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. When do
Speaker 2: we have crystal?
Speaker 4: Indeed, we do.
Speaker 1: We have what I would describe us some actually kind
Speaker 1: of good news. Presidential debates are actually happening by through
Speaker 1: down the gauntlin Trump accepted, blah blah blah. Anyway, we'll
Speaker 1: get into all of that. RFK Junior also trying to
Speaker 1: get on the stage, even though they are very much
Speaker 1: aggressively trying to block in. Yeah, so there's a lot
Speaker 1: to discuss there and why this is all happening. We
Speaker 1: also have some extreme levels of cope that are happening
Speaker 1: over on both CNN, but in particular over at Morning Joe,
Speaker 1: over that New York Times CNA poll that we covered
Speaker 1: earlier this week, which is an absolute train wreck for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, so we will show you that. Also, some
Speaker 1: bad and also interesting news from overseas the Slovakian Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Robert Fico. He was shot in an attempted assassination effort.
Speaker 1: He is now appears to be recovering and on his
Speaker 1: way hopefully to full recovery, but extraordinary circumstances and a
Speaker 1: lot of indications about what might have been behind the
Speaker 1: motive for that attack.
Speaker 4: We'll get into that.
Speaker 1: Red Lobster is going bankrupt because Americans take all you
Speaker 1: can eat a little too seriously, Guys out there, when
Speaker 1: it came to shrimp, we were all in and Red
Speaker 1: Lobster was apparently not ready for that.
Speaker 3: We went too far. America's never been greater than it
Speaker 3: is today.
Speaker 4: Rip Red Lobster.
Speaker 1: We also have some additional, perhaps more significant corporate news,
Speaker 1: which is that Boeing could actually be facing criminal prosecution
Speaker 1: now after the government officially said a judge officially said
Speaker 1: that they had violated the consent decree that they had
Speaker 1: with the federal government that opens them up to all
Speaker 1: sorts of charges, in particular over those crowd that caused
Speaker 1: hundreds of fatalities a few years back. So we'll get
Speaker 1: into that and what that could mean. A lot of
Speaker 1: news coming out of Israel. Israel's Defense Minister Joev Galant
Speaker 1: really throwing down with bb Net and Yahoo will take
Speaker 1: you inside what that is all about and what it
Speaker 1: potentially means. By the way, the US siding with Uov Glant.
Speaker 1: We also have some horrifying images of how settlers beat
Speaker 1: a Palestinian truck driver because they suspected he might be
Speaker 1: bringing aid to Gaza. We also have an update on
Speaker 1: the Peer guys. Looks like the long anticipated and much
Speaker 1: vaunted Peer for Humanitarian Aid is actually complete. So what
Speaker 1: does that mean and what is that going to look
Speaker 1: like going forward? Break that down for you as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: Okay, Before we get to that, we have two important
Speaker 2: things first and foremost, Counterpoints had an amazing interview with
Speaker 2: Beto O'Rourke, former presidential candidate. Beto formerly no best known
Speaker 2: I think for standing on large services. Emily Ryan and
Speaker 2: him had an amazing discussion. So if you want to
Speaker 2: check that out, it's dropping to our premium subscribers early.
Speaker 2: And then this is a special message to our premium suscribers.
Speaker 2: I'm going to reiterate this and I'm going to ask
Speaker 2: the you pay attention. We have a major announcement coming.
Speaker 2: As we have said, you need to check your email
Speaker 2: on Sunday, all right, So Sunday, please check your email.
Speaker 2: And you know usually your guys are used to getting
Speaker 2: your AMA email. There's going to be something special inside
Speaker 2: of that. So that's for our premium subscribers only. Please
Speaker 2: take a listen. We will be sending you reminders and
Speaker 2: all of that. But if you hear this, just put
Speaker 2: that up in your head, put it.
Speaker 3: On your calendar and mark the date. Because something is coming.
Speaker 1: Make sure you check out that email. There will be
Speaker 1: some small action required from you, but I think you're
Speaker 1: going to be really excited about what you find there
Speaker 1: as well, and also with ours counterpoints in Beto, we
Speaker 1: haven't watched this one yet. Apparently Emily and Beta really
Speaker 1: got into it on immigration. Yes, yes, so I'm very
Speaker 1: very interested to see how that all went down.
Speaker 3: Absolutely right, Beta, Let's get to the debates.
Speaker 2: As Crystal said, so yesterday it was kind of a
Speaker 2: flurry of debate news. Clearly it was pre arranged at
Speaker 2: least some so President Joe Biden releasing a video from
Speaker 2: his campaign account taunting Donald Trump to a debate, but
Speaker 2: in different circumstances than you may have expected.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump loss two debates to me in twenty twenty
Speaker 5: since Sandy hadn't shown up for debate. Now e'xactly like
Speaker 5: he wants to debate me again. Will make my day, Pal.
Speaker 5: I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates. Donald,
Speaker 5: I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
Speaker 3: All right, you're free on Wednesdays. He's taunting him. The
Speaker 3: Biden malarkey energy is back. Uh the push up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look fat, look fat fat, frankly best moments. I THENK,
Speaker 2: so what does all this mean?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: This is I'm actually particularly excited about it because what
Speaker 2: this means actually and what you didn't hear there were
Speaker 2: some of the details. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. This was actually a letter that was sent
Speaker 2: at the very same time the release of that video
Speaker 2: from the Biden campaign to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Now,
Speaker 2: in this letter, President Biden and the campaign informs the
Speaker 2: CPD they will not be part ti dissipating in the
Speaker 2: Commission on Presidential Debates preset schedule. This is the organization
Speaker 2: which has run presidential debates since the ninety I think
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty after the League of Women Voters dropped out
Speaker 2: after they accused campaigns of coordinating with each other. In
Speaker 2: my opinion, it's always been a travesty. The Commission on
Speaker 2: Presidential Debates is basically run by the RNC and the DNC.
Speaker 3: It's totally rigged.
Speaker 2: It has established from politicians, it has all of these
Speaker 2: major fortune five hundred donors, and they have rigged the
Speaker 2: process to keep people out. And this basically shakes things
Speaker 2: up and makes thing a negotiation between the two campaigns
Speaker 2: as to how this is going to work. Now, there
Speaker 2: are some downsides to this, as we will get to
Speaker 2: with h RFK Junior. But some of the reasoning that
Speaker 2: they give here is that they believe that the Commission
Speaker 2: schedule has the debates begin after the American people have
Speaker 2: their first chance to cast votes early. That is true,
Speaker 2: especially because the third debate is well into late October two.
Speaker 3: This is interesting. I really want to hear what you
Speaker 3: have to say, Crystal.
Speaker 2: They say that the Commission model of building huge spectacles
Speaker 2: with large audiences at great expense is not necessary or
Speaker 2: conducive to good debates, And in it they say they
Speaker 2: don't want donors or a live audience, so they wanted
Speaker 2: to take place purely in a studio, a llah the
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty Nixon Kennedy debate or in modern times. I
Speaker 2: guess the last one that we've seen anything like this
Speaker 2: was the March of twenty twenty Joe Biden versus Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders debate that took place in the CNN studio with.
Speaker 3: No live audience.
Speaker 2: So the third and the final one is that they're
Speaker 2: still very upset with the Commission over COVID and handling
Speaker 2: of COVID, basically saying that they allowed Trump to attend
Speaker 2: the first debate while he attended COVID.
Speaker 1: That's way true, and I think that's fair. It's probably
Speaker 1: he could have very easily killed Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: There's a one I will take. I'll take it because
Speaker 2: now the Commission is dead. This is a terrible antiquated tradition.
Speaker 2: The two campaigns now have agreed to two dates. Let's
Speaker 2: put that up there on the screen. The first and
Speaker 2: foremost was from CNN. This will be the our first
Speaker 2: presidential debate June twenty seventh at nine pm. No audience
Speaker 2: moderators have now been announced. It's Dana Bash and Jake
Speaker 2: Tappert and they will live stream on CNN and I
Speaker 2: guess on HBO Max.
Speaker 3: That's going to be a.
Speaker 4: Great Israel conversation that they lead there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, Well, we'll separate the moderator stuff. But
Speaker 2: I'm curious what you think specifically about the audience thing
Speaker 2: and why Biden is insisting on that.
Speaker 1: Okay, So on the audience thing, I do actually think
Speaker 1: it's better not to have the audience in the room,
Speaker 1: because I mean it does just sort of like stack
Speaker 1: the deck depending on and oftentimes as a sort of
Speaker 1: indicated there, who you'll have in the audience is like
Speaker 1: the big donors for the campaigns. They have a very
Speaker 1: different agenda than the rest of America. That came out
Speaker 1: a lot actually in twenty sixteen. Remember in the Republican debates,
Speaker 1: Well and Trump would like directly call out like, oh yeah, well,
Speaker 1: those are Jebstoners basically in the audience. That's why they
Speaker 1: think that way. So I think it's better just not
Speaker 1: to have the audience so that people at home have
Speaker 1: more of an opportunity just to judge for themselves without sharing, booing,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and an audience that may be clearly slanted
Speaker 1: one way or another. So on the audience thing, I
Speaker 1: think that's right.
Speaker 3: I guess I'm a.
Speaker 1: Little more ambivalent about the destruction of the Presidential Debate
Speaker 1: Commission because now it's like, Okay, well, instead of them
Speaker 1: rigging it, it's the two candidates themselves colluding.
Speaker 4: To rig it. So is that really better?
Speaker 1: I don't really know if it's better or worse or whatever,
Speaker 1: but I'm just glad that there are agreeing.
Speaker 4: To some debates because there was a massive question.
Speaker 1: I mean, there is still a lot of logic to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden not doing these debates. I think he's doing
Speaker 1: it because basically he's down. He saw that after his
Speaker 1: State of the Union performance, it was good enough that
Speaker 1: he appeared to get a little bit of a temporary
Speaker 1: bump in the polls, and so I think he realizes that,
Speaker 1: you know, if he has an opportunity, actually performs well
Speaker 1: and exceeds expectations. And again we're not talking about him
Speaker 1: being like, you know, the best debater of all time,
Speaker 1: but the expectations for him are so low that if
Speaker 1: he can surpass those very minimal on the floor expectations,
Speaker 1: that may and ure to his benefit. But you know,
Speaker 1: the speculation is that the the timing of the debates
Speaker 1: is also very intentional on his part, because it's on
Speaker 1: the one hand, Okay, get the opportunities to show like
Speaker 1: I'm not going to just literally like collapse and die
Speaker 1: on the stage, and I can formulate at least like
Speaker 1: half coherent sentences. On the other hand, if it doesn't
Speaker 1: go well, there's a lot of time between these debates
Speaker 1: and when the bulk of the people will actually vote,
Speaker 1: so that I can hopefully recover from any potential disasters
Speaker 1: from the debate performance. That's kind of the theory that's
Speaker 1: out there. I think Nate Silver and others were floating
Speaker 1: that I basically buy into that.
Speaker 4: I think that makes some logical, like straightforward sense.
Speaker 3: It makes some sense.
Speaker 2: I mean I went back and I re reviewed all
Speaker 2: of the political science. I mean, there's just basically no
Speaker 2: evidence that these debates matter. And what's actually even more
Speaker 2: interesting is that whatever moments the media decides are the.
Speaker 3: Game changing moments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, even back to the eighties and the monoculture moment,
Speaker 2: they're like those have no impact on it.
Speaker 1: They usually have a temporary impact on the poles and then.
Speaker 2: And then it reverts right back to where it is,
Speaker 2: and it turns out it all comes back to fundamentals.
Speaker 2: And especially in a more partisan age like where we
Speaker 2: are right now, very few undecided voters, and a lot
Speaker 2: of the data on undecided voters is that they don't
Speaker 2: particularly make up their minds on debates. Let me, like
Speaker 2: I said, I still think debates are very important.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and they're important not just because of what they
Speaker 1: mean for the horse race. But part of why Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has felt pressure, for example, to at least do
Speaker 1: something on student loan debt is because he had to
Speaker 1: make those promises on a stage in the debates. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is other political science that shows as much as
Speaker 1: these people break promises left and right, they are more
Speaker 1: likely to follow to actually follow up and do something
Speaker 1: if they've promised it on the campaign trail, if they've
Speaker 1: promised it on debate stage. So it doesn't just matter
Speaker 1: for like who's up or whose doubt or how to
Speaker 1: voters feel about these candidates, It can actually matter more
Speaker 1: for governance, which is even more important. And not to mention,
Speaker 1: you know, transparency, and I would make I just want
Speaker 1: to offer the countercase for why it could be different
Speaker 1: this time and the debates could actually be more significant
Speaker 1: and meaningful, which is, we have a very unique circumstances
Speaker 1: circumstance which is one of the primary concerns about Joe
Speaker 1: Biden voters is is this man even.
Speaker 4: Capable of doing the job?
Speaker 1: So it's you know, there are also obviously problems with
Speaker 1: him on policy, economics, Israel, et cetera. But one of
Speaker 1: the core concerns is just like can he do it?
Speaker 1: And so because that is, in a very unique way,
Speaker 1: a central issue and concern in this campaign, I think
Speaker 1: perhaps the debates could be more impactful and more meaningful
Speaker 1: than they have been other times because the circumstances are
Speaker 1: so distinct and so unusual.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's put the next
Speaker 2: one up there on the screen. In terms of what
Speaker 2: the other debate is going to be, Trump says, it
Speaker 2: is my great honor to accept the CNN debate. He says, likewise,
Speaker 2: I accept ABC News debate against Crooked Joe on September tenth.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Donald Trump. So there we have it. June
Speaker 3: twenty seventh and September tenth.
Speaker 1: Now, Trump seemed like he was trying to push for
Speaker 1: another third debate on Fox News.
Speaker 4: Do you know what's going on with that?
Speaker 2: So there is a third debate that was proposed by
Speaker 2: Fox and by Trump. Trump obviously wants to do as
Speaker 2: many debates as possible. Last time around, he actually I
Speaker 2: wanted to add a fourth debate even because he had
Speaker 2: to skip the second one over COVID. This time around,
Speaker 2: he wants to do actually, as far as I know
Speaker 2: and understand, he wants to do literally as many as
Speaker 2: Biden is up for, which is kind of interesting in
Speaker 2: terms of the challenge that is being thrown down now.
Speaker 2: As you said, Biden has not committed to that Fox debate.
Speaker 2: It's very very unlikely that he will do so. He
Speaker 2: said in that video, I will only do two debates.
Speaker 2: Both of those the justification for the campaign, as there before,
Speaker 2: early voting actually starts in all of them. So the
Speaker 2: September twenty seventh debate likely to be the most consequential
Speaker 2: of any if it is so. The ABC News debate
Speaker 2: will also stream live on all platforms and will be
Speaker 2: available to others, while CNN in peak CNN form is
Speaker 2: keeping it confined to the CNN universe. They won't allow
Speaker 2: others to stream enter any of that, so there will
Speaker 2: be more widely available. We'll see exactly what happens now.
Speaker 2: We would be remiss if we didn't talk here about
Speaker 2: RFK Junior. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: There's some confusion right now. So RFK Junior's initial response
Speaker 2: is that President Trump and Biden are including to lock
Speaker 2: America into a head to head matchup. Seventy percent of
Speaker 2: people say they do not want They're trying to exclude
Speaker 2: me from their debate because they're afraid that I would win.
Speaker 2: Keeping viable candidates off the stage undermines democracy. Forty three
Speaker 2: percent of Americans ide him independence. By excluding me from
Speaker 2: the stage, President Biden and Trump seek to avoid discussion
Speaker 2: of their eight years of mutual failure, including deficits, wars, lockdowns,
Speaker 2: chronic disease, and inflation.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing.
Speaker 2: Late last night, he then puts out a tweet where
Speaker 2: he says, I am happy to report I will meet
Speaker 2: the criteria to participate in the CNN debate before the
Speaker 2: June twentieth deadline. I look forward to holding President Biden
Speaker 2: and Trump accountable for their records in Atlanta on June
Speaker 2: twenty seven, to give Americans the debate that they deserve.
Speaker 2: So this brings us back to what the CNN debate
Speaker 2: qualifications actually are. Can we put a three please back
Speaker 2: on the screen so that I can explain a little
Speaker 2: bit of this. So CNN's announcement says that to qualify
Speaker 2: for participation, candidates must fulfill outline in Article two, Section
Speaker 2: one of the Constitution. They must file a statement of
Speaker 2: candidcy with the FEC. A candidate's name must appear on
Speaker 2: a sufficient number of state ballots to reach two hundred
Speaker 2: and seventy electoral vote threshold to win the presidency, and
Speaker 2: they must agree to accept the rules in the format.
Speaker 2: And they must receive fifteen percent in four separate national
Speaker 2: polls or of registered or likely voters that meet CNN
Speaker 2: standards of reporting. Now, the fifteen percent threshold is not
Speaker 2: going to be difficult for RFK Junior. It's the two
Speaker 2: seventy ballot access initiative that matters the most. But the
Speaker 2: big question, Crystal is if RFK Junior does qualify, are
Speaker 2: they going to rig the rules?
Speaker 3: Is Biden going to pull out?
Speaker 2: Is Trump going to pull out because both Trump and
Speaker 2: Biden have made it very clear they do not want
Speaker 2: him there on the stage, and so I foresee some
Speaker 2: chicanery somewhere. If I had to guess, it'll be that
Speaker 2: he has enough ballots to qualify for the ballot. But
Speaker 2: like let's say, maybe he has officially you know, the
Speaker 2: state sector sector and state hasn't signed it, so they'll
Speaker 2: use that as a pretext. But I mean, he's got
Speaker 2: California and textas already. That's like one hundred electoral votes
Speaker 2: right there. You don't need a lot more. He's got
Speaker 2: to get on in the big states, New York, you know, Ohio,
Speaker 2: a few others, and you're there, You're at two seventy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean he should be on the stage, Like
Speaker 1: that's the point. Obviously, it's incredibly consequential. He could be
Speaker 1: determinative in terms of this election. He has demonstrated, you know,
Speaker 1: significant levels of support, especially for a third party candidate.
Speaker 1: He absolutely am the interest of democracy should be on
Speaker 1: the stage. Will he be on the stage, highly doubt it.
Speaker 1: I doubt it because they thought they were rigging these
Speaker 1: rules to preclude him from having any chance of making
Speaker 1: it on apparently not that good at math, right, and listen,
Speaker 1: I think he still has I think it's still reached
Speaker 1: for him to get there by June twentieth, even you know,
Speaker 1: by those standards. And that's because the two parties have
Speaker 1: also colluded to make it very difficult to get ballot
Speaker 1: access in these states, you.
Speaker 4: Know, in New York.
Speaker 1: Jill Stein, doctor Jill Stein, was telling us that New
Speaker 1: York actually just passed a law to make it even
Speaker 1: more more difficult in New York to get on the
Speaker 1: ballot there. Obviously that's a massive electoral prize in terms
Speaker 1: of the number of delegates that you get there. So yeah,
Speaker 1: they've the two parties have colluded to make it very
Speaker 1: very difficult to get on these ballots, and then they
Speaker 1: use that collusion to also collude with CNN to try
Speaker 1: to block any third party candidates from being on the stage.
Speaker 1: Because listen, it shouldn't just be Cornell west On, I mean,
Speaker 1: it shouldn't just be RFK Junior on the stage.
Speaker 4: I think Jill Stein should be there.
Speaker 1: And I think if Cornell west is able to you know,
Speaker 1: get on a significant number of ballots, I think he
Speaker 1: should be there as well.
Speaker 4: In the interest of you know, having a wide range.
Speaker 1: Of who's out there and people really having a choice
Speaker 1: and feeling like they're able to evaluate different positions from
Speaker 1: these different candidates. You know, on an issue like Israel, RFK,
Speaker 1: Trump and Bien are all like basically the same. So
Speaker 1: nice to have another candidate there to offer a different vision.
Speaker 1: And they're going to be aligned with CNN too, by
Speaker 1: the way, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. So in any case,
Speaker 1: the more democracy the better. That's why I'm a little
Speaker 1: ambivalent about like the end of the Presidential Debate Commission
Speaker 1: because listen, I mean, they would probably do the same thing.
Speaker 1: They probably also don't really want RFK Junior up on
Speaker 1: the stage, but there'd be a little bit more of
Speaker 1: a sense of like, these are the rules, we've splayed
Speaker 1: them down, everyone has to follow them, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: versus this just just two campaigns negotiating for their own benefit.
Speaker 4: So, like you said, there's trade.
Speaker 3: Offs, I agree. The main thing is that it's structural.
Speaker 2: Structural, So for example, the Commission on Presidential Debates officially
Speaker 2: has as it's two members, the rn C and the DNC.
Speaker 3: That's nuts to me.
Speaker 2: You can't literally allow the two parties to be the
Speaker 2: only ones to negotiate. Now, I again, this is why
Speaker 2: I celebrated when the RNC pulled out of the Commission,
Speaker 2: and not to mention that the commercials and the sponsors
Speaker 2: for it are like rat They're like, all these Fortune
Speaker 2: five hundred companies is grotesque.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to look at it.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, to this date, Crystal they have
Speaker 2: millions and millions of dollars of unspent money in their conference.
Speaker 3: What do you think they're using that for?
Speaker 2: And that's where I think the Biden people are correct
Speaker 2: in this certain sense. It's like a self perpetuating machine
Speaker 2: where you donate to the Commission, then you get to
Speaker 2: attend the Commission on Presidential debates, and that's why you have.
Speaker 3: All these big donors and billionaires.
Speaker 2: And I mean, who can't forget, like all the spectacles
Speaker 2: of the famous people who are in the audience. So yeah,
Speaker 2: the more that we just get rid of it, and
Speaker 2: if we have more debates, now I agree, in the
Speaker 2: short term, it's not great, right, Like, what do campaigns do.
Speaker 2: The reason the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the
Speaker 2: events are the Campaigns Debates was because the two campaigns,
Speaker 2: I think do I forget exactly who it was they
Speaker 2: were found to be colluding with each other, and the
Speaker 2: league was like, we're not going to deal with that.
Speaker 2: They're like, we have debates where we get to ask,
Speaker 2: you know, the best questions, and if you go back
Speaker 2: and you watch them, they were so much better. So
Speaker 2: all I'm saying is this just make things a lot
Speaker 2: more interesting and possible. The other thing is that the
Speaker 2: mainstream media should be freaking out about this because they
Speaker 2: basically had a collusion with the CPD where you get
Speaker 2: to live cast everything on their networks, and obviously they
Speaker 2: could sell ad time and all these other things, and
Speaker 2: they're anchors were the ones who are always considered.
Speaker 3: So this shake things up to basically.
Speaker 2: Allow and not disqualify the future candidates from participating in
Speaker 2: whatever forms that they want. So it's going to be
Speaker 2: a lot more like the nineteen seventies and eighties where
Speaker 2: people can just do anything, and in general I think
Speaker 2: that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: Maybe, I mean, it seems to me like we need
Speaker 1: to have just like major reform of the Presidential Debate
Speaker 1: Commission where it's truly independent, where it's not just you know,
Speaker 1: a tool of the RNC and the DNC and big donors,
Speaker 1: where there's legislation that compels these candidates to have to debate,
Speaker 1: because I think in the interest of democracy and all
Speaker 1: of us being able to evaluate our choices, I think
Speaker 1: that that should be mandatory, not just the presidential level,
Speaker 1: but at all level. If you're seeking off as a
Speaker 1: very minimal that you should have to do is like
Speaker 1: present yourself to the voters and debate your opponent and
Speaker 1: like take seriously the democratic process. But obviously we're a
Speaker 1: long way from that. So is this an improvement.
Speaker 4: I don't know. We'll see, We'll see how it all
Speaker 4: shakes out.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, in general, I'm excited. I'm glad that they're
Speaker 2: actually going to do it.
Speaker 4: That I'm glad about.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The one last thing that I'll say in terms of
Speaker 1: how this will go, because I mean, the obvious assumption
Speaker 1: is that Trump is going to be better debater than
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. I think that's a very fair assumption. But
Speaker 1: let's just remember that last time around that was also
Speaker 1: the assumption, and Trump was such an asshole in the
Speaker 1: first debate.
Speaker 4: It wasn't because Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Did well, but Trump was such a like I think
Speaker 1: he must have been taken something for COVID.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: He was such a jerk and so like, you know,
Speaker 1: just constantly cutting Joe Biden off, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: that he really ruined his own prospects there and was
Speaker 1: widely seen, I think accurately so as having lost that debate.
Speaker 1: So it's not a foregone conclusion that this is going
Speaker 1: to be better for Trump.
Speaker 2: I saw someone say we are going to see Manhattan
Speaker 2: Project levels of presidential stimulants for both of these kings.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I'm already working on the cocktail.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, whatever that cocktail is, let
Speaker 2: me know, I want to take it all right, like
Speaker 2: I fire me up, put it in both of the veins,
Speaker 2: and I'll take it before we start.
Speaker 1: On Trump's that whatever they gave him before that debate.
Speaker 1: They need to dial that about eighty percent because there
Speaker 1: was way too much.
Speaker 2: You gotta check that out, man. I would love to
Speaker 2: be in the in the in the room. It's gonna
Speaker 2: be like medafinil.
Speaker 4: Adderall like all the chemists. The chemists are going wild.
Speaker 2: You're gonna they're gonna have like little drip beakers and things.
Speaker 3: So it's gonna be it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 1: So we have additional campaign news as we covered earlier
Speaker 1: this week New York Times Siana pole which came out,
Speaker 1: which is I mean, this is considered one of the
Speaker 1: sort of like gold standard polls, and it was an utter,
Speaker 1: incomplete disaster for Joe Biden. He was losing in almost
Speaker 1: every battleground state. He was losing by double digits in Nevada.
Speaker 1: What was it thirteen points, yes, thirteen that he was
Speaker 1: losing by in Nevada when you drilled in it was
Speaker 1: because young people, African Americans, Latinos were all fleeing his campaign.
Speaker 1: Just I mean, there was no way to spit in
Speaker 1: this thing as remotely positive for him. But morning Joe
Speaker 1: decided they would go ahead and try. Let's listening to
Speaker 1: what Joe Scarborough had to say and his incredible cope
Speaker 1: with regards to the poll.
Speaker 6: Where are the polls talking us directionally about the race?
Speaker 6: I understand there's a difference though with the New York
Speaker 6: Times Siena poll. And you know this, it's given disproportionate
Speaker 6: impact this year this cycle. It is skewed wildly and
Speaker 6: Donald Trump's direction hold on, and the New York Times
Speaker 6: feasts on it with clickbait stories like a dozen at
Speaker 6: a time. And I and what I'm trying to focus
Speaker 6: on is what I think people should pay attention to.
Speaker 6: But what I'm trying to focus on is New York
Speaker 6: Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles. Where
Speaker 6: this poll comes out on a Sunday and on Monding,
Speaker 6: people go oh, and I heard it, And I'm sitting
Speaker 6: there going, oh, don't be so stupid. That's why we're
Speaker 6: doing this, So hold on, sacond hold on, no, no,
Speaker 6: hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls
Speaker 6: come out every time New York Times fall is oh, well,
Speaker 6: everything that Joe Biden's done since the since the the
Speaker 6: State of the Union address, all of these all this
Speaker 6: money that he's put out, all of the.
Speaker 3: Campaigning is for not.
Speaker 6: No, it's not, no, it's not There's one pole that's
Speaker 6: wildly skewed. Every time after every New York Times Siena
Speaker 6: pole comes out, it completely changes the political battlefield out
Speaker 6: there for about a week, week and a half. It
Speaker 6: distorts the questions that are asked of the White House.
Speaker 6: It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump.
Speaker 6: It distorts all of the opinion, It distorts everything, and
Speaker 6: that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And
Speaker 6: then finally about two weeks later, after the residue of
Speaker 6: The New York Times, Siena pole leaves people go, oh,
Speaker 6: I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then
Speaker 6: two weeks later it comes out again and it's garbage.
Speaker 2: Speaking of drugs that people are taking. I would like
Speaker 2: to take that. I actually love that. Imagine living in
Speaker 2: that fantasy.
Speaker 4: Imagine.
Speaker 1: Okay, The allegation here is that The New York Times
Speaker 1: is actually cooking the books in favor of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and putting out what Joe's Carbon describes as click bait
Speaker 1: articles to shape the cut, like imagine think the New
Speaker 1: York Times is in the tank for Donald Trump, Like
Speaker 1: it's completely insane. And then just factually he's asserting, oh,
Speaker 1: we know that this is gard.
Speaker 4: We know it's wildly skewed.
Speaker 1: Get No, last time in twenty twenty, it was skewed
Speaker 1: in the other direction. It wildly overstated Joe Biden's support
Speaker 1: versus Donald Trump. Maybe things have changed, we don't know.
Speaker 1: Other poles have gone another possible. But to just dismiss
Speaker 1: this like, oh, don't be ridiculous. And here's the other thing,
Speaker 1: Sagar is he's pretending like these are outliers. That's the problem.
Speaker 1: This is not an outlier. Now, some of the national
Speaker 1: polling has been okay for Joe Biden. Some have even
Speaker 1: had him up by a few points, some have had
Speaker 1: it tied, some have had him down by you know,
Speaker 1: a little bit, but within the margin of error.
Speaker 4: But every single battleground.
Speaker 1: Pole that I've seen recently, maybe there's some out there
Speaker 1: that I haven't seen, but the battleground poles have consistently
Speaker 1: been bad for Joe Biden. And to just like dismiss
Speaker 1: that is incredible. But that's the White House is apparently
Speaker 1: in this delusional state as well, where they don't believe
Speaker 1: the polls. They're in like hashtag unskew the polls mode.
Speaker 1: They don't think these accurately reflect his support. And so
Speaker 1: even though you know, everyone looking at this objectively would
Speaker 1: be like, you're not in a good position right now,
Speaker 1: they're just staying the course.
Speaker 4: They think it's all well and good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: So I'm looking, for example, at the battlegrounds and the
Speaker 2: RCP polling average in every single battleground state has Trump leading.
Speaker 2: His lowest margin is in the state of Wisconsin at
Speaker 2: point six. In Arizona, the average is five point two.
Speaker 3: For his lead.
Speaker 2: In Georgia, the average is four point six. In Michigan
Speaker 2: point eight, in Pennsylvania two points, in North Carolina five,
Speaker 2: and in Nevada six point two.
Speaker 3: So that's the thing.
Speaker 2: It's not about the New York Times now again, as
Speaker 2: you just said, and this would be a more accurate
Speaker 2: freak out. Hey, guys, in twenty twenty two, they were
Speaker 2: totally wrong. And so you know what, We're just going
Speaker 2: to keep doing what we're doing, and we're going to
Speaker 2: hope for abortion. We're going to show a little bit
Speaker 2: more vigor. You know, he should be happy that Biden
Speaker 2: is doing the debate. He's like, yeah, there you go,
Speaker 2: Like that's the Joe that we need.
Speaker 3: And you know, that's not a terrible case. I could
Speaker 3: make that case.
Speaker 2: I think there's roughly fifty percent chance that that could
Speaker 2: be true.
Speaker 3: You know, I have enough, I'm humble enough.
Speaker 2: To have been here in our studio on the midterms
Speaker 2: and just seeing things so shockingly wrong that you can't
Speaker 2: state anything with any confidence now though, as Heyloman was
Speaker 2: trying to say, he's like, look, we're just trying to
Speaker 2: get indicators about the way things are going, and in
Speaker 2: general I would not be comfortable with where they are.
Speaker 2: But the problem is is that Scarborough and Biden are
Speaker 2: actually comfortable where they are. And what kind of politician
Speaker 2: is that? Maybe it will work out for you, but
Speaker 2: that's not how you achieve victory.
Speaker 1: Well, I think if I had to say, Biden, I
Speaker 1: think actually believes because they they gained this perspective in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty that like everyone online is wrong and we
Speaker 1: know better and it's all find good And even after
Speaker 1: they got their butts kicked in Iowa and got their
Speaker 1: butts kicked in New Him, they still were like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's going to be It's gonna be okay. And it
Speaker 1: turned out to be correct because you know, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, like there was no other candidate
Speaker 1: in the sort of like you know, centrist, mainstream lane
Speaker 1: who had any appeal with diverse voters, and you know,
Speaker 1: the whole party coalesce behind Joe and they're able to
Speaker 1: stay about the Bernie Sanders movement and.
Speaker 4: Worked out for him.
Speaker 1: So they took that as an indication of like, no,
Speaker 1: everything is always going to be fine, like the freak
Speaker 1: outs and the online chatter and what the media class
Speaker 1: has to say, Like none of this has any veracity
Speaker 1: ever whatsoever. We're just going to assume that it's twenty
Speaker 1: twenty and it's the Democratic primary all over again, and
Speaker 1: we're just fine. And they don't get it, and we
Speaker 1: get it and they're freaking out and they're panicking, but
Speaker 1: really everything's fine. I think they overlearned that lesson, and
Speaker 1: so now even as more and more data points come
Speaker 1: in that clearly indicate you're down thirteen points in Nevada,
Speaker 1: and you're like, it's all cool and good. Even if
Speaker 1: you have even the pull is off by half, you're
Speaker 1: still getting your butt kicked in the state that you
Speaker 1: won pretty easily last time around. So you're just gonna
Speaker 1: dismiss all of that and pretend like that's all fine.
Speaker 1: So I think the Biden people, Joe Biden himself, because
Speaker 1: we'll get to this axis report in a minute, but
Speaker 1: there are some people in his camp who are like,
Speaker 1: we're kind of nervous, I'm worry maybe we should do something.
Speaker 1: But he himself in the other top brass are like, no,
Speaker 1: we're good, It's all fine.
Speaker 4: Like I think they actually live in that delusional world.
Speaker 1: I think Scarborough is just saying what his audience wants
Speaker 1: to hear, and also what Joe Biden wants to hear,
Speaker 1: because he wants to maintain his position. Is Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: like favorite MSNBC anchor and stay in good graces with
Speaker 1: the White House. I guarantee you he had a call
Speaker 1: with someone in Biden World who was pushing exactly this
Speaker 1: line of messaging, and he's just parroting it because it
Speaker 1: feels good to the MSNBC audience, and it feels good
Speaker 1: to his audience of one, a term we used to
Speaker 1: use in the Trump years.
Speaker 3: All the time.
Speaker 1: Biden Biden is his own audience of one for Joe Scarborough.
Speaker 1: And so I think he's getting this directly from White
Speaker 1: House and putting it out to an audience that is.
Speaker 4: Incredibly were so it was desperate to hear.
Speaker 1: This kind of nonsense analysis and fantasy world prognostication.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 2: So I have here in front of me the results
Speaker 2: from Nevada. Joe Biden won fifty percent of the vote
Speaker 2: and Donald Trump got forty seven percent, so he won
Speaker 2: it by roughly three The polls at that time, back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty, even when they understated Trump's support on
Speaker 2: the eve of the election, had Joe Biden winning approximately
Speaker 2: by four to five percent.
Speaker 3: Okay, so there you go. I mean we share with
Speaker 3: in the realm comfortable.
Speaker 7: Here.
Speaker 2: There's another guy, John Rawston, who I know, you know,
Speaker 2: Crystal kind of the Nevada political guru. He did a
Speaker 2: whole ride up of this and he said, I think
Speaker 2: these are bad results for Joe Biden. And he even
Speaker 2: warned that the same New York Time poll that found
Speaker 2: Jackie Rosen leading in the Senate race, he goes, there's
Speaker 2: no way a split ticket.
Speaker 3: The split ticket.
Speaker 2: Phenomenon that we have seen in the past just simply
Speaker 2: does not match up with this. And if I was Rosen,
Speaker 2: I would be freaking out.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And that's the other thing we're learning is that Biden
Speaker 2: is actually dragging Democrats down on the ticket exactly. If
Speaker 2: you take him out of the equation, they're actually doing
Speaker 2: pretty well.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's the opposite of the Obama phenomenon, right.
Speaker 1: Because so they want to take these results seriously from
Speaker 1: the New York Times when it comes to the Senate candidates,
Speaker 1: because the Democratic Senate candidates all did well in these polls.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to Joe Biden, Oh well that's
Speaker 1: a different matter. Now we need to hashtag unskew the polls. Yeah,
Speaker 1: good luck with that, I mean, good luck with just
Speaker 1: staying the course and hoping that works out for you,
Speaker 1: because it certainly certainly doesn't look very good right now.
Speaker 1: And if you were counting on Trump's legal troubles to
Speaker 1: save you at some point, like that's not happening.
Speaker 4: It's not happening.
Speaker 1: Even if he's found guilty in this soul Stormy Daniels situation,
Speaker 1: very unlikely. I think it's unlikely he faces prison time
Speaker 1: over that. And public really hasn't tuned into it like
Speaker 1: they're sort of it hasn't changed his poll numbers, like
Speaker 1: it's happening right now, the damning testimony from Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: and Stormy Daniels and whoever, David Pecker, it's happening right now,
Speaker 1: and his polls are not moving or they're even edging
Speaker 1: even you know more in his directtion, So hope you're.
Speaker 4: Not counting on that to save the day.
Speaker 1: CNN did their own somewhat more mild version of this
Speaker 1: cope is not quite as extraordinary as Joe Scarborough. But suddenly,
Speaker 1: when a really bad result comes in from Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: suddenly CNN learns like, oh, well, the polls, who can
Speaker 1: even say? Who can even say whether these poles are
Speaker 1: right whatsoever? Let's take a listen to Harry Unson's analysis here.
Speaker 8: Polls are a snapshot in time. All right, So I
Speaker 8: went back since nineteen hundred and seventy two. How far
Speaker 8: are the poles off at this point? On average? They're off,
Speaker 8: get this, by six points. They've been off by as
Speaker 8: large as fifteen points. Michael Ducaucus was ahead of George
Speaker 8: hw Bush at this point in nineteen eighty eight by
Speaker 8: high single digits. It was actually George hw Bush who
Speaker 8: won by high single digits. And keep in mind Trump's
Speaker 8: only up by a point at this at this particular junction.
Speaker 7: So the fact is the polls can shift a lot.
Speaker 8: Yes, Joe Biden is in trouble, but we'll see where
Speaker 8: we are a month, two months, three months, five months,
Speaker 8: six months.
Speaker 7: Down the road.
Speaker 2: And when it comes to battleground polls in general, how
Speaker 2: accurate are they?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 8: So this is looking at the national polls at this
Speaker 8: point in time, What if we looked at the battleground
Speaker 8: polls on the day of the election. All right, so
Speaker 8: go back again. Since nineteen hundred and seventy two, they're
Speaker 8: off by an average of four points. They're off by
Speaker 8: an average of four points. In twenty twenty they were a
Speaker 8: little larger.
Speaker 7: The era was a little larger. It was five points.
Speaker 8: And of course most of those polls underestimated Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: The key thing to keep in mind here in those
Speaker 8: pivotal battleground states in the Great Lakes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Speaker 8: Donald Trump is ahead, but only by between one and
Speaker 8: two points.
Speaker 7: So yeah, you would consider him favored. But if there's
Speaker 7: one lesson we've.
Speaker 8: Learned over the last few cycles, John, it's do not
Speaker 8: take polls to the bank, especially when the margins were
Speaker 8: as close as they are right now.
Speaker 7: And who do the polls tend to be wrong for? Right?
Speaker 8: So one of the chief complaints that Biden the Democrats
Speaker 8: have is in twenty twenty two, the polls underestimated Democrats, right.
Speaker 8: In twenty twenty, it was Republicans. In twenty two twenty two,
Speaker 8: Joe Biden, the Democrats like to argue that the polls
Speaker 8: underestimated Democrats. Now, that was true in the key battleground
Speaker 8: states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those major races, the polls
Speaker 8: on average underestimated the Democratic candidates by about five points.
Speaker 8: But if you look nationally, look at the National House Volte,
Speaker 8: the polls actually underestimated Republicans by about two points. So
Speaker 8: I'm not necessarily sure you could look at twenty twenty
Speaker 8: two and argue that the polls will somehow this time
Speaker 8: underestimate Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: The fact is the poll errors John go back and forth.
Speaker 8: They go back and forth within a cycle, and they
Speaker 8: go back and forth when you compare over a bunch
Speaker 8: of years.
Speaker 4: So listen, that's all. That's all accurate. I'm not saying, yeah.
Speaker 3: That's all therapy sessions.
Speaker 4: Well, that's it is.
Speaker 1: Imagine this poll had come out in the other direction
Speaker 1: and it showed Joe Biden up in all these battleground states.
Speaker 4: Do you think they would be doing this segment.
Speaker 1: Of like the Poles if they really really can't read
Speaker 1: into this they I genuinely think it comes from a
Speaker 1: place of they live in a bubble where they really
Speaker 1: don't know any Trump supporters. You know, occasionally they'll run
Speaker 1: into one in the green room that they have to
Speaker 1: fight against or whatever, but they don't really know any
Speaker 1: And so to look at the results and see that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump may be leading in all these battleground states,
Speaker 1: They're like, that can't possibly be true. That just doesn't
Speaker 1: match my experience of the world and my experience of
Speaker 1: like the people around me and how they think about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and how they think about Joe Biden. And
Speaker 1: so they've got to come up with some reason why
Speaker 1: this pole doesn't match up with their experience of life
Speaker 1: in America, and I think this is their attempt to
Speaker 1: do it. Last thing we have for you is that
Speaker 1: Axios report I referenced earlier where I think Joe Biden
Speaker 1: himself genuinely does believe the polls are wrong, genuinely does
Speaker 1: believe his support is understated. Biden's pulling denial. Why doesn't
Speaker 1: believe he's behind? And listen, again, I don't rule it out.
Speaker 1: It is possible, but you can't be certain, Like you
Speaker 1: cannot be certain. In fact, history would indicate you should
Speaker 1: probably lean in the other direction, because when we have
Speaker 1: had we had a previous Biden Trump race, and in
Speaker 1: that previous Biden Trump race, which is obviously the most
Speaker 1: analogous thing to the circumstance, it really overestimated Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: really underestimated Donald Trump. So a midterm election is not
Speaker 1: quite as analogous. And even as CNN points even that
Speaker 1: was a mixed bag, even that wasn't clearly consistently skewed
Speaker 1: in Democrats directions. So in any case, they have this
Speaker 1: quote here from Biden, who has talked to donors about
Speaker 1: how he thinks the poll numbers are wrong. He even
Speaker 1: said to CNN in that interview that he thought that
Speaker 1: the polling numbers are wrong.
Speaker 4: He said, quote, the.
Speaker 1: Polling data has been wrong all along. How many you
Speaker 1: guys do a poll at CNN? How many folks do
Speaker 1: you have to call to get one response? So he's
Speaker 1: basically saying, like polling methodology has collapsed again, could be true?
Speaker 1: Would you one hundred percent feel confident in that? There's
Speaker 1: no way you could. You're just denying like possible reality here.
Speaker 2: This is to me the problem with Biden himself. And look,
Speaker 2: this is what being freaking eighty whatever years olf that
Speaker 2: he is. Yeah, they're just that in his way. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're set in their way and they don't have any urgency.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, every book you ever read about victory is
Speaker 2: that the people who achieve it always massively underestimated their
Speaker 2: chances of success.
Speaker 3: They never slept on it.
Speaker 2: I was just reading this book called The Supreme Commander
Speaker 2: by Steven Ambrose.
Speaker 3: It's a history of Eisenhower and World War Two.
Speaker 2: I mean, even though he had overwhelming odds on his side, manpower,
Speaker 2: the agony that this man lived with and thinking over
Speaker 2: every single minute details to try and achieve victory, because
Speaker 2: also understanding that even if one thing went wrong, it
Speaker 2: could possibly screw the entire operation. Like, that's what I
Speaker 2: want in a president. You know, that's what most people
Speaker 2: would want in a president. If you really believe Biden says.
Speaker 2: All the time democracy has had taken all that, it's like, okay, man,
Speaker 2: you should probably act like it. You know, you should
Speaker 2: fight for everything and leave it all out on the field.
Speaker 2: But when you're this old, I mean, this is probably
Speaker 2: as good as he can get.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: And I think that gets to something really key here,
Speaker 1: which is, listen, one thing he could do that would
Speaker 1: probably help his fortunes with young people in particular, and
Speaker 1: this was also born out in New York Times polls.
Speaker 1: He could actually change his policy visa vi Israel, he
Speaker 1: clearly ideologically is just totally.
Speaker 4: Unwilling to do that.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing he could do is literally
Speaker 1: be a different person, because truly, truly, because part of
Speaker 1: the core problem here is you, yourself and your age
Speaker 1: and the lack of comfort with that among the American people.
Speaker 1: So it's like, all right, well, you either recognize that
Speaker 1: you are the wrong person to be running and you
Speaker 1: drop out and you know, elevate someone else who is
Speaker 1: more equipped for the challenge, or you live in dreamland
Speaker 1: and you you know, stick with your denial. And so
Speaker 1: I think that's where they are is because if they
Speaker 1: actually acknowledge like Joe Biden is a uniquely weak Democratic candidate,
Speaker 1: underperforming every single Democratic Senate candidate in the entire country,
Speaker 1: then the only logical conclusion of that is not like, oh,
Speaker 1: we need to do some more rallies or get out
Speaker 1: the vote. It's you have to step aside because you're
Speaker 1: not getting any You're not getting any more coherent. The
Speaker 1: American people aren't getting any more comfortable with you personally,
Speaker 1: So I think that's why they have to in a
Speaker 1: sense live in the streamland.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's turn down to
Speaker 2: foreign affairs. There was some shocking news yesterday. Prime Minister
Speaker 2: of Slovakia, Robert Fiso, had an attempted assassination attempt after
Speaker 2: he was leaving a public meeting. Now, just a warning,
Speaker 2: we've blurred out and stopped any very disturbing images, but
Speaker 2: in general this is very chaotic. So let's go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. You can see
Speaker 2: the prime minister walking there to greet some members of
Speaker 2: the public. We froze it right there where a lone
Speaker 2: bystander pulled out a gun, pointed it down and began shooting.
Speaker 2: You can see his security detail immediately grab him up
Speaker 2: under the arms, throw him into his armored vehicle, and
Speaker 2: immediately they sped off to the hospital. The news yesterday
Speaker 2: was that he was in a life threatening condition, although
Speaker 2: it appears now that he is no longer suffering. He
Speaker 2: did have under he did underwent emergency surgery. His condition
Speaker 2: has been downgraded to serious, but they no longer life threatening.
Speaker 2: So that's where things stand right now, Crystal. There are
Speaker 2: a lot of questions swirling around this because Robert Fizo.
Speaker 2: We covered him here previously in the past. He is
Speaker 2: a very interesting figure. He was elected in Slovakia, which
Speaker 2: is a member of NATO, almost explicitly on an anti
Speaker 2: Ukraine AID position. He's a fascinating kind of populist figure,
Speaker 2: which we'll get to.
Speaker 3: In a little bit. But you read a lot about
Speaker 3: the assailant crystal. So what do we know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean we know who this individual was.
Speaker 1: More or less. He's a seventy one year old from
Speaker 1: a small western town. Apparently he works as a security guard.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 1: The weapon reportedly was his own. The only thing we
Speaker 1: know about his politics is according to a local Slovakian
Speaker 1: TV station, they pulled a video where he complains. He says,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with the guarman's policies. Why are the
Speaker 1: media being targeted? Why is RTVS, which is their public broadcasting,
Speaker 1: under attack? Why was Mazak dismissed from his position. That's
Speaker 1: a reference to an individual. So apparently Fio is a
Speaker 1: very divisive figure for a whole lot of reasons. Ukraine
Speaker 1: AID is his position on Ukraine is one of those reasons.
Speaker 1: But he's also launched this full throated attack against public
Speaker 1: broadcasting that's been incredibly divisive in the subject of current
Speaker 1: protests in the country. And then there's also been a
Speaker 1: lot of investigations of him in the past because he
Speaker 1: was in government four and then his government collapsed over
Speaker 1: allegations regarding actually a targeted murder, and so the people
Speaker 1: that investigated him and his party over those allegations, over
Speaker 1: corruption allegations, he has fired a bunch of those.
Speaker 4: So this is one of those individuals who was fired.
Speaker 1: So according to at least what we know of this individual,
Speaker 1: it seems like he had a lot of problems with
Speaker 1: the direction of the government under Robert Fiso.
Speaker 4: So that's what we know at.
Speaker 3: This as do we know so far.
Speaker 2: It did not stop though some international observers, especially in
Speaker 2: the UK, they hate his guts basically all of the
Speaker 2: West does because he doesn't agree with them. On Ukraine,
Speaker 2: it's him and it's Victor Orbon. We had a sky
Speaker 2: News report almost immediately after which just look at the
Speaker 2: way that they basically try and justify this assassination attempt.
Speaker 3: Take a listen. We don't know his condition yet, but
Speaker 3: he's being treated.
Speaker 9: But it's worth thinking about who this individual is, as
Speaker 9: I said, described in reporting as a populist as a nationalist.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well that would make sense. I mean Slovakia is
Speaker 10: a very conflicted place at the moment. I mean I
Speaker 10: Figo himself. I mean, he established this smear party SMER,
Speaker 10: which is a social democracy party, back in nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 10: and he's been I think it was you just saying
Speaker 10: prime minister three times. So he is a well known figure.
Speaker 10: But he's become very pro Russian over the years. One
Speaker 10: wonders why and how, but maybe that's his conviction and
Speaker 10: he's I mean like Victor Orbann in Hungary. I mean
Speaker 10: he's set his teeth against going along with sanctions, with
Speaker 10: EU sanctions against common procurement, which Slovakia is very it's
Speaker 10: a small country. I mean the sense that it's it's
Speaker 10: you know, the Czechoslovakia, as was the Czech Republic, is
Speaker 10: the bigger bit. Slovakia is the is the smaller bit,
Speaker 10: although it was the more industrial in the old days,
Speaker 10: so it's not to be it's not negligible, but Slovakia
Speaker 10: is not a major player within the EU, but a
Speaker 10: bit like Hungary, which is also a bigger country. It's
Speaker 10: not a very big player in the EU economically. They
Speaker 10: dig their toes in against aid to Ukraine and against
Speaker 10: any sort of sympathy with Kiv and they keep saying, look,
Speaker 10: we want the war to finish, and by that they
Speaker 10: mean they want the Russians to succeed and then the
Speaker 10: war will be over if Ukraine would just surrender and
Speaker 10: give up territory. And so that's the view he takes. Now,
Speaker 10: that's very divisive in Slovakia. It's divisive within the EU.
Speaker 10: So it's not surprising that this sort of event might
Speaker 10: take place because it's a very unhappy country at the moment, Slovakia,
Speaker 10: not just on this basis, but on the basis of
Speaker 10: how the country is going in general towards more authoritarian future.
Speaker 2: Not surprising, not not at all. And it's like rampant speculation.
Speaker 2: It's not even true whenever it turns out, well, we
Speaker 2: know about the assailant. It turns out Slovakia is its
Speaker 2: own country with its own problems.
Speaker 4: And they everything's about us, right yeah now or Ukraine.
Speaker 2: It's like, hey, yeah, actually maybe people in Slovakia aren't
Speaker 2: thinking all that much about Ukraine, but to them, oh
Speaker 2: it's fine, you know. Imagine if it was a flip,
Speaker 2: you know, and it was somebody who was a pro
Speaker 2: Ukraine leader, let's say in Estonia or something like that,
Speaker 2: another very insignificant, tiny country in Eastern Europe. And there
Speaker 2: was speculation, you know, you know, in the interim that
Speaker 2: they would be losing it here in Washington. But because
Speaker 2: he has the wrong views on Ukraine, oh he's you know, basically,
Speaker 2: it's fine, whatever happened to him. We actually have a
Speaker 2: video just to give you an idea. What does this
Speaker 2: man actually think. Let's play some of it, Okay, I'll
Speaker 2: read from the subtitles. A couple of years ago, he says,
Speaker 2: I believe the war in Ukraine began earlier in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: when Ukrainian fashion killed citizens of Russian nationality in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So then he continues, I have a different opinion on
Speaker 2: this matter. I still believe the Americans are fighting Russia
Speaker 2: with Ukrainian soldiers. In twenty fourteen, Russia launched inoffensive against
Speaker 2: the dun Boss. It all started with the murder or
Speaker 2: murders of citizens of Russian nationality by Ukrainian fascists. And
Speaker 2: please do not again distort all the data that exists here.
Speaker 3: So what do we learn from this?
Speaker 2: Now, he clearly has a longer view of the situation,
Speaker 2: and he believes that it's a proxy war. That is
Speaker 2: the same position held by Viktor Orbon of Hungary. And
Speaker 2: even though those two gentlemen are members of NATO, prime ministers,
Speaker 2: duly elected and very popular in their own hometowns, because
Speaker 2: they have different dissonant and different views. You know, you
Speaker 2: have Sky News here and the seat of the UK
Speaker 2: and in Europe just being like, oh, it's okay, it's
Speaker 2: totally fine.
Speaker 3: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really walk like right up to the
Speaker 1: door of just outright just yeah, it's understandable someone would
Speaker 1: target an attempt to assassinate the prime minister of Slovakia,
Speaker 1: and I mean, in some ways, to me, the most
Speaker 1: revealing part is just how they immediately fixate on his
Speaker 1: position on Ukraine. Now, maybe that played into the motivations
Speaker 1: of this. We don't know, and you didn't know, And
Speaker 1: in fact, the only political commentary we have from the
Speaker 1: alleged shooter doesn't say anything about Ukraine. So there's also
Speaker 1: a level of chauvinism here of just assuming that the
Speaker 1: reason that this broadcaster is upset with feats so it
Speaker 1: must be the same reason that the shooter was upset
Speaker 1: with him. And by the way, it's kind of understandable
Speaker 1: really when you think about it, Isn't it so just
Speaker 1: an incredible, like revealing moment that they would spend so
Speaker 1: much time in that instant digging into what his position
Speaker 1: is Ukraine versus Russia when there was no indication that
Speaker 1: actually had anything to do with this targeted assassination. They
Speaker 1: just jumped right to the conclusion that, like, this must
Speaker 1: be about us, right, because everything's about us.
Speaker 2: But they're also saying is like he was asking for it,
Speaker 2: he was asking me for it, And it's pretty much,
Speaker 2: by the way, according to your own press, Britz, how
Speaker 2: is it going in Ukraine? Oh shocking. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. You're not going to see
Speaker 2: this on the front page of the New York Times.
Speaker 2: President Zelenski has been trapesing all over the world with
Speaker 2: his hand out asking for weapons. Has now canceled all
Speaker 2: upcoming foreign trips as Russia advances.
Speaker 3: Quote in the Kharkiv region.
Speaker 2: So as the news that we brought you on what
Speaker 2: was it on Tuesday in our show, things are going
Speaker 2: terribly for the Ukrainians on the battlefield, bad enough that
Speaker 2: Zelenski no longer feels comfortable even leaving the country, and
Speaker 2: their generals are in a full blown panic. But of
Speaker 2: course they're not going to lead with that, when they're
Speaker 2: going to continue painting everybody with false visions of victory.
Speaker 3: It's a sad situation, all really is.
Speaker 2: All right, Let's get to another deeply sad situation, although
Speaker 2: you know, somewhat amusing, I guess in this case Red Lobster.
Speaker 3: This is what I fought for in the show.
Speaker 2: I've been laughing about this for two days, and I
Speaker 2: think a lot of people would like to know the details.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Dozens of Red Lobster locations suddenly were ended overnight and
Speaker 2: just shut down. Why because the company is on the
Speaker 2: verge of total bankruptcy, saying that they were going to
Speaker 2: have to auction off equipment of fifty different locations all
Speaker 2: had to close for foot for quote footprint rationalization. Now,
Speaker 2: what spawned the sudden closure of all of these store crystals.
Speaker 2: It appears to be a potential Chapter eleven filing on
Speaker 2: the heels of all you can Eat Shrimp endless Shrimp
Speaker 2: as it was called. It turns out that Red Lobster,
Speaker 2: which was already on the face of financial brinksmanship, their
Speaker 2: CEOs or their executives of a new team came up
Speaker 2: with this idea. They're like, all right, we got to
Speaker 2: get butts back in the seats. Inflation is killing us.
Speaker 2: These chain restaurants continue to lose customers because that's one
Speaker 2: of the main ones where lower income and middle class
Speaker 2: diners usually were consistent customers. Well, what we're going to
Speaker 2: do is we're going to bring them in here with
Speaker 2: an endless shrimp all you can eat promotion. But it
Speaker 2: turns out that they were massively underestimated the American public's
Speaker 2: appetite for endless shrimp, and they lost it in general
Speaker 2: millions of dollars in the span of just a year
Speaker 2: or so on the so called endless shrimp deal, so
Speaker 2: much so that their tie suppliers of shrimp were shocked
Speaker 2: at the amount that they were going through, and they
Speaker 2: were running massive losses because customers were so taking advantage
Speaker 2: of quote, all you can eat endless shrimp at the table.
Speaker 1: So your reaction, yeah, I mean they said all you
Speaker 1: can eat, and Americans were like, challenge okay, challenge. You
Speaker 1: know me, it's deeply personally sad. I have like a
Speaker 1: deep emotional connection to Bread Lobster. First of all, I
Speaker 1: still eat their Chutter biscuits all the time. You can
Speaker 1: buy the mix.
Speaker 3: They still sell.
Speaker 1: It, and my mom makes them particularly well. She adds
Speaker 1: even extra butter, and they're so working delicious. She literally
Speaker 1: made them for me like two nights ago, and they're amazing.
Speaker 1: And if that goes away, I'm going to be really sad.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be really sad because those Chatter biscuits
Speaker 1: are an important contribution to the culinary landscape of America.
Speaker 1: In my personal opinion, that's number one.
Speaker 4: Number two.
Speaker 1: When I was a kid, we really, we very rarely
Speaker 1: went out to eat. You know, we'd occasionally do like McDonald's,
Speaker 1: like after swim meet we go to McDonald's, or if
Speaker 1: it was like a really important occasion, like a Mother's
Speaker 1: Day kind of a thing, we might go to Red Lobster.
Speaker 1: And so I have very fond memories of going to
Speaker 1: Red Lobster. It was always a big deal and very
Speaker 1: special when we went there. So I still have a
Speaker 1: you know, deep sentimental connection to Red Lobster. I have
Speaker 1: to say I must be part of their decline because
Speaker 1: I haven't actually eaten in the restaurant in many years.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the landscape was sliding against them
Speaker 1: for quite a while. Now I do wonder if they
Speaker 1: were in better financial position though, if this endless stromp
Speaker 1: thing might have worked out for.
Speaker 4: Them in the end.
Speaker 3: It's certainly possible.
Speaker 4: It could be that. Okay, you take the loss.
Speaker 1: I mean, businesses do this all the time, where you
Speaker 1: take a short term loss and you sort of underprice
Speaker 1: your item to get people. At Walmart used to this
Speaker 1: is part of how Walmart grew in the early days.
Speaker 1: You underprice something to bring people in, and then once
Speaker 1: you get them there and get them, then then remember like,
Speaker 1: oh that was a great experience, let's go back, let's
Speaker 1: do it again, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So maybe in the end it wouldn't have been a
Speaker 4: bad decision.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you never underestimate American's ability to eat endless
Speaker 1: amounts of whatever.
Speaker 3: Americans are Like, what did you think endless meant? Bro?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's like we're going to take advantage America's
Speaker 2: always been great. Yeah, I mean, on the one siand
Speaker 2: it's also kind of sad whenever you consider it, But
Speaker 2: the business dynamics behind it are still not one that
Speaker 2: we should celebrate. I mean, it is largely according to
Speaker 2: their own customer research, it's the casual dining spend with
Speaker 2: customers of incomes of fifty thousand dollars or less that
Speaker 2: have had to dramatically reduce visits and order fewer items
Speaker 2: when eating out, and more likely to take advantage of
Speaker 2: endless shrimp. Yeah, because they don't have any money and
Speaker 2: inflation is just murdering them.
Speaker 3: I say other thing.
Speaker 2: Too again, I like, you have not been in a
Speaker 2: red lobster in many years. We don't even have many
Speaker 2: around us. But some entrees are going for like thirty
Speaker 2: forty bucks. Wow, person, which is wild. I mean when
Speaker 2: you consider that at a chain restaurant, it's like, well,
Speaker 2: what's even the point. I might as well go to
Speaker 2: somewhere nice. We're gonna pay forty or fifty bucks. Apparently
Speaker 2: there have been that similar. There have been similar bankruptcies
Speaker 2: in the last several months with similar types of chains.
Speaker 2: So the text mex chain, the Wall Street Journal notes
Speaker 2: is the Tijuana Flat, New York based Sticky Fingers joint
Speaker 2: filed for chapter eleven. And then there was a famous
Speaker 2: one one that hit me particularly hard. Fox Trot Markets,
Speaker 2: which just suddenly overnight just collapsed. It was that they
Speaker 2: were very they're urban, so that we had one in
Speaker 2: my neighborhood.
Speaker 4: There was well, there are many, like a high end
Speaker 4: pharmacy or something.
Speaker 3: It's not farm.
Speaker 2: It was like, it was like, I don't know, they
Speaker 2: build themselves like a high end corner store. It's like
Speaker 2: a place you can get coffee and upscale goods or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's just convenient because it's it's like a CBS, but
Speaker 2: it's the nicer goods way.
Speaker 1: Okay, got and that concept didn't work actually, because well
Speaker 1: I think that clientele has money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they do, but I don't think they had
Speaker 2: enough because they were they were billing all these like
Speaker 2: delivery things. They were they opened massive amounts of stores
Speaker 2: and then it turned out they just closed completely overnight.
Speaker 2: I actually got a message I posted about this on
Speaker 2: Instagram one of the people who worked at a red lobster.
Speaker 2: They said that they were worked at one of the
Speaker 2: top ten red lobsters in revenue just last year and
Speaker 2: then overnight just lose their job.
Speaker 3: You know. He's like a server there.
Speaker 2: And then overnight they were just like, yeah, actually, every
Speaker 2: single one of you is fired. So it's devastating. Actually,
Speaker 2: you know, for a lot of the people who liked
Speaker 2: the restaurant, and.
Speaker 4: My sisters used to work at the.
Speaker 3: Really were the tips.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think they were pretty.
Speaker 1: Good, Actually they did. I think they liked working there.
Speaker 1: They enjoyed that experience. Yeah, I think your point about
Speaker 1: the structure of the economy is the most important one,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, the audience they're catering to, was like,
Speaker 1: it's like a working class audience, and those are the
Speaker 1: people who have been hit hardest by inflation, those people
Speaker 1: who have been hit hardest by high interest rates. So
Speaker 1: the fact that this would be the moment when it's like,
Speaker 1: first of all, if you're giving me a deal on
Speaker 1: shrimp that I can't refuse, like I'm getting I'm getting
Speaker 1: in there, I'm taking advantage of it. And second of all, yeah,
Speaker 1: but that's going to be it, Like I can't be
Speaker 1: in red lobster every week.
Speaker 4: That's not going to work for me.
Speaker 1: And my budget is like nowhere near flush enough to
Speaker 1: take advantage of that. So I'm sure they took a
Speaker 1: hit during COVID as well, So a lot of these
Speaker 1: chains were probably like struggling COVID hits them struggling war.
Speaker 4: This was like a last ditch effort. And now here
Speaker 4: we are.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and skip ahead, guys to D three
Speaker 2: here and talk about Boeing because this is very important.
Speaker 2: The Justice Department it says that Boeing has violated the
Speaker 2: deal that would avoid prosecution after the seven thirty seven
Speaker 2: Max crash. So, for those who don't remember, the seven
Speaker 2: thirty seven Max had the software update system where for guidance,
Speaker 2: which they did not tell the pilots or properly train
Speaker 2: them about. This led to the deaths of several hundred
Speaker 2: people in two separate crashes twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: Boeing then reached not only a settlement with the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice where they would pay some two point five
Speaker 2: billion dollars, but one which would have them avoid prosecution
Speaker 2: on any charges of fraud misleading federal regulators who approved
Speaker 2: the plane. They blamed basically deception on two low level employees,
Speaker 2: fired them, and they avoided prosecution for themselves and for
Speaker 2: the chief pilot, even though a lot of evidence at
Speaker 2: that time pointed both towards the company high level culpability.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they escaped, go to the they escaped for sure.
Speaker 3: It was BS.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 2: It's pretty interesting because now the head of the Justice
Speaker 2: Department's Criminal Fraud Division says that Boeing actually has violated
Speaker 2: the terms of that settlement by quote, failing to make
Speaker 2: promised changes to detect and prevent violations of federal anti
Speaker 2: fraud laws. So what that means is not only can
Speaker 2: they be prosecuted for previous actions, but they can also
Speaker 2: be prosecuted for any federal criminal violation of which the
Speaker 2: US has knowledge, which includes the current investigation into what
Speaker 2: happened with the door plug flying off in the mid
Speaker 2: flight during that Alaska Airlines flight, where they have already
Speaker 2: found quality checks and other systemic problems inside of Boeing.
Speaker 2: This comes on the heels now of two whistleblowers suddenly dying,
Speaker 2: you know, in the midst of this investigation. But the
Speaker 2: reason it's so so significant is that this opens up
Speaker 2: crystal prosecution at the highest levels of the company and
Speaker 2: further finds after they really did get away scott free
Speaker 2: last time around. I mean, two point five billion is
Speaker 2: nothing for them when you consider even how much of
Speaker 2: their own stock they bought back, which is like ten.
Speaker 3: To twelve billion.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: And I mean, we don't know whether they are going
Speaker 1: to face any sort of federal charges. This doesn't guarantee
Speaker 1: that that will actually happen, but it really opens the
Speaker 1: door for it. And Asaga was just alluding to, including
Speaker 1: that original charge of fraud because they lied to the
Speaker 1: government about what happened with those seven thirty seven maxes
Speaker 1: that crashed, killing hundreds of people.
Speaker 4: They lied about that and covered it up. They got caught.
Speaker 1: And the way they got out of charges that first
Speaker 1: time is bought through this It's called a consent decree.
Speaker 1: Through this consent decree that required them to pay some
Speaker 1: amount of money to victims. This two point five billion dollars,
Speaker 1: et cetera, which I know, you know, two point five
Speaker 1: billion dollars sounds like a lot, but in the grand
Speaker 1: scheme of Boeing and in the grand scheme of executives
Speaker 1: actually facing criminal charges and potential prison time, it's a
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket. So now that situation that they
Speaker 1: thought they had sort of wrapped up with the bow
Speaker 1: and put behind them and were able to move forward,
Speaker 1: now totally one hundred percent back on the table. Of course,
Speaker 1: this comes as there are more and more whistleblowers coming
Speaker 1: out about the culture at Boeing and how sloppy it
Speaker 1: is and how profits rule over safety every single time.
Speaker 1: We've now had two of those whistleblowers quote unquote end
Speaker 1: up dead. Apparently they need to get rid of a
Speaker 1: few more whistleblowers since they're going to get themselves out
Speaker 1: of this trouble. It looks like because a picture has
Speaker 1: already been painted of incredibly sloppy and negligent practices with
Speaker 1: absolutely disastrous results. I mean, we are so lucky that
Speaker 1: with that door plug situation, that that wasn't yet another
Speaker 1: mass casualty event, because if they were a little higher,
Speaker 1: if you'd had you know, people happens to be wearing
Speaker 1: their sweet belts, thank god, and didn't get sucked out
Speaker 1: of the spaces created there. I mean, we are so
Speaker 1: that was such a narrow miss. But really, you know,
Speaker 1: shin of light once again on and how they basically
Speaker 1: haven't changed since causing since killing these hundreds of people previously.
Speaker 1: So floodgates are open and Boeing is I think has
Speaker 1: feel like they're in big trouble at this point, I
Speaker 1: would hope.
Speaker 2: So we'll see, let's return to that DOJ release that
Speaker 2: came out previously. Let's put this up there on the
Speaker 2: screen just to show every This was the original one
Speaker 2: that was announced in January of twenty twenty one. So
Speaker 2: this is actually under the Trump and Biden administration here
Speaker 2: where they were charged with the Max fraud conspiracy and
Speaker 2: agreed to pay the fine. They basically avoided all criminal prosecution.
Speaker 2: And it's just in a matter of three years re materialize.
Speaker 2: Don't forget this too. Boeing got a massive bailout from
Speaker 2: the federal government back in twenty twenty during the COVID,
Speaker 2: the COVID bailouts in March of twenty twenty. And you know,
Speaker 2: they've been a major recipient of taxpayer dollars on top
Speaker 2: of all of the government contracts that they get. This
Speaker 2: is a very vital company to the US. So for
Speaker 2: all of this to happen and for this basically the government,
Speaker 2: you know, had the chance to actually do something about
Speaker 2: this and let them get away with it. Again, that's
Speaker 2: a major story of corporate corruption. So we're going to
Speaker 2: stay on top of it because we know how important
Speaker 2: it is, and we'll give everybody updates when the time comes.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go ahead and turn to the very
Speaker 1: latest on of Israel. Some really extraordinary noteworthy to developments
Speaker 1: from the domestic politics there.
Speaker 4: Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So Israeli Defense Minister Yoev Galant is calling directly called
Speaker 1: a press conference and called on Netnu directly to reject
Speaker 1: military rule in Gaza. Let me go ahead and read
Speaker 1: you a little bit of his comments here. He said
Speaker 1: that he wanted to he challenged him to promote an
Speaker 1: alternative governing body to Hamas's rule. He goes on to say,
Speaker 1: as early as October seventh, the military establishment said it
Speaker 1: was necessary to work towards finding an alternative to Hamas,
Speaker 1: emphasizing that the end of the military campaign is a
Speaker 1: political decision. The day after Hamas will only be achieved
Speaker 1: by actors who replace Hmas. This is first and foremost
Speaker 1: and Israeli interest. Galant said the military's plan was not
Speaker 1: flagged for discussion, and worst, no alternative was.
Speaker 4: Brought in its place.
Speaker 1: Military rule in Gaza is a bad and dangerous alternative
Speaker 1: for the State of Israel. According to him, such a
Speaker 1: decision would be paid for quote in blood and victims,
Speaker 1: and it will come at a heavy economic cost. NETANYAHUO
Speaker 1: responded to this, saying, after the terrible massacre, I ordered
Speaker 1: the destruction of Hamas Idea fighters and security forces are
Speaker 1: fighting for this. As long as Hamas remains, no other
Speaker 1: actor will run Gaza, and certainly not the Palestinian authority.
Speaker 1: Psycho Bezaliel Smocher Chus Finance minister said quote. Defense Minister
Speaker 1: Galant effectively announced today his support for the establishment of
Speaker 1: a Palestinian terrorist state as a reward to terrorism and
Speaker 1: Hamas for the worst massacre to have been carried out
Speaker 1: against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Such a defense
Speaker 1: minister must be replaced in order to achieve the war's goals.
Speaker 1: That was Ben Gavier who said that last part. So basically,
Speaker 1: now even the Israeli Defense Minister Saber is Hamas, is
Speaker 1: pro Hamas. That's the level of discourse that we're at.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, you have Golant has been in favor
Speaker 1: of total war and annihilation from the beginning. So now
Speaker 1: to at this point be like, oh wait, you don't
Speaker 1: have a plan for the day after it is preposterous
Speaker 1: because we're you know, just YouTubers, and we've been talking
Speaker 1: about this since day one. It was very clear there
Speaker 1: was never any plan. The only plan was devastation and destruction.
Speaker 1: That has been abundantly evident. So you're just now noticing that.
Speaker 1: But still the fact that he very publicly called bb
Speaker 1: to the carpet. This comes on the heels of the
Speaker 1: generals also briefing in a very similar manner against Bebe
Speaker 1: the gance. Also, Benny Gantz also took the side of, yo,
Speaker 1: have galant here siding, you know, on the side of like, hey,
Speaker 1: you need to come up with some sort of plan
Speaker 1: of what's going to happen next. And of course the
Speaker 1: Smotrich and the ben Gavier's of the world, they have
Speaker 1: a plan and this is not speculation. They're out there
Speaker 1: talking about we need to push Palestinians out, we need
Speaker 1: to fully resettle Gaza.
Speaker 4: That's their plan. Bibe has just sort of pushed this
Speaker 4: all off because to.
Speaker 1: Agree with them is to blow up the coalition on
Speaker 1: the more quote unquote moderate side, and to agree with
Speaker 1: the quote unquote moderates and whatever their plan is, which
Speaker 1: isn't even really clear either, would be to blow up
Speaker 1: the coalition on the other side. So all of these
Speaker 1: people are complicit in, you know, the utter destruction and
Speaker 1: devastation and utter stupidity from an Israeli national interest perspective
Speaker 1: of the situation. But now they're starting to play the
Speaker 1: blame game and try to throw each other under the Bible.
Speaker 3: I told you it was going to happen, you know.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I went back and I found
Speaker 2: the full quote, and some of these are just amazing
Speaker 2: because they're saying it, you know, in academic speak, but
Speaker 2: you can read between the lines. So here's one from
Speaker 2: Colonel Peter Mansur. He wrote a book on the search.
Speaker 2: I highly recommend it. It's like an actual military history.
Speaker 2: He was chief of staff that David Petraeus back in
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven. Here's a direct quote that he
Speaker 2: says to the Washington Post. The Israelis and Gaza are
Speaker 2: committing the same primary mistake of the Americans in Afghanistan
Speaker 2: in Iraq, seeking a primary military solution to fundamentally a
Speaker 2: political issue. By pursuing the destruction of Hamas and ignoring
Speaker 2: the root causes of the conflict, the Israelis, by their actions,
Speaker 2: are creating more future combatants than they are eliminating. Inevitably,
Speaker 2: Hamas two point zero will rise from the ashes of
Speaker 2: the current fighting and they already have. Yeah, no, no,
Speaker 2: I know why they're playing the playing game now because
Speaker 2: now they're like, oh, it's not this actually turns out
Speaker 2: and it's really not working, and that our JV military
Speaker 2: is not particularly good at what it does. I mean
Speaker 2: just today, you know, I see the news five israelis
Speaker 2: what is it? We're killed by friendly fire? They fired
Speaker 2: on their.
Speaker 1: Own and a number of others injured. They yeah, they
Speaker 1: murdered their own soldiers.
Speaker 2: They murder their own soldiers, They murdered their own hostages,
Speaker 2: and not a single sat which has been rescued. I mean,
Speaker 2: which Palestinian is going to govern this place in the future.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 2: The only thing too, is he's trying to get out
Speaker 2: of a military occupation. I'm like, no, no, yeah, I
Speaker 2: want you to do it, because it's like they're the
Speaker 2: ones now you got to eat and reap and what
Speaker 2: if you have sown from the future. And that's why
Speaker 2: the Palestinian authority, the US and the Arabs, nobody should
Speaker 2: bail them out of their own problem. They got to
Speaker 2: eat the cost of what they've done.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just, it's just that there is no
Speaker 1: answer other than horrifying ones from this point forward, not
Speaker 1: nothing that's actually on the table. I mean, ideally Palaestins
Speaker 1: would be able to govern themselves and have their own state,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, but clearly that's.
Speaker 4: Not in the cards. I saw.
Speaker 1: Even the Arab states at this point are just like,
Speaker 1: we need some sort of a statement they're committed to
Speaker 1: two state solution for us to cooperate.
Speaker 4: With you whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Even that is not even possible because net Nyahoo is
Speaker 1: adamantly opposed to even pretending that that is something that
Speaker 1: he's interested.
Speaker 4: He is dead set against it.
Speaker 1: Has been his entire career, brags about it, has staked
Speaker 1: his entire political power and career on being the guy
Speaker 1: that is going to forever block a two state solution.
Speaker 1: So yeah, every every answer is a horrifying one and
Speaker 1: has been from the beginning, which is why I have
Speaker 1: You know, I have no sympathy for the Yoaw of Galantza,
Speaker 1: the world or these generals or whatever. The military is
Speaker 1: the one who they're the ones who came up with
Speaker 1: this plan for total war and all out annihilation. What
Speaker 1: did you think it was gonna look like the day after?
Speaker 1: What did you think that was going to lead to?
Speaker 1: Who did you think you were dealing with here in
Speaker 1: terms of net Nyahu and Smotrich and Bengevir. But it
Speaker 1: is incredible that you now have even you know, Smotridge
Speaker 1: basically accusing the Defense Minister of being pro home, which
Speaker 1: just shows you the utter insanity of the situation. For
Speaker 1: what it's worth, the US came out and you know,
Speaker 1: backed up you have Golan said we agree with him.
Speaker 4: There needs to be a plan. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: It's just an it's sort of an utterly ridiculous conversation
Speaker 1: because it's been so obvious from the beginning that Hamas
Speaker 1: cannot be quote unquote defeated in the way that they
Speaker 1: portrayed from the beginning. The plan that they were, you know,
Speaker 1: enacting this total annihilation, which is devastating, devastating to the
Speaker 1: civilian population, of civilian life in Gaza, was not a
Speaker 1: plan designed even to achieve that objective as a plan
Speaker 1: to designed to achieve revenge and destruction.
Speaker 4: That's what it was.
Speaker 1: To satiate the anger and the outrage, understandable outrage after
Speaker 1: October seventh, But it was never about anything other than
Speaker 1: we are going to destroy. We're going to have massive devastation.
Speaker 1: And now, I mean, this is interesting. So there's starting
Speaker 1: to be all these acknowledgments from a bunch of the
Speaker 1: mayor officials and even a bunch of Israeli officials that
Speaker 1: you know, you're not going to actually defeat Hamas. And
Speaker 1: latest version of this in the Wall Street Journal. It's
Speaker 1: both true and interesting that this is being put out there. Now,
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So they're saying Hamas
Speaker 1: shift to gorilla tactics raise the specter of forever war
Speaker 1: for Israel. The Islamist militant group is using hit and
Speaker 1: run tactics and smaller groups of fighters to show it
Speaker 1: can fight for months, if not years. They go into
Speaker 1: some interesting details here about how HAMAS has continued to
Speaker 1: be able to effectively hit the IDF and how you
Speaker 1: know they were able to use their tunnel system more
Speaker 1: effectively than anticipated. They still haven't been able to get
Speaker 1: sin war, etcetera, etcetera. These are all things we've been
Speaker 1: talking about. But I think it's funny how they frame
Speaker 1: the saga that their shift to gorilla tactics as if
Speaker 1: Hamas was ever like a regular fighting force, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, this was always a gorilla insurgency, even as
Speaker 1: they were technically the government of the Gaza Strip. And
Speaker 1: so I also read into this a bit of cobe
Speaker 1: of like, oh, well, the reason we won't be able
Speaker 1: to defeat them is because they've shifted to these gorilla tactics.
Speaker 1: This was is no different than from the beginning. This
Speaker 1: was very obvious and very apparent. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you have given Hamas and Islamic Jihad and whoever else
Speaker 1: so much recruiting material that you know, as a social
Speaker 1: movement and as an appealing form of resistance to Palestinian people,
Speaker 1: like who do you think these orphans or these you know,
Speaker 1: kids who watch their brother or sister killed and their
Speaker 1: home destroyed, or who themselves were shot in Angela, Who
Speaker 1: do you think that they're going to support?
Speaker 4: What sort of political ideology do you think that they're
Speaker 4: going to have?
Speaker 1: So so, in any case, that's the framing now is like,
Speaker 1: oh well, gosh, the quote here is actually interesting. From this,
Speaker 1: the head of the Middle East and North Africa program
Speaker 1: at International Crisis Group says, quote Hamas is everywhere in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Hamas is far from defeated. So that's where we are.
Speaker 1: Even as they have gone into Rafa. Now remember Rafa
Speaker 1: was suppose, Oh this is the last day and this
Speaker 1: is how we'll really defeat Hamas. We at the same time,
Speaker 1: they've had to go back into northern Gaza, Gaza City, Shibali,
Speaker 1: your refugee can't because guess what when you left and
Speaker 1: there was just nothing but a vacuum. Yeah, who else
Speaker 1: is going to come back into power than Hamas?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that actually another way to look
Speaker 2: at Gallant's comments, He's trying to bail out himself from
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 3: What the future will look again?
Speaker 2: You know, he said, at all of this, what their
Speaker 2: military took in terms of casualties is child's play compared
Speaker 2: to what will come from actual military occupation. Look no
Speaker 2: further than US military casualties in Iraq. If you're actually
Speaker 2: responsible for governing this place, you better gear up. You
Speaker 2: better have the best suicide bomb. You know, you bet,
Speaker 2: I have the best practices that you possibly can. And
Speaker 2: even then, hundreds of you know, possibly thousands of your
Speaker 2: troops are going to get killed. And this was inevitable
Speaker 2: from the beginning. This is not the way that they
Speaker 2: should have fought the war. But there I really I
Speaker 2: want them to reap what they have sown because they
Speaker 2: need to bear the cost. And a lot of this
Speaker 2: also is I think that they're trying to get the
Speaker 2: US and the Arab States to basically fail them out
Speaker 2: of whatever will look like in the future. But I
Speaker 2: don't support that at all because they're the ones. And
Speaker 2: you know, I don't know if you noted this too,
Speaker 2: it's not just the military. He's like, the economic cost
Speaker 2: of this will be terrible. I'm like, you blew the
Speaker 2: shit out of this place, You're paying for it. But
Speaker 2: of course, knowing US will probably build them out.
Speaker 3: In the end.
Speaker 1: I just want I just want adjust resolution. I just
Speaker 1: want people to not be starving to death. I want
Speaker 1: kids to stop getting massacred. And I don't know when
Speaker 1: that is ever going to come. I mean, it just
Speaker 1: feels like there's no end insight. Adding to the horror
Speaker 1: we showed you earlier this week, the way that these
Speaker 1: right wing activists have been upping their attacks on aid convoys,
Speaker 1: you have a dire humanitarian situation there.
Speaker 4: I really encourage you.
Speaker 1: Ryan and Emily did a gut wrenching interview with an
Speaker 1: American nurse who is trapped in a hospital in Conunis
Speaker 1: and talking about the situation for her and her colleagues
Speaker 1: and for regular Palestinians. It's just it's unimaginable. And you
Speaker 1: have these psychos who are protesting by blocking the little
Speaker 1: bit of aid, trying to block whatever AID is actually
Speaker 1: managing to make its way into the Gaza Strip, furthering
Speaker 1: what are already in portions of the Gaza Strip deemed
Speaker 1: to be famine conditions. The US National Security Advisor Jake
Speaker 1: Sullivan actually responded to some of the latest settler attacks,
Speaker 1: the ones that we showed you on the show earlier
Speaker 1: this week.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what Jake Sullivan had to say.
Speaker 9: Since Israel took the Rafa crossing, we have seen difficulty
Speaker 9: getting aid through either Rafa or Karen Shalom, and this
Speaker 9: is a matter of great concern to us. This is
Speaker 9: something we're working not just with the Israeli government, but
Speaker 9: the Egyptian government in the United Nations, because it will
Speaker 9: take all three of them working together to make this happen.
Speaker 9: This is an urgent and critical situation. We have got
Speaker 9: to get those crossings open to get more aid in.
Speaker 9: That has been an issue of the past through days,
Speaker 9: since these military operations, and it's something we are working
Speaker 9: through with all the relevant parties. It is a total
Speaker 9: outrage that there are people who are attacking and looting
Speaker 9: these convoys come from Jordan going to Gaza to deliver
Speaker 9: humanitarian assistance. We are looking at the tools that we
Speaker 9: have to respond to this, and we are also raising
Speaker 9: our concerns at the highest level of the Israeli government
Speaker 9: and it's something that we make no bones about. This
Speaker 9: is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Speaker 1: So some tutting there over these settlers, Yeah, tough words.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're having difficult conversations behind the scenes, Sagrath.
Speaker 1: They've raised this with the highest levels of government, and
Speaker 1: since they're not willing to actually do anything, and even
Speaker 1: their little like you know, slight pause on a weapon
Speaker 1: shipment was immediately overcome, Ryan and Emily covered. Now they're
Speaker 1: shipping another billion dollars in weapons, So they're willing to
Speaker 1: actually do anything about these things. Obviously, we're not going
Speaker 1: to hold our breath. We got some more details from
Speaker 1: how Ratz. This was actually written up in Times of Israel.
Speaker 1: The reporting is from Haretz about who these people are,
Speaker 1: who these right wing activists are that are blocking these
Speaker 1: A convoys, and in particular we have direct reporting about
Speaker 1: collaboration with these government which is no surprise because their
Speaker 1: official government policy has been a complete siege and have
Speaker 1: only allowed in a minimal amount of aid under pressure.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So first of all, the noteworthy thing from the convoy
Speaker 1: attacks and from these protests that we've been pointing to
Speaker 1: is oftentimes the police and military standing by and doing
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing. So in the wake of this and after
Speaker 1: this cause this international upset which is the focus of
Speaker 1: the headline here Israeli police and the IDF. They traded
Speaker 1: blame once said the police said the army was supposed
Speaker 1: to be guarding the trucks. The army said the incident
Speaker 1: fell into the police's jurisdiction. But the reality is they
Speaker 1: spoke to a senior security establishment official. That individual told
Speaker 1: Haretz that quote, police are turning a blind eye to
Speaker 1: the rioting of lawbreakers who luten burned the AID and
Speaker 1: also alleged they were receiving inside information regarding the movement
Speaker 1: of the trucks. So not only as a blind eyed
Speaker 1: being turned. They're all so getting information about where the
Speaker 1: trucks are going from government sources so that they can
Speaker 1: attack those AID convoys, loot and burn them and assault
Speaker 1: the drivers too. By the way, the official went on
Speaker 1: to say, some members of the police force avoid cracking
Speaker 1: down on the activists, while others off only reluctantly agree
Speaker 1: to tackle the issue.
Speaker 4: Quote, there is a feeling they're.
Speaker 1: Trying to please someone specific in the government, the official added,
Speaker 1: referring to National Security Minister Aamar Ben Kavier, whose office
Speaker 1: oversees the police.
Speaker 4: So they're turning a blind eye.
Speaker 1: They're feeding them non public information so that they can
Speaker 1: go and assault these AID convoys. And it's all because
Speaker 1: this is official Israeli government policy. I saw another report,
Speaker 1: another independent analysis. You know, we talked about the Flower massacre,
Speaker 1: the idea of firing on Palestinians who were trying to
Speaker 1: get AID off of a truck and killing one hundred
Speaker 1: of them. There have been eighty some Israeli Defense Force
Speaker 1: attacks on AID shipments eighty some, So that was not
Speaker 1: an isolated incident. That is part of a pattern and
Speaker 1: which you have to you know, you have to assume
Speaker 1: is an intentional policy from the Israeli government, because otherwise
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be happening some eighty times, they wouldn't be
Speaker 1: feeding this secret information. Then you know, the last thing
Speaker 1: I'll show you here is there was another attack on
Speaker 1: a Palestinian driver.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 4: very disturbing.
Speaker 1: You can see him there on the ground, suffering, by
Speaker 1: the way, no one helping him, no one caring. There
Speaker 1: are soldiers right there doing nothing for him. You'd see
Speaker 1: these settlers with giant weapons. And the reason they attacked
Speaker 1: this man who happens to be a truck driver. A
Speaker 1: senior official says, oh, well, they beat him because they
Speaker 1: thought he was delivering aid. I think of the sickness
Speaker 1: of those where they almost use it as an excuse. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it was understandable that they assault, aggressively assaulted
Speaker 1: this Palestinian truck driver because they thought he might be
Speaker 1: trying to feed starving people.
Speaker 4: Just grotesque.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the whole thing is nuts, and it just shows
Speaker 2: you how little control that they are not. Okay, either
Speaker 2: have control the situation or they don't have control situation.
Speaker 3: Both are terrifying.
Speaker 2: We also wanted to give everybody an update on the peer,
Speaker 2: the military peer.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: Ken Klippenstein for End of the Show can exclusively report
Speaker 2: the Pentagon expects to have the Gods of PA peer
Speaker 2: in place as soon as the next twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: But that has now been confirmed by the US military.
Speaker 2: But then the question is is how much aid is
Speaker 2: actually going to go in this? Like what's happening? It
Speaker 2: will quote soon flow to Israel and or so soon flow. Remember,
Speaker 2: there's several questions here. Are is really troops going to
Speaker 2: pre screen the aid that's going in? Are we going
Speaker 2: to make sure that our troops aren't attacked? The bill
Speaker 2: for this is some known three hundred and fifty million dollars,
Speaker 2: while there's perfectly good trucks sitting at the Rafa crossing
Speaker 2: which we don't even have to pay for and is
Speaker 2: waiting to go in. Our own producer Mac was flagging
Speaker 2: the possibility that this they may then just shut all
Speaker 2: aid off that's coming in through a much more inefficient peer.
Speaker 2: Just has to also happens to be that we have
Speaker 2: to pay for it and facilitate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the whole thing is a.
Speaker 2: Boondoggle where you know, instead of exerting diplomatic pressure for them.
Speaker 2: Just let aid that's already coming in. Our troops are
Speaker 2: in harms way, we're eating the cost. I cannot think
Speaker 2: of a better example of our policy towards Israel.
Speaker 1: Complete insanity. Yeah, at the very best, this is a
Speaker 1: virtue signal. At the very best, it's an ass covering bullshit, expensive,
Speaker 1: dangerous virtue signal. At worst, it's much more nefarious because
Speaker 1: remember Babe said, hey, maybe we can use this peer
Speaker 1: to help ship some of these Palestinians on here and
Speaker 1: achieve his goal of quote unquote fitting out the population.
Speaker 1: So at worst, we end up being complicit in the
Speaker 1: ethnic cleansing, not just complicit, but actively aiding and betting
Speaker 1: the ethnic cleansing. Biden announced this in a State of
Speaker 1: the Union. Actually, ah, it's his idea, Gus, he's some
Speaker 1: great humanitarian while reporting comes on off to the fact, Oh, actually,
Speaker 1: this was Bebe's idea. This was Bebe's idea, So tell
Speaker 1: me what his intentions are for. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, the US has defunded and refuses to work
Speaker 1: with UNRA, the number one aid organization actually.
Speaker 4: On the ground.
Speaker 1: And even though it has now turned out that the
Speaker 1: allegations about ANRA having Hamas terras whatever, total and complete bullshit.
Speaker 4: The Israelis never provided.
Speaker 1: A shred of evidence to back up those claims which
Speaker 1: were used to defund this critical agency at a time
Speaker 1: when Palestines are literally starving to death. So we're not
Speaker 1: working with UNRA. So how is the aid getting distributed?
Speaker 4: No one knows.
Speaker 1: Answered that, no one knows how to answer that, there's
Speaker 1: very little in the way of planning. And then third
Speaker 1: to the point about this being very dangerous. Gaza is
Speaker 1: an active war zone in case you don't know, And yeah,
Speaker 1: Hamas is still out there and I don't think they
Speaker 1: love us too much right now.
Speaker 4: And by the way, while they were constructing this.
Speaker 1: Peer, there were actually tempted attacks in the area and
Speaker 1: you know, directly aimed at our people that are constructing
Speaker 1: this peer. So total insanity comes at a time when
Speaker 1: the Rafa crossing, which has been the key entry point
Speaker 1: for aid, has been because of the Israeli invasion into Rafa.
Speaker 1: Another crossing was also closed. You have increasingly dire situation
Speaker 1: in the northern Gaza strip was the place that was
Speaker 1: under the most to us and where you know, UN
Speaker 1: officials had said officially famine had set in. Now the
Speaker 1: southern Gaza strip is also approaching those level of conditions.
Speaker 1: We don't really know exactly the dire circumstances that they
Speaker 1: are facing there, but based on the report from the
Speaker 1: nurse on the ground and other things, we're anecdotally getting out.
Speaker 1: It's a very bad situation because some of the key
Speaker 1: crossings have already been closed. So dire situation. And our
Speaker 1: solution is this utter and complete, dangerous, stupid, expensive nonsense.
Speaker 3: Yep, there's just two Peru.
Speaker 2: There's no, there's there's no it's bottomless, just what we
Speaker 2: will the stolishness, the foolishness and humiliation on behalf of Israel.
Speaker 1: But I do want to put quick shout out to
Speaker 1: Ken He just went independent.
Speaker 3: That's right, he's got his new newsletters. You guys should
Speaker 3: be a member.
Speaker 1: The subscribe, support him. He's just a fantastic reporter. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about here. He is independent journalists. This is a
Speaker 1: big scoop.
Speaker 4: No, it's huge, and he got it before New York Times.
Speaker 1: Watch out any of these people, you know, Axios, CNN.
Speaker 1: He beat them to this big scoop. Even as an
Speaker 1: independent journalist. He's got fantastic sources, really good, does an
Speaker 1: excellent job, so please give him a.
Speaker 4: Follow if you're able to.
Speaker 3: There you go. All right, Hey everybody, thank you so
Speaker 3: much for watching.
Speaker 2: As we said, Premium subscribers, what day Sunday. Check your email,
Speaker 2: big subscriber that is coming, big announcement that is coming to.
Speaker 3: All of you. We love you.
Speaker 2: We're a lot of work that's going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: It's a big announcement exclusively for you, and we will
Speaker 2: see you all on Monday.