 3: is intended to protect. If the First Amendment was only
Speaker 3: designed to protect uh, you know, thoughtful poetry that aligned
Speaker 3: with our own values, what use would it be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the problem here was also saying that American
Speaker 1: students will be permanently expelled. I mean the only part
Speaker 1: where I differ is, you know, everyone's like, oh, it's
Speaker 1: not free speech to say that foreign students will get deported.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, like, yeah, they have right to free speech,
Speaker 1: but like we also have the right to revoke their
Speaker 1: visa literally at it, like in terms of how we're
Speaker 1: allowed to do this, So I just think it's that
Speaker 1: one's different. But saying American students will get expelled, as
Speaker 1: in an American citizen will lose their access to a
Speaker 1: publicly funded university based upon their views of Israel is
Speaker 1: outrageous to me. If you were a taxpayer, if you're
Speaker 1: in a United States taxpayer, you live wherever you live,
Speaker 1: and you have paid ungodly amounts, you know, into the
Speaker 1: University of I live in Virginia, into the University of
Speaker 1: Virginia system, and you're going to police. What are you
Speaker 1: going to decide my admission or my attendance at your
Speaker 1: university based upon my constitutionally protected right to free speech?
Speaker 1: That is one of the most outrageous things that I
Speaker 1: could think of. I mean, Ryan, did they even go
Speaker 1: this far during Vietnam? Like, I really don't think so. No, No, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't even think they were, Like, but no, that's
Speaker 1: not the same. Yeah, And actually that was even decided.
Speaker 3: At the Supreme Court they couldn't do that. And we
Speaker 3: don't point we don't connect this that much either, But
Speaker 3: as we speak, Israel is cutting off electricity to Gaza,
Speaker 3: which is destroying the sanitation plants. Threatening to cut off
Speaker 3: water and in some some places cutting off water and
Speaker 3: is completely blocked all entry of food for days now
Speaker 3: into Gaza in an explicit attempt to get them to
Speaker 3: get a hamas to abrogate the ceasefire deal and reach
Speaker 3: a new deal. They are actively using it and admitting
Speaker 3: that they are using starvation of a civilian population for
Speaker 3: their negotiating purposes. What is an American student supposed to
Speaker 3: say about that? That is that is within the bounds
Speaker 3: of accepted speech according to a Leist Dephonic and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Right, and even then you know, everyone's like, oh, anti
Speaker 1: Zionism is anti summon. That's the part where it just
Speaker 1: drives me insane. I'm trying to think, what's a disputed territory, Like,
Speaker 1: what's like a disputed country?
Speaker 3: You go, Slobby Karabakarna Krbach.
Speaker 1: Great, yeah, great one because they actually resolved that question, right,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, literally right, it was resolved with Israeli support.
Speaker 1: Just so you're all, but Tom, it's one of those
Speaker 1: where uh if there were pro Actually, you and I
Speaker 1: live here in the d m V area. If you
Speaker 1: ever take a drive out in Embassy Row, you will
Speaker 1: see protests over the most obscure ship. You can imagine
Speaker 1: dar four. You know, over here you've got yeah, you said,
Speaker 1: nagarn O, Kara Bach. Over here, you've got some Kurds
Speaker 1: outside the Turkish embassy. Okay, whatever, Right, it's America, let
Speaker 1: it be uh, trust me, those embassies they hate it,
Speaker 1: but there's something they can do about it.
Speaker 3: With their video cameras trying to figure out who they
Speaker 3: are always punishing. Yeah, it's horrible.
Speaker 1: Remember when Aradawan visited DC, sent his bodyguards out to
Speaker 1: beat the ship out of a bunch of protesters. But
Speaker 1: like that's an example right where actually the government and
Speaker 1: the DC government actually up to him and we're like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that does not happen here. So we can have protests
Speaker 1: around Nagurano, Karabakh, around Kurtistan, around all of these other places.
Speaker 1: That's not considered hate. It's just a protest, okay, whatever.
Speaker 1: And you don't even have to like it. You know,
Speaker 1: you can find it annoying. You could find you know,
Speaker 1: I remember Rohinga protests. Right, you're in DC over the
Speaker 1: whole Burma Mayan mar thing. All of that is fine,
Speaker 1: and nobody at a national level is legislating trying to
Speaker 1: define or to outlaw it. It's literally only here where
Speaker 1: they're basically asking for the same snowflake treatment that so
Speaker 1: many of these dei BLM demands that happened. You know
Speaker 1: over the last eight years that these guys like Shapiro
Speaker 1: and then became filthy rich, decrying and now have nothing
Speaker 1: to say about it, if not actively cheering it, a
Speaker 1: huering it whenever it happens.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you've all Abraham, the Israeli journalist who won
Speaker 3: an Oscar Or the other day for the film No
Speaker 3: Other Land, in his speech, said that we need an
Speaker 3: end to ethnic supremacy in Israel. He called for an
Speaker 3: end to ethnic supremacy. So you've all Abraham would have
Speaker 3: been guilty at an American university of anti semitism according
Speaker 3: to this according to this definition. And I guess you know,
Speaker 3: he's an Israeli citizens, so we're not going to deport him,
Speaker 3: but maybe he would be Maybe if Columbia invited him
Speaker 3: to speak, they would then lose their they would lose
Speaker 3: their federal funding for heaven in Israeli who called for
Speaker 3: an end to ethnic supremacy. That's not americ It's.
Speaker 1: One of those It is so insane and a friend
Speaker 1: of the show, Michael Tracy Emily kept sharing this yesterday.
Speaker 3: Is a banger every now and then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's true, it's true GOP free speech. You can
Speaker 1: say retarded again, but you can't protest his.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's.
Speaker 1: Where we're at right now. And you know we also
Speaker 1: got to we can't left all RFK Junior off the hook.
Speaker 1: Yeah either, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3: And this is why credit K got you guys hammered
Speaker 3: him pretty good. And this when you guys had him
Speaker 3: on during the campaign, So our viewers would have did right.
Speaker 3: But at least at least people who watch this show
Speaker 3: are not surprised by what he just did.
Speaker 1: No, anyone who pays attention should not be surprised, literally
Speaker 1: at all. But yeah, you know that's where we are.
Speaker 1: So he Tracy again with the banger. You have to
Speaker 1: reread this statement a few times to appreciate how insane
Speaker 1: it is. RFK has accepted he has to give up
Speaker 1: on combating greenhouse gasts emissions. So the new greenhouse gas
Speaker 1: is anti Semitism, and he's going to rid America of
Speaker 1: this pestilence by building communities of trust that are based
Speaker 1: on speech freedom as he is announcing an intergovernmental initiative
Speaker 1: to regulate and punish the political speech that he right.
Speaker 3: So here's what RFK, well, should't shouldn't it? Shouldn't we
Speaker 3: cap shouldn't we cap it? And allow people to trade credits?
Speaker 1: Yeah, anti semitism credits. Yeah, that's a good, that's good.
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism, like racism, is a spiritual and immoralady that
Speaker 1: sickened societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history's
Speaker 1: deadliest plagues. In recent years, the censorship and false narratives
Speaker 1: of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities into
Speaker 1: greenhouses for this deadly and virtulent pestilence. Making America healthy
Speaker 1: again means building communities of trust and mutual respect based
Speaker 1: on speech, freedom and open debate. And the Task Force
Speaker 1: review is the first major action announced from the multi
Speaker 1: agency Task Force to combat Anti Semitism created by President Trump.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, obviously, by the way, I'm joking
Speaker 3: a little bit about that, the trading credits, but we
Speaker 3: actually already do have a market for anti semitism in
Speaker 3: this country, and the trade works like this. You've seen
Speaker 3: it happen a couple of times. Eli Musk has said
Speaker 3: straight up anti Semitic stuff, and then he will.
Speaker 1: You have spoken the actual truth?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah? Or no? Or yeah. If you spoken the
Speaker 3: actual truth, I'm a great replacement. Yes, it's like straight
Speaker 3: up unvarnished anti semitism. And the credit that you have
Speaker 3: to do then is you have to take your support
Speaker 3: for Israel up a couple higher notches and you have
Speaker 3: to suppress Palestinian voices. So Musk got on the call
Speaker 3: with Jonathan Greenblatt of ad L after he did this
Speaker 3: unvarnished anti semitism, and he agreed to de platform you know,
Speaker 3: a decent number of like pro Palestine voices, and green
Speaker 3: Blat said, all right, we have a deal. You're you're exonerated.
Speaker 3: He you know, he went to the Holocaust Museum, he
Speaker 3: visited Israel when he did.
Speaker 1: His Auschwitz with Ben Shapiro, and when he.
Speaker 3: Did when he did his quote unquote Roman salute. I
Speaker 3: forget exactly what he did to get grace from Yahoo,
Speaker 3: but it was some you know, he ratcheted up his
Speaker 3: support for Israel. So that's the trade that you do like.
Speaker 3: And so that on the right you're seeing this like
Speaker 3: you can do more anti Semitism, but you just have
Speaker 3: to support Israel that much harder.
Speaker 1: Right smart?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, uh? And guess what they they when when you're
Speaker 1: when you're sufficiently pro Israel, they let you do it.
Speaker 3: Uh in the words of a wise man, the words.
Speaker 1: Of a wise man. All right, Ryan, last thing here,
Speaker 1: you've got a c f p B update.
Speaker 3: What are you man? No this? So this, this one
Speaker 3: is extra outrageous. So it combines the debate over the
Speaker 3: CFPB and the the controversy around D banking. And maybe
Speaker 3: it may all play may have a play it in
Speaker 3: a minute, but probably everybody who's watching this heart has
Speaker 3: already seen the Zuckerberg clip on Rogan, that Mark Andrewsen
Speaker 3: clip on Rogan where Mark Andresen explains to him that
Speaker 3: the you know the problem with the Bida mainministration and
Speaker 3: the CFPP in particular is that it goes around you know,
Speaker 3: D banking conservatives for their ideological views, and the audience
Speaker 3: is just a gas that they would do this. Therefore,
Speaker 3: we need to get rid of the the cfp B.
Speaker 3: They subsequently do get rid of the CFPP. Now, what
Speaker 3: what people probably know is that you know, in December,
Speaker 3: you can put this up the CFPB past the rule,
Speaker 3: finalize the rule that they've been working on for many
Speaker 3: years and been getting pushback from big banks on the
Speaker 3: finalize the rule that would bar D banking, and not
Speaker 3: just from big banks but also from these digital payment apps.
Speaker 3: And they set the threshold at you have at least
Speaker 3: fifty million transactions. So the companies that this would pick
Speaker 3: up would be Venmo, PayPal, Google, pay Apple, pay zell,
Speaker 3: you know those types. Okay, So that rule, because the
Speaker 3: banks had fought it, didn't really get past, didn't really
Speaker 3: get implemented until the end of the by and era.
Speaker 3: What that means is that it can be attacked through
Speaker 3: what's called a CRA resolution to basically disapprove it. And
Speaker 3: so what do we have now? Let me let me
Speaker 3: put this up. Today at four o'clock in the United States,
Speaker 3: Senate Republicans will be pushing forward a bill to specifically
Speaker 3: repeal this D banking rule. So the argument was, and
Speaker 3: it also doesn't need it doesn't need sixty votes, it
Speaker 3: needs it only needs fifty. Yeah, because well, uh, this
Speaker 3: rule would also apply to Twitter and what's app. It
Speaker 3: would allow if if they start trading coin like right now,
Speaker 3: Twitter doesn't doesn't count because small businesses and other businesses
Speaker 3: are exempted. So like you know, Twitter does you know,
Speaker 3: work with what stripe to like pay it's its creators,
Speaker 3: but that doesn't get you under this rubric. But if
Speaker 3: Twitter starts allowing you to make payments person to person,
Speaker 3: they would be subject to this c IFB oversight. These companies, Zell, PayPal,
Speaker 3: all of these they don't they don't want they don't
Speaker 3: want this oversight. Cash app and so they've gone to
Speaker 3: Republicans and they have asked to have this this rule repealed.
Speaker 3: And the rule does two things. It's it's de banking
Speaker 3: is one, and the other is dispute resolution. Because there
Speaker 3: are laws in the books that say, if you're a
Speaker 3: financial institution, you have to easily let customers dispute transactions
Speaker 3: for obvious reasons. That's what we's what we as a
Speaker 3: public want. Like you look at something, you're like, that's fraud.
Speaker 3: I didn't do that. I want to be able to
Speaker 3: challenge it. And that is the law. But it's there's
Speaker 3: a gray area around whether or not these you know,
Speaker 3: PayPal has to abide by that law. And so this
Speaker 3: rule would be saying no PayPal, all these others venmoes
Speaker 3: like you have to abide by these rules. You can't
Speaker 3: debank people, and you have to have a dispute resolution
Speaker 3: for fraud, and obviously Denmo and PayPal, Zell these others,
Speaker 3: that's not in their interests. They want to be able
Speaker 3: to bank.
Speaker 1: Because for them, it's not about just about de banking.
Speaker 3: It's don't they want they want the freedom. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's right.
Speaker 1: I get to do whatever I want to do. It's like,
Speaker 1: don't you don't We don't need you knocking around in
Speaker 1: our code or whatever. You know, just tell us what
Speaker 1: reporting requirements are. We'll send you your ten ninety nine
Speaker 1: at the end of the year, but we don't need
Speaker 1: you looking around in our internal processes. And I mean,
Speaker 1: there's been so scammed. Yeah right, Yeah, I hope you
Speaker 1: don't get scammed. I hope, hope it worked out for
Speaker 1: you in terms of that. I mean, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't be the only person who's had just terrible
Speaker 1: experiences both with Venmo, PayPal or any of these other places.
Speaker 1: Whenever you actually are either trying to dispute a fransaction
Speaker 1: or my personal favorite was like buying something and they
Speaker 1: were like, oh, you've got to turn off. It's a
Speaker 1: business purchase, you need to turn on friends and family, right,
Speaker 1: because this is the type of stuff which applies to it.
Speaker 1: But now it would be making it easier for them
Speaker 1: to not even have to offer oversight to make sure
Speaker 1: that their customers and their users not only get scammed,
Speaker 1: but most importantly, that they have sovereign ability to decide
Speaker 1: your ability to transact. And that's very important in a
Speaker 1: digital ecosystem and payment system that the government has an
Speaker 1: absolute standard that nobody, no matter your political beliefs or whatever,
Speaker 1: is allowed to trans is going to be banned from
Speaker 1: being able to transact unless they are explicitly violating the
Speaker 1: lat that's the most important thing.
Speaker 3: And just for fun, let's do a little bit of
Speaker 3: mark injuries and posit you can't get insurance, like, none
Speaker 3: of that stuff is you've been sanctioned, right, none of
Speaker 3: that stuff is available.
Speaker 9: And then this administration extended that concept, apply it to
Speaker 9: tech founders, crypto founders, and then just generally political opponents. Yeah,
Speaker 9: so that's that's been like super pernicious.
Speaker 6: I wasn't aware of.
Speaker 9: One hundred percent, and it's called's operation trip point one
Speaker 9: point zero was fifteen years ago against the pot the
Speaker 9: guns point two point zero is primarily enemies and then
Speaker 9: to their disfavored tech startups, and it's hit the tech
Speaker 9: world like we've hard. We've had like thirty founders debanked
Speaker 9: in the last four yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: Well here's Mark Injuries and tech founders who have gotten debanked.
Speaker 3: Usually that's around some type of cartel activity or some
Speaker 3: weird crypto like scam that they were involved in and
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with the CMPB, but they but
Speaker 3: Injuries and and Zuckerberg and these others very cleverly used
Speaker 3: this like legitimate anger at the idea that conservatives could
Speaker 3: be debanked for ideological reasons and channeled it at somebody
Speaker 3: that they hate for their own reasons and successfully so
Speaker 3: far new this agency. And meanwhile, the de banking rule
Speaker 3: is going to get repealed I think this afternoon by
Speaker 3: Senate Republicans.
Speaker 1: Well, keep us updated, Ryan, this is why you're the goat.
Speaker 1: You're the person who cracks all of these things. Thank
Speaker 1: you to everybody. This was fun. I enjoyed doing the
Speaker 1: Virtual bro show. Let's give another pound for the camera
Speaker 1: and all of that. We will have a full breaking
Speaker 1: points show for everybody tomorrow so we will see you all.
Speaker 7: Then.
Speaker 3: Joining us this morning is doctor Adam Hammaway and Representative
Speaker 3: Bonnie Watson Coleman, the Democrat from New Jersey. Doctor Hammaway
Speaker 3: was was Representative Watson Coleman's guest at last night's State
Speaker 3: of the Union. He also returned from I believe your
Speaker 3: second trip to your second recent trip to a god's
Speaker 3: and medical mission about three weeks ago. So I wanted
Speaker 3: to start by asking you, doctor Hamile, we just kind
Speaker 3: of what it was what it was like to go
Speaker 3: from three weeks ago being and I believe you were
Speaker 3: having a difficult time, as is common for medical professionals
Speaker 3: who go on missions to gods, getting back out, what
Speaker 3: it was going, what it was like going from there
Speaker 3: and being kind of on the receiving end of us
Speaker 3: power and the unpleasant end of US power, to being
Speaker 3: in the in the in the hall of that power.
Speaker 3: What was the experience like for you last night?
Speaker 7: Well, last night was interesting, I mean it was it
Speaker 7: was disappointing to kind of see our democracy being like
Speaker 7: in a situation where we are the pinnacle basically of
Speaker 7: we're supposed to be leaders of this world, and I
Speaker 7: felt I was in a room filled with school children
Speaker 7: and you know, just uh, a bunch of psychophants just
Speaker 7: clapping at everything that's to be said, whether it makes
Speaker 7: sense or not. I mean, you know, there was a
Speaker 7: lot of things that are good and there's a lot
Speaker 7: of things that are bad, and if we can't discern
Speaker 7: between either one of them, then everything begins to fall apart.
Speaker 7: And it was very disappointing to see them.
Speaker 3: And Congress, can I get your kind of inside take
Speaker 3: a little bit on how Democrats decided that they were
Speaker 3: going to approach his speech?
Speaker 5: Was there?
Speaker 3: Did al Green say in a meeting, you know what,
Speaker 3: I'm going to stand up and shake my cane and
Speaker 3: let him know, or like, did leadership talk about protests,
Speaker 3: like how did that sort out? And what was your
Speaker 3: thinking about it?
Speaker 8: Yeah? Not in my presence did Agreen say that he
Speaker 8: was going to do what he did. Leadership just wanted
Speaker 8: us to be respectful.
Speaker 7: That is our house and to.
Speaker 9: Listen.
Speaker 8: Leadership knew that there would be some level of protests
Speaker 8: in some way, shape or form asket and not be.
Speaker 7: Terribly disruptive. And I think that.
Speaker 8: With the exception of the Algreen situation, which kind of
Speaker 8: got out of hand, But I certainly understand his emotion
Speaker 8: behind it. I think that things were put pretty orderly.
Speaker 8: We decided we were just going to sit quietly listen.
Speaker 8: Some of us had signs that spoke to either fixing
Speaker 8: something like medicaid or or saying false because the statement
Speaker 8: that the President was making rather frequently actually his statements
Speaker 8: were not accurate. But all in all, I think that
Speaker 8: given this moment, given the severity of the things that
Speaker 8: this administration has done and has proposed to do, I
Speaker 8: think Democrats did just fine.
Speaker 3: And doctor, you know, when when you get written about
Speaker 3: occasionally in the press sometimes for you know, being unable
Speaker 3: to leave Gaza, you will be You'll often be referred
Speaker 3: to as having kind of been the doctor that saved
Speaker 3: or worked on Senator Tammy Duckworth when when she had
Speaker 3: her helicopter crash in Iraq. And I'm curious if that,
Speaker 3: if a you were able to speak with her last night,
Speaker 3: do you stay in pretty close touch with her? And
Speaker 3: has that given you the ability to speak more directly
Speaker 3: to members of Congress about you know, what you've what
Speaker 3: you've seen on the ground, and does that just not
Speaker 3: matter now that Democrats are out of power and Trump
Speaker 3: is the one calling the shots.
Speaker 7: I mean, I wasn't able to see her yesterday. I
Speaker 7: think the uh. I mean, I'm proud of what I
Speaker 7: did and and you know, it's great that we have
Speaker 7: that relationship. But you know, my ability really to speak
Speaker 7: with anyone with with in Congress is there willingness to listen.
Speaker 7: So I I've been you know, back and forth here
Speaker 7: now many times over the last year, and I'll talk
Speaker 7: to anyone who'll sit down and have a conversation. So
Speaker 7: if they open their doors and they want to listen,
Speaker 7: whether they agree or not, I'll sit down and talk.
Speaker 7: And unfortunately, what I've been finding is that more and
Speaker 7: more doors are just closed. They don't want to heap
Speaker 7: them here. And that's unfortunate because that's not how we're
Speaker 7: going to learn or change or move forward if we're
Speaker 7: not able to listen.
Speaker 6: To each other.
Speaker 3: Can you what do you mean by the doors are closed?
Speaker 3: Like people are just they want to move past this
Speaker 3: entire situation, like.
Speaker 7: What They don't want to listen to what I have
Speaker 7: to say. They don't want to listen to my experience.
Speaker 7: They don't want to hear another opinion or thought about
Speaker 7: what's happening in Gaza or Israel.
Speaker 3: So what is what is the difference under this quote
Speaker 3: unquote ceasefire under which we've seen hundreds of people killed,
Speaker 3: But what is how would you describe the difference in
Speaker 3: your visit, your most recent mission compared to the one
Speaker 3: while the hot war, so to speak, was on.
Speaker 7: It was night and day. I mean it was night
Speaker 7: and day. I went in about a week after the
Speaker 7: ceasefire started, and you know, it was such a low
Speaker 7: bar to clear, is to stop dropping bombs on everyone.
Speaker 7: You know, still there's a lot of destruction there, there's
Speaker 7: a lot of shortages, there's a lack of resources, there's
Speaker 7: no electricity, there's no clean water, so conditions are relatively horrible.
Speaker 7: But compared to last year, it was, you know, like
Speaker 7: the sun just finally like shone on the place. And
Speaker 7: it's unfortunate that now as we speak, is that you know,
Speaker 7: already Israel's breaking the ceasefire and for the last two
Speaker 7: or three days there's been no humanitarian aid allowed to
Speaker 7: go in. And even since before this last two days,
Speaker 7: it's been even more difficult for doctors and nurses and
Speaker 7: healthcare workers to get into Israel and into the Gaza,
Speaker 7: to be able to provide that aid. They're making it
Speaker 7: more and more difficult. They're turning more people away, and
Speaker 7: they're giving even more restrictions. So this is you know,
Speaker 7: you know, this has been ongoing now for the last
Speaker 7: six weeks, even you know, to a higher degree than
Speaker 7: than before.
Speaker 3: And Israel had let in some additional supplies medical and
Speaker 3: food and others at the beginning of the quote unquote ceasefire.
Speaker 3: Did that have a noticeable impact on your working conditions
Speaker 3: in the hospital?
Speaker 7: Yes, I mean there was food that came in. Prices
Speaker 7: dropped tremendously, like ten times, like you know, for example,
Speaker 7: like some you know, one of the nurses was showing
Speaker 7: me like a bag of tomatoes and said that this
Speaker 7: bag of tomatoes last week cost fifty US dollars and
Speaker 7: now it's five and five is still a lot, but
Speaker 7: now it's at least affordable. And that's just food to
Speaker 7: be able to put on the table. So the you know,
Speaker 7: that aid that comes in is critical and it affects
Speaker 7: our care. I mean for people to be able to heal,
Speaker 7: they need to be able to eat and have nutriden
Speaker 7: and it's important. I mean, I got people were literally starving.
Speaker 7: You can see people that have lost like forty pounds,
Speaker 7: fifty pounds. You see their pictures and you can't recognize
Speaker 7: what they used.
Speaker 6: To look like.
Speaker 7: And the children they're just like you know, you know,
Speaker 7: you could see the amount nutrition everywhere you look. And
Speaker 7: now with Ramadon is even especially important because you know,
Speaker 7: people are having just one meal a day, and I'm
Speaker 7: sure with these new restrictions, those prices just jump right
Speaker 7: back up and people again can't even if there's food available,
Speaker 7: they can't buy what's on the market because the prices
Speaker 7: are so high.
Speaker 3: Did you treat any Palestinian captives who were released as
Speaker 3: part of the exchange and what kind of patients were
Speaker 3: you seeing this time versus last time?
Speaker 7: So I was I was not in a hospital that
Speaker 7: received the path at the CAP, but I did take
Speaker 7: care of a lot of patients that had, you know,
Speaker 7: back up, you know, were backed up from the last
Speaker 7: year and a half. A lot of children that were
Speaker 7: born with congenital deformities, cleft lifts and cleft palots over
Speaker 7: the last two years that hadn't received any care. A
Speaker 7: lot of the war injuries that you know, people received
Speaker 7: from shrapnel, contractus, scarring that needed revision surgeries to take
Speaker 7: care of. So it was more of a normal experience
Speaker 7: than what I had last year when it was just
Speaker 7: one trauma after the other, but still a tremendous amount
Speaker 7: of work that needed.
Speaker 3: To be done and represented Watson collmen. When you see this,
Speaker 3: you see Israel out breaking the ceasefire, it's threatening, you know,
Speaker 3: cutting off electricity, you know, using starvation as a as
Speaker 3: a as a weapon to try to extract additional concessions
Speaker 3: beyond what was originally agreed to. And you see Trump
Speaker 3: talking about building Trump Riviera in Gaza. Are you sensing
Speaker 3: any regret among your colleagues in Congress that they didn't
Speaker 3: do anything to stop this while they had the opportunity,
Speaker 3: And do they think it cost them politically? In other words,
Speaker 3: do they care? Are they just moving past this?
Speaker 7: You know?
Speaker 8: One of the reasons that I wanted the doctor to
Speaker 8: come and be my guest is because with so many distractions,
Speaker 8: with all the sort of evil eos and things like
Speaker 8: that that Trump was putting out in the Doge mess
Speaker 8: and the lies and all, and even the Ukraine stuff,
Speaker 8: all of a sudden we weren't hearing anything. After he
Speaker 8: talked about making Palestine the riviera of.
Speaker 7: The Middle East.
Speaker 8: We weren't hearing anything kind of doubled down on that,
Speaker 8: which is ridiculous. I thought it was really important to
Speaker 8: bring the doctor here again so that he could really
Speaker 8: talk about what's happening in real time there. I don't
Speaker 8: know what you mean when you say we could have
Speaker 8: made a difference. You know, obviously it wasn't. We were
Speaker 8: being assertive enough, from my perspective, to get Israel to
Speaker 8: back down at some point.
Speaker 7: Israel had a right to.
Speaker 8: Protect itself when this first went down, but we saw
Speaker 8: the kind of harshness that didn't seem to be necessary
Speaker 8: and didn't seem to move towards a two state solution
Speaker 8: or a peaceful solution. So that was very disappointing to me.
Speaker 8: Do I wish we had done more in that regard, Yes,
Speaker 8: but it's a very complicated issue. We had very stubborn
Speaker 8: leadership there in net In Yahoo didn't think he had
Speaker 8: to answer to anyone, And at the same time, I
Speaker 8: don't think that the United States was.
Speaker 7: Tough enough on him.
Speaker 8: To make him sort of change course a bit and
Speaker 8: be more willing to meet and to create some pathway
Speaker 8: to to safety and security. However, I don't believe that
Speaker 8: Hamas was legitimately willing to do that either, So I
Speaker 8: think that there was a distraction and dishonesty on both parts.
Speaker 3: Well, we've got to leave it there. We were going
Speaker 3: to talk a little bit longer. We just to let
Speaker 3: the let the viewers in on it. Democracy now wanted
Speaker 3: to speak with you and doctor Hammiwey as well, and
Speaker 3: we uh in independent media would like to be a
Speaker 3: little more collaborative than than competitive. So I want to
Speaker 3: let you go so you can get over and we're
Speaker 3: happy to have you on again. We can talk more
Speaker 3: at length about about all of this. So thank thank
Speaker 3: you doctor Hamiway, and thank you doctor Watson Coombe. Thank
Speaker 3: you Congressman Watson Coombe.