00:00:00 Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here. 00:00:01 Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show. 00:00:08 Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. 00:00:14 Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. 00:00:25 Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. 00:00:31 Speaker 3: Good morning everyone, Happy Friday. How's everybody doing today? 00:00:35 Speaker 2: So far, so good? 00:00:36 Speaker 4: All right, well, let's keep it good. We've got a big show. 00:00:39 Speaker 3: We've got some war updates surrounding the ceasefire or non ceasefire in Lebanon, and then we'll be joined by Professor John Meherscheimer to get his take on this next. 00:00:49 Speaker 4: Phase of the war. We've also got. 00:00:51 Speaker 3: Milania Trump coming out and talking about Jeffrey Epstein. We're going to be analyzing theorizing why she chose this moment to talk about Epstein. And then finally we've got a lot of updates around Apak Democrats, Alissa Slockin doing a town hall that got a little testy, and a little bit from our friends in the Free Press who did a little bit of a reporting on doctor Abdul l Sayed and Hassan Piker in Michigan quotes. I'll call reporting, Crystal, will call it something else. But first let's get started with the latest Crystal. We've got some new Trump troops here that I'll pull up on screen. Let's start with this first one here about the straight Why don't you read this one. 00:01:42 Speaker 4: Out for us? 00:01:44 Speaker 2: So we've got Trump here. He's been, I mean, as per usual, sort of crashing out on true social But anyway, he says, Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable, some would say, of allowing oil to go through the street of horn moves. That is not the agreement we have President Donald J. Trump. This reminds me very much of when my son was three years old and he was playing Uno for the first time, and he had his whole plan of like how he was going to finish it out, and then someone screwed it up and he just completely crashed down and was like, that wasn't the plan. 00:02:12 Speaker 5: So the agreement we had. 00:02:14 Speaker 2: The same energy as my son when he was three years old. Anyway. Uh, the context here, of course, is that as part of the original sort of ceasefire understanding, the idea was Iran would allow some oil tankers through the strait and Ryan you can speak to whether there was an understanding of is a toll going to be charged, is not going to be charged. It seems to me like those details were left sort of ambiguous. Iron certainly thought we're going to keep charging this toll because of course we're going to Meanwhile, Uh, what was very clear was the understanding from Iran and the US and the Pakistani government which helped to facilitate this whole you know, ceasefire so that these talks could occur, that Lebanon was including it included in this deal. Well, Israel, wanting to continue their mass murder and ethnic cleansing and Lebanon and also wanting to undermine any potential deal, not only continued their invasion and bombardment in Lebanon, but they escalated it. So Iran understandably said that was not part of the deal. We've been very clear from the start, the Lebanon would be included, and so as a consequence, we are not opening the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, there was more traffic going through the strait prior to these talks than there is now. So that is the context here for Trump, you know, yelling over true social and thinking that you know, berating the Iranians this time is going to effectuate some sort of an outcome rather than just being impotent as it has been the whole time. 00:03:40 Speaker 6: Yeah, and my understanding is they allowed two Iraqi flagged ships to move through the strait in the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire, but then Israel carried out a series of massacres in Lebanon and they closed the straight again. But yes, to your point, they were always clear, well they were ambiguous, but clear that they were going to charge a toll for the strait. What they were saying is that they were going to set up a legal mechanism in coordination with Oman to allow passage of ships through the strait. Anybody with any sense reading that is like, oh, so they're saying they're in control of it. They're they're probably going to put a toll on it. As it's going through since they were doing that already and they haven't said that they would lift the toll. But it's open like a lot of other waterways like the Suez Canal, it's open. You got to pay to get through. And they're like, like, that's how it's going to go for us. But yes, the Pakistan situation is just comical because the US asked Pakistan to be the mediators. The US helped Pakistan craft the document. The document explicitly includes Lebanon, and then according to the reporting that we have now from CBS News, I think it is actually it was a call from Netan Yahoo to Trump where Trump was like, Okay, go ahead, you can do Lebanon. So that's what happened. That doesn't change the deal, Like they broke the deal. The deal as Trump understood it, as Iran understood it, as it was explained publicly, included Lebanon. 00:05:13 Speaker 2: Well, let's look as the tweet drafted by the Americans stated for the Pakistani Prime Minister, Lebanon has included. Iran has always been very clear about that, and so yeah, I mean it's look, it's yet another example of perplexing behavior from this president in particular of why are you going to potentially blow up? We have new reporting from the Financial Times this morning that Trump has been seeking a ceasefire for weeks at this point, been trying to back channel something to the Iranians, and the Iranians were very resistant, and in fact, even up to this point that they were having trouble getting the IERGC on board with this, and that was part of the delay. And so they were finally able to kind of get the IERGC to go along with at least some sort of talks here. But in any case, Trump, you know, by letting net Yahu continue to do whatever he wants to do in Lebanon potentially from the jump destroying his possibility of securing a deal. Now, I don't think that the possibilities are completely dead and gone. Obviously there are diplomatic talks happening in Islamabad this weekend. We'll see what's come out of that, what will come out of that, but it makes it much more difficult to envision them coming to some sort of terms in the near term. 00:06:25 Speaker 6: And not I almost get tired of this, but Jeremy's reporting being validated again that that reporting that you're referring there they're saying that. You know, in March they were desperately trying to reach out to get talks going to end this end this war. Jeremy reported March sixteenth. You know that wit Cough was relentlessly texting him right, being left on read, trying to get them back to the table and yeah, being left on red. And that had been going on for several days before Jeremy reported it. There were these furious denials, if you remember, Axios reported that in fact, according to Israelian American sources, it was the Iranians that were begging for the ceasefire, and that it was actually Witcough that was not responding to them because you know, there were winning Now the reporting is crystal clear that was a lie. The US was begging for the ceasefire. Iran was ignoring them. Again knowable things too for Breaking Point viewers and Drop site readers, but apparently not to anybody else. 00:07:27 Speaker 7: Mm hmmm. 00:07:28 Speaker 3: And so, Emily, I'd like your reaction to this latest Nan Yahoo clip here where he talks about the ceasefire and Lebanon. 00:07:35 Speaker 8: If I want to tell you there is no cease fire in Lebanon. We are continuing to strike as the law with force, and we will not stop until we restore your security. 00:07:45 Speaker 6: He said, there is no ceasefire in Lebanon. We will continue to strike Lebanon with maximum ferocity or somewhere like that. 00:07:54 Speaker 9: Uh. 00:07:54 Speaker 6: And he finishes, you know, until your security has been restored. Which is an interesting phrase, is what he's speaking in Hebrew to the Israeli public, what security? Like, what is the what is the year during which he would point back since nineteen forty eight and say this is the security, Like there has been war an occupation every day since nineteen forty eight, so like it's even a fantasy that there's some restoration of security. But what he's saying is we're doing war. We're doing war. Don't worry about it, like we're not. Yes, we hear Trump, we hear Iron this Lombad talks we're doing war. 00:08:33 Speaker 5: Well, it's actually sort of perfect that it was a Hebrew language message, because the English messages are the ones that should be more pro Trump, obviously, and in this case there was clearly clearly disagreement. Then Trump was strong armed once again into accepting the Nets and Yahoo line about what was going to happen during the ceasefire period, and I just think back to yesterday overnight. Jd. Vance was in Europe, he was in Hungary, and he called it, Well, this wasn't yesterday, it must have been tuesday. He called the ceasefire fragile, like it was first reaction basically we had from the administration because Jdbans wasn't hungry, and he referred to it as a fragile deal. And not only was it fragile, it was unclear, like it was fragile because nobody actually knew. I can't think of a precedent for this. I was trying to think this morning when this ever happened in modern history where you have modern technology and we're not sending carrier pigeons back and forth to try to make deals, And I can't think of a precedent for this. Maybe some like Saga out there is going to send me an obscure, nerdy example. 00:09:37 Speaker 6: But well, actually, curiously or interestingly, the agreement with Hamas played out in a similar way, like if you read what Hamas agreed to, and you read the phase one, Phase two, et c. And then you look at the way that Israel and the United States later described it and tried to implement it. 00:09:57 Speaker 7: It's night and day. So this is act. 00:10:00 Speaker 5: It's part of the course of the Trumpet ministry. 00:10:02 Speaker 6: And also you can look at Oslo where they're like, we're not going to do settlements, and then immediately they're doing settlements, but the others say, we wouldn't do settlements. Really, that's what everybody understood. Well, difference here settlements it was kind of implied, but. 00:10:17 Speaker 7: Clearly you're going to do them. 00:10:19 Speaker 2: The difference here, of course versus the Hamas Agreement is that Iran is vastly more powerful and has incredible leverage. I mean, I was talking to Murtaza yesterday Ryan and he was saying, you know, because we were speculating about will Iran now raised to nuclear weapon? What is the logic there? He's like, you know, in a sense, they've demonstrated they already have a nuclear weapon with their ability to close the straight of hor Moose, which I thought was a fantastic point. 00:10:44 Speaker 7: I totally agree with that. 00:10:45 Speaker 2: Yeah, we have that is there. You know, we think of nuclear weapon as like, okay, that will be deterrence. That is their deterrence that they have now established, and that is a game changer in terms of how every other country has to react to them. And basically, if there was some military option for us to reopen the straight of horror moves, we would be doing it that didn't come at some catastrophic level of cost, And even at a catastrophic level of cost, it's not clear to me that you're going to be able to take it and be able to hold it. So that that is, you know, a new reality that Iran has now established that they go into these negotiations with, and so you know, you have a really a landscape where everything for Trump is a terrible a terrible choice, which is why it's hard to predict exactly how this is going to go and what the timeline is. But I think we I think just when sorry when thought final thought here, Emily, I think though that we are getting a glimpse of not when this will war will come to a close, but what it will look like. Because we now have the outlines of the sorts of demands that Iran is able to make and able to command. So it's possible Trump decides he wants to go back and have some more pain and oil prices to go up and disrupt the global economy and cause a global depression and risk more American service members. That is certainly possible. The timeline is unclear, but in terms of the outlines of what our resolution is going to have to look like, I think we're starting to get clarity on what that is, and it involves a new status quo for the Strait of Hormoves. 00:12:18 Speaker 5: I was actually just going to add exactly on that point that right now, reportedly Trump is saying this nine hundred pounds of a rich enriched uranium, which he referred to as like the nuclear dust, that's what he wants to put on the table. But the Iranians now have the Straight of Hormuz and Trump wants that to be some type of joint venture. I mean, it is utterly unacceptable for Trump to end the war in a place where the Strait of horm Moves is not the status quo that it was before the war, and instead there you have their Iranians collecting tolls that allow them to rebuild their weapons supply to race to a nuclear weapon. Even if I mean, to your point, Cristol, to MOS's point, even if they say they're not going to do that right now, have you incentivized them, of course to race, some of them to want to demand quicker development of nuclear weapons capacity, and so none of the math, like the bartering math makes sense for Trump, none of it. 00:13:18 Speaker 2: But continuing the war also doesn't make sense for Trump, right, Yeah, and that's you know, that's the bind that he got himself into by deciding to pursue this absolutely for the US catastrophic war. 00:13:30 Speaker 3: And speaking of bartering math, Mac, I wanted to throw this one to you. Apparently the White House has warned their aids about betting on this war. This is White House aids got an email last month telling them not to place bets on prediction markets. Multiple sources told CBS News. Press reports had raised concerns about government officials using non public info to place wagers on Callshee and polymarkets. At the email, the warning reminded staff that as a criminal of and is also prohibited by government ethics regulations. All White House employees are reminded the misuse of non public information by government employees for financial benefit is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated. So, Mac, do you have to shelve some of your bets you're inside or intel? 00:14:16 Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I mean stolen valid. Wall Street Journal. 00:14:19 Speaker 4: Had this first. Sorry, we gotta throw it, we gotta give it up to big fill here. 00:14:25 Speaker 9: Yeah. 00:14:26 Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's wild, like the levels of just deep rot and corruption that have become baseline, especially when you're talking about like day trading on outcomes of warm This is something we saw not just with Iran. I'm like, oh, is the US going to use ground troops? But we've seen this in Ukraine on like the specific lines on the territorial gains that Russia Ukraine might make. Like it's a level of like disgust that I haven't felt in a long time. And these are, you know, not small wagers people are making. I'll see every couple of days an account has dropped like hundreds of thousands of dollars in bets on you know, whether or not We're going to use ground troops or there will be a ceasefire, Israel's going to bomb Lebanon today or whatever else. 00:15:07 Speaker 7: So I don't know. 00:15:08 Speaker 10: I mean, it's wild, but this is sort of the new normal that I feel like the Trump administration has has set up for us. 00:15:17 Speaker 2: Two of the negotiators, Wikoff and Kushner, are deeply invested like directly invested in the Middle East and stand a benefit from However, you know, this war is concluded and what that all looks like, and they're just you know, that's just the norm. And Kushner is not even part of the government technically, is he is? He has he gotten like some special government employment. No, he's just like a private citizen relative of Trump who has massive investments and has gotten you know, already effectively like bought off by the Saudis through their intervention into his fun The amounts of money here, the level of corruption is just astonishing. So I mean, since I look at this and they're sending this email out to like low level staffers, stop insider trading, you know who's so I guess only if you're at the very top you get to it's only Kushner who can get yeah, your business deals in public and cash in on your position. So, I mean, the rot is just so thorough throughout this entire it's everything is a grift. 00:16:15 Speaker 10: It's also wild just looking at like from an Iranian perspective, these are the guys who you were expected to negotiate before this war started, like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. These like corrupt real estate guys who know nothing about like the particulars of nuclear and Richmond or any of the other technical details of what Iran was conceding on in the days leading up to this war. Like these are the two clowns who also, as you pointed out, Crystal, have billions and billions of dollars collectively tied up in the Gulf countries. And they're both deeply you know, proud Zionists and tied in with Israel as well. Like the fact that we put these guys forward as some sort of serious negotiators is a joke. 00:16:59 Speaker 3: Well, Ryan, I'd want to just tackle one last thing going on in terms of all the money, you know, money in the Middle East. Right now, there's an attack the drop site reporter on on a Saudi Arabian pipeline. I don't know if you saw this, but let me throw this up on the screen. There confirmed strike on Saudi Arabia's East West pipeline has knocked out seven hundred thousand barrels per day, about ten percent of its seven million bpd maximum capacity, hitting the kingdom's only bypass to the Strait over Horn Moos. Yeah, what is your reaction to this, and what is Saudi Arabia's reaction ben panic? 00:17:37 Speaker 6: I mean, they can you know, you can fix a pipeline, but the East West pipeline is the vehicle that Saudi Arabia has been using to try to up its export capacity to make up for what can't get out through through the Strait of Horn Moves. And there's been you know, there have been some oil analysts who have said, yeah, like, okay, this is this is bad in general for Saudi Arabia and in a lot of ways, but they're getting so much more per barrel that despite the fact that they're exporting less, they're actually coming out. Okay, that was before a lot of their infrastructure got wrecked, and also before this seven hundred thousand barrels or were taken off taken off line. So it depends on how quickly they can get this you know, back up and moving it. Also, you know, it also shows how uh kind of simple it is to sever these arteries. 00:18:31 Speaker 2: Right, I wanted to ask you. Obviously, the last several diplomatic alleged diplomatic efforts from the US resulted in US using that diplomacy as a ruse to start wars and an attack Oran. Uh, is it possible that that is the same game that's being played here as well, that it's another that it's another ruse to sort of distract them while some other operation unfolds, because, Uh, they have continued to rush more military assets to the region. Obviously, the Iranians are concerned about this. They had to have Pakistani fighter jets escort their diplomats to this meeting, that's how concerned they were about the possibility of either the US or Israel assassinating them when they're en route. So do you think that that's a possibility here that needs to be contemplated as well? 00:19:21 Speaker 6: Yes, And what's new is that it is being very explicitly and outfront contemplated by the Iranians, Like according to Jeremy's reporting, that is their running assumption, Like their baseline assumption is that this is a ruse, and then they should not and cannot trust it. But that because they mentioned the ten point plan that they proposed as the basis for negotiations, they're willing to go through the motions and that if it turns out that the US is serious, they're willing to reach a permanent deal. 00:19:54 Speaker 7: But their assumption is that it's a scam, it's a setup. 00:19:58 Speaker 6: They're going to try to kill the negotiators, kill the kill the leadership, and then you know, relaunch a war. And I think they some elements of the Iranian leadership I kind of hope that's wrong. I think other elements of it hope that that's correct, because there's a significant faction within the IRGC. It appears that wants this to continue because they think they haven't quite extracted enough pain to make this something that the West doesn't want to do again, you know, for decades, and I think Israel continuing to bomb Lebanon is kind of fortifying their position. Yeah, so I looked obviously we didn't we didn't deter them from war in the future, because we didn't even deter them from doing war on Wednesday. 00:20:44 Speaker 2: And that will and that will impact also what the negotiators, the Iranian negotiators are able to agree to, because they know they have to be able to justify it not just to the IERGC, but to a population that is going to have a much more sort of hardline logic at this point as well, since they've been able to achieve more with you know, through over warfare, aggressive warfare than they ever were able to achieve through attempts at diplomatic negotiations. And that's just the sad reality. 00:21:12 Speaker 10: Yeah, And to that same point, we had multiple Trump true social statements over the last couple of days that we're keeping troops in the region. He's literally said they're restocking, they're resupplying. So you know, if they are going to start this back up again, it could be under that same sort of pretense that we've seen before. I'm also curious, Ryan, maybe you have some insight in terms of from Iran's perspective, like what would have been the incentive for them to enter into these conversations or to continue them right now. Because the first truth social that we got from Donald Trump said the ten point plan that we received from Iran is going to be the basis for negotiations moving forward. Then the next day we had Caroline Levitt come out and say, no, no, no, that plan was a complete joke. We threw it in the trash. So like, if you're Iran, are you viewing that as Okay, this is maybe just Trump posturing, This is bluster. He wants to just look like he's succeeding and we know what we're actually negotiating behind the scenes, or like why even entertain these negotiations if it if the Trump administration is saying no, no, no, the thing would we based the entirety of this plan on we actually threw in the trash. 00:22:18 Speaker 6: Yeah, what what Jeremy Soars were telling was that it was his mentioning of the ten point plan that that got them to agree to it, and that they understands, as you said, that everything after that is just is just flailing. Because they also recognize that this is the most powerful country maybe in the history of the world negotiating its defeat against a modest power, and that's going to require all sorts of gymnastics to to kind of cover up the obvious humiliation of it. And so they they are they're you know, they're they're smart cats, Like they understand that they know that there's going to be contortions between now and because like like Trump's contortions are going to be more kind of ridiculous than anybody else's. But think about it, like you just can't message that white is black or black is white without looking ridiculous, right, And so it's going to be it's gonna be a challenge r S smart. 00:23:22 Speaker 5: Cats as. 00:23:26 Speaker 2: Appearance traumatic entrance. 00:23:30 Speaker 6: Emily, we are about to get to professors in for Iran and all these Chinese videos too. 00:23:37 Speaker 4: Maybe an appearance in the next lego video from Salem. But uh, Emily, we have one. 00:23:43 Speaker 3: Last truth to get to before Professor John Meherscheimer. Here, I, of course I'm speaking about Trump calling out Tucker, Megan Kelly, and Alex Jones. This is I'm sure, yeah, the whole's true. This is way too long to read, so I'll just read a sentence or two here, But it says I know why Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candice Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact for years, especially by the fact that they think it's wonderful for Iran, the number one state sponsor of parent have a nuclear weapon. 00:24:17 Speaker 4: Because they have one thing in common. 00:24:19 Speaker 3: Low IQ's they're stupid people. They know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it too. Look at their past, look at the record. They don't have what it takes, and they never did. They've all been thrown off by television, lost their shows and aren't even invited on TV because nobody cares about them. They're nutjobs, troublemakers and will say anything necessary for some free and cheap publicity. Your reaction, M it's so funny. 00:24:43 Speaker 5: You missed the funniest part of it, which is that he corrects Candice Owens on Brigitte Macron not only being a woman, but being a very beautiful or. 00:24:52 Speaker 2: More beautiful, a more beautiful woman than Candace and Cadace Trump Trump full woke on this one. 00:24:59 Speaker 5: It's also so funny that his standard for what counts as legitimacy is always television, like whether you are invited on television? Like just fantastic, I do think, like, on a serious note, it should remind us that those are the obstacles people who break with the administration over this ridiculous war find themselves up against. And I mean, it's it's easy to laugh at it because this is exactly what you would expect from Donald Trump. But it's not just Trump. I'm sure it's like Trump allies, So I know it's Trump allies who you know privately publicly will try to shame anybody who breaks with them on this ridiculous war because they're insecure about it. They know it's unpopular and the remixes have been absolute fire if you haven't heard them, knowing I don't. 00:25:53 Speaker 2: We also got word that Tim Poole is still on the good list though we apparently got a call from Trump before Trump posted this truth to tell him what a good friend he is. 00:26:02 Speaker 7: But did you see what Tim. 00:26:03 Speaker 10: Poole said afterwards? He's trolling. He's trolling though, who Tim Poole? Yeah, he's trying to farm engagement. So he's like pretending to be critical of Trump right now. 00:26:13 Speaker 7: Yeah, he's need to know. 00:26:15 Speaker 4: No, he can't trust his Twitter feed. 00:26:18 Speaker 6: Temple who you cannot trust? Who do do anything other than just entertainment? And uh oh, I said this is trolling where he says that does it? 00:26:30 Speaker 7: I am done? This was the last straw. I'm so angry. 00:26:33 Speaker 6: Yeah, because it's crass and scene and he's responding to so emily like literally though other than Tim Pole, who who like serious? 00:26:42 Speaker 7: Question? Who does Trump have left? 00:26:45 Speaker 5: Fox Snapiro? 00:26:46 Speaker 7: So Fox Shapiro, Shapiro's nude Max right. 00:26:49 Speaker 5: Fox News? I'm sure news Max has been pretty supportive of it. Yeah, that's the thing. 00:26:54 Speaker 3: Walsh, Walsh is out, No Walsh's out, he's arguing with his wire homies, and then Shapiro is apparently bleeding tens of thousands of subscribers. 00:27:05 Speaker 7: Hero Fox News and what purchases Fox News have left Trump? 00:27:11 Speaker 2: Trump with the boomers huge? Yeah, still huge? 00:27:15 Speaker 7: So Trump and yeah, the boomers are now seventy five plus. 00:27:19 Speaker 2: But I mean, look, Gen X is actually the most pro Trump generation generation for him, we. 00:27:25 Speaker 7: Don't have power or or we don't have any numbers either. Nobody cares. 00:27:29 Speaker 6: That's the worst sign for him yet. Generation that's useful to you politically. 00:27:37 Speaker 4: Is Professor John Meherscheimer. Is he Gen X or Boomer? 00:27:42 Speaker 7: He's a boomer? 00:27:43 Speaker 3: Well, then we'll see. Well, let's why don't we bring him in right now? We'll see where he lands with all this stuff. Crystal, why don't you introduce the professor here? 00:27:51 Speaker 4: When I bring him in. 00:27:54 Speaker 2: We are very fortunate to be joined this morning by Professor John Meherscheimer of the University of Chicago. Great to see against her, glad to be here. So just off the top, you know, what is your expectations for what might come out of these diplomatic meetings in Islamabad this weekend? 00:28:11 Speaker 9: Well, I mean It's important to realize that all we're trying to do at this point is get the ceasefire in place, and once that happens, then we'll have the serious negotiations. And the mere fact that we're having so much trouble getting the ceasefire in place makes one wonder where the negotiations are going to lead, even if they're going to get started. It seems clear to me that the Iranians will not engage in serious negotiations regarding the ceasefire. They may, you know, talk, but they're not going to engage in serious negotiations regarding the ceasefire until Iran excuse me, until Israel stops striking at has Blah. It's just that simple. And Israel has, or at least it thinks it has, a vested interest in continuing to target has Belah, all for the purposes of undermining the ceasefire and in turn undermining negotiations. So I think the sixty four thousand dollars question is whether the United States, which is desperate to end this war, will be so desperate that it will be willing to lean on net Nyahu in a really big way and get him to stop attacking has Belah in Lebanon. But until that happens, this is going nowhere. 00:29:43 Speaker 6: Now if the opposite happens and Nennyahu insists on continuing to attack has Belah and it brings the United States back into war, what are the consequences of that for the US is relationship? And as somebody who's studied the Israel lobby longer than by most of us have even been alive, like, would what would a breakup between the American people, the American public, and the idea of supporting Israel do to the US Israel relationship? 00:30:15 Speaker 7: What is there? Does that matter at all? 00:30:18 Speaker 10: Sure? 00:30:19 Speaker 9: I mean huge damage has already been done, because it's very clear, In fact, it becomes clearer by the day that the Israelis bamboozled us into this war, that they led Trump to decide to attack on February twenty eighth, and it's clearly a failed war. I mean, this was a catastrophic bunder on our part and the Israelis are responsible for that. So what Trump is now trying to do is shut the war down. And what are the Israelis doing? The Israelis are doing everything they can to prevent us from shutting the war down and to make it go on. 00:31:01 Speaker 4: This is going to do further. 00:31:02 Speaker 9: Damage to Israel's reputation in the United States. And the problem that the Israelis face is that we have this alternative media sphere now, and of course your show is a perfect example of that, where people talk about what Israel is up to and what the US Israeli relationship has resulted in, and so forth and so on in ways that it do enormous damage to Israel and the US Israeli relationship because people get to see the basic facts that didn't used to be the case before we had this alternative media sphere. So this is doing enormous damage to Israel's reputation in the United States. It's making the Lobby's job in the United States much more difficult than it ever was. Is I like to say, when Steve and I wrote the original article on the Lobby in two thousand and six, and then we wrote the book in two thousand and seven, I don't think either one of us ever imagined that we would be at the point we are now at today. The lobby has been so badly wounded. The US Israeli relationship is really in tatters. At least in the public mind, and I think moving forward, the situation only gets worse because Israel will behave in crazier and crazier ways, and more and more Americans will realize that, and they'll be well aware of what this escapade in Iran has led to. 00:32:39 Speaker 10: I'm curious, sorry, Emily, I'm curious what you make of the landscape of leverage going into these talks that the US administration has Trump obviously claiming that Iran has been completely decimated, defeated, they have no military, etc. You know, Iran in the meantime still retains the capacity to strike at israel US assets in the region, controlling the straight off wour moves. 00:33:00 Speaker 7: Who do you think has. 00:33:01 Speaker 10: More leverage going into this Where do you see these talks potentially going in terms of any sort of framework for a possible deal. 00:33:08 Speaker 9: Yeah, that is an enormously important question that you just asked. And my view has long been that Iran has a vested interest in prolonging the war, or, to put it in different terms, prolonging the closing of the strait. The fact is that what is happening here is that the situation in the international economy is getting worse and worse by the day, and as almost everybody knows, if you project out two or three months where the Strait remains closed, the damage to the world economy will be enormous. This means that the longer the Strait is closed, the more leverage the Iranians have over Donald Trump. Trump, on the other hand, has a profound interest in ending this war as quickly as possible to make sure that the damage is limited. And just to go back to what happened on Monday with Trump's two tweets, the one in the morning where he threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth and make it so that Iran could never come back from the dead. I mean, this is a genocidal threat of the first order. As almost everybody knows, the idea that an American president was making a threat of that sort would have been unthinkable before the morning of April sixth. But anyway, that shows his desperation. Then what happens is at the end of the day, at the end of the working day, he issues another tweet and he says we're going to not attack, and we're going to start negotiations, and there's going to be a ceasefire. And what's truly remarkable about the second tweet that night is he says that we accept the Iranians' ten point plan. You remember, there are two plans on the table. One is the American plan, which is the fifteen point plan, and that has all the maximalist demands of the United States and Israel. And then there's the ten point plan, which is the Iranian plan, which has their demands, which are maximalist Iranian demands, and he says that it is the ten point plan. He says in the tweet that evening is a workable basis for negotiation, not the fifteen point plan, the ten point plan. This is remarkable, and then he says furthermore in the tweet that almost all of the points of contention between the two sides have been worked out. If you think about what he said that morning, that's desperation. And then if you think about what he said that evening, the concessions that he's willing to make are really quite remarkable. And what's going on here is that behind closed doors, they're in deep panic mode. They understand full well that the international economy might go off a cliff if they don't shut this one down. Immediately and then begin to repair the damage and do everything possible to return to something approximating the status quo ante. They understand this, so we're desperate. But of course, if you flip back to the other side, the Iranians, this all tells you the Iranians are in the driver's seat and they have a vested interest in prolonging this. So if I were playing Iran's hand, I might sit down today in Islamabad, but I would say, listen, folks, we're not getting to cease fire until Israel stops pounding. Has be loot, and it's up to you, the United States, to decide whether or not you want to take the international economy off a cliff, or whether you want to appease Prime Minister Nan Yaho. 00:37:20 Speaker 5: It's your choice, or whether that's where we are do ground troops, because that's really the only other option. That's what I was going to ask, Professor is Donald Trump now talking about the nuclear dust as he calls it, the hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium, and the Iranians have, as we were just discussing, leverage in the form of the Strait of Hormuz. So for Israel, as they pressure Trump over the negotiations. Iranians are reportedly considering whether to even show up as the Lebanon bombing continues. But let's say that happens they do show up, What on earth would an off ramp for Trump look like? That all so would involve getting thatsan Yahoo on board with it. That doesn't involve either going back to war with ground troops or Iran operating a toll system in the Strait of Hoar Moves and dealing with the enriched uranium quote nuclear dust that he's talking about. I mean, it just I can't conceive of what that might look like. And I think this is what you're speaking to. But if they try to push on the hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium, what leverage exists possibly for them to barter? 00:38:33 Speaker 9: Well, first of all, they have no leverage. 00:38:37 Speaker 7: We have no leverage. 00:38:39 Speaker 9: You raise the possibility of ground troops. We have seven thousand combat troops in the region. There's all this talk about fifty thousand troops in the region. Almost all those troops are not combat troops. And you can't go to war on the ground against Iran with anything. You've got seven thousand combat troops five thousand of them are on giant ships that can't get close to the coast of Iran. How are you going to offload those troops and the two thousand paratroopers and the eighty second Airborne up against a million man army. This is not a serious option. There is no ground option. I mean, you want to think about where we are militarily in this situation. First of all, we have thirteen bases, thirteen major bases in the region. According to the New York Times, all thirteen of those bases are either destroyed or badly damaged. We have a huge naval armada in the region. That naval armada cannot get close to the coasts of Iran, much less the Strait of Hormuz, so it's parked way out in the ocean, far away from Iran. Then there's the Air Force. In this rescue mission that just took place where they got the second pilot. We lost more aircraft that day than we have lost in any single day since the Vietnam War. This was just to rescue one down the pilot. We lost more aircraft that one day than we have lost any day since the Vietnam War. Then there's the whole business of our missile inventory. We're running out of defensive missiles, We're running out of high end munitions. We have interest all around the world, especially in East Asia, and we're using up this rather small inventory of boutique weapons that we have. Where does that leave us? And then there's the question of our allies. We can't protect their allies. In fact, we've turned our allies these are the GCC states, the Gulf States into giant magnets for Iranian drones and Iranian ballistic missiles. Our military performance here has been abysmal, the idea that we have a military option. So this gets to your question, what's the ourf ramp here. There's only one our ramp here, and that's surrender. And what the actual terms of the surrender are have to be worked out. But this is what President Trump said in his tweet on Monday night. He said, we accept the ten point plan as a workable basis. Go read the ten point plan. It's all the maximalist demands. Furthermore, with regard to net Yahoo, net Yahoo doesn't want tole it the ceasefire come into place, and he certainly doesn't want to see an end to the war because this will be a catastrophic defeat for Israel. As big as the feat as it will be for Donald Trump, he will be a far worse defeat for Israel and especially for Prime Minister Nat Yahoo. So he's working over time to undermine the cease fire and prevent negotiations. And the sixty four thousand dollars question is whether or not Trump is willing to lean on net Yahoo to get a cease fire. And then he's going to have to lean on net and Yaho, and he's going to have to work against the lobby to negotiate a settlement. You want to remember getting Look at all the trouble we're having getting a cease fire, you can imagine how much difficulty Trump is going to have trying to negotiate a settlement that reflects the fact that we lost this war. 00:42:44 Speaker 4: But that's where we are. 00:42:48 Speaker 6: I wanted to add one point real quickly to your observation about the dwindling missile ballistic missile interceptors. I had a piece yesterday with my colleague Martazi saying over at drop site yesterday there it is Griffin or whoever pulled that up. Can you scroll down a little bit because there's a really in mac. Yeah, there's a really interesting line in here that I thought is relevant to the US Israeli relationship. 00:43:11 Speaker 7: So right there, right there. So the White House referred questions. 00:43:15 Speaker 6: So what we reported is that they are, according to a Trump administration official, the Israelis are down to double digit ballistic missile interceptors and are now relying almost exclusively on the navy US Navy to prevent missile attacks and are letting a lot more strikes go through just because they have to. But the White House referred questions about the dwindling stockpile to the Israeli military. Quote, refer you to the IDF, said a White House spokesperson. Now, so I went to the IDF and they said, we're looking into it, and they kept for hours, We're looking into We're looking at like they were going to go count them and come back to me and. 00:43:53 Speaker 7: Give me a number. 00:43:55 Speaker 6: They eventually didn't have a fulsome comment. If they provide one, we'll add it to the article. But I thought that was such an interesting dynamic to go to the White House and say, you know, we're told by an official at the White House that the Israelis are almost out of ballistic missile interceptors. 00:44:09 Speaker 7: And they say, go ask the IDF about that. 00:44:14 Speaker 9: I don't know what to say. It is just kind of hard to believe. But you know, here's a couple points, Ryan, and you know this issue better than I do. But the Israelis say in their press that eighty percent of the ballistic missiles coming from Iran are getting through. This is truly remarkable. Eighty percent of the missiles are getting through, and they are running out of defensive missiles, and this is hardly surprising. If we go back to last year, you remember the twelve day war. That war ended in good part because Netanyao, who asked Trump to stop it, because the Israelis there were running out of defensive missiles. And this war has gone on, you know, well beyond twelve days, and it's hardly surprising that they're running out of defensive missiles. And by the way, we are as well. And to make matters worse, we have pulled THAD missiles and Patriot missiles, as you well know, out of East Asia. In fact, that marine expeditionary unit, the first one to arrive in the Gulf, came out of Japan. What this means is that the United States, which has been trying to pivot to Asia to contain China, is a result of this war, is pivoting away from Asia. Just think about that we are pivoting away from Asia. Think about what that means for our allies. Furthermore, just think about Trump's behavior since this war started on February twenty eighth. I guess one could argue his behavior even before the war started. But what is this signal to our allies in East Asia? If you're Taiwan, if you're South Korea, if you're Japan, can you depend on the United States anymore? I mean, it's not only the fact that they're pivoting away, it's just the basic judgment of the Trump administration. This looks like the gang that can't shoot straight. And that's not overstating the case. In fact, if anything, it's understating the case. It's just truly remarkable how incompetent these people are. And just to go back to Monday. Here we are Monday morning, you know, threatening genocide against Iran, and then at the end of the day do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and basically saying, well, accept most of Iran's demands. Just it's remarkable where we are. 00:46:43 Speaker 3: Well, let's talk about the Asian allies for a second. I wanted to throw up from our other host who couldn't be here, Sagar, who had some thoughts on this. He says, Meanwhile, actually important US allies Japan and Australia warn of a security vacuum in the Indo Pacific after the Iran War. 00:47:01 Speaker 4: And then more, South. 00:47:03 Speaker 3: Korea is dispatching a special envoy to Iran immediately to negotiate passage through her moves. Direct bi lateral negotiations outside of US channels equals more breakdown in the US as a guaranteur of the Allied order. What is your reaction to that? And then, more specifically to the Taiwan question. Does this sort of put the Taiwan question to bed? And are we going to see movement from China and Taiwan into some sort of reunification process as an outcome of this war? 00:47:35 Speaker 9: Well, just start with South Korea. I was on South Korean public television the other day, and I spent a lot of time sort of preparing myself for that conversation. And if you look at the South Korean situation in a very important way, the fact that we're pivoting away from East Asia matters less then the economic damage that is being done and might be done to South Korea if this war is not shut down. It's very clear that South Korea is being hurt badly by this war. A huge amount of its imported oil, which it's heavily dependent on, doesn't have oil of its own, comes through the Gulf, and they're in desperate straits, and the agricultural consequences if this just not to be underestimated. So countries like South Korea and other countries in East Asia. India is another example, Indonesia's another example. The Philippines is another example. These are countries that feel like they're close to the precipice, not militarily, economically, and something has to be done to end this war. And again, this in part, maybe in good part, explains why President Trump is in deep panic mode because he understands this as well well, because he's certainly hearing from these countries. So let's just put aside the whole business of pivoting away from East Asia. The economic consequences of this are being felt in East Asia in a really profound way, and that's what explains the South Koreans talking to the Iranians about getting permission to send ships headed for South Korea through the strait. Then there's the military dimension, and this brings in places like Taiwan as well as South Korea and Japan. First of all, if you're South Korean Japan, how do you think about getting nuclear weapons at this point in time? Isn't the main lesson of this whole war that you better have a nuclear deterrent of your own, whether you were Iran, South Korea or Japan. 00:49:56 Speaker 2: Water to turrent well, and I wanted to ask you so you said earlier that effectively the only off ramp for Trump is surrender, and I agree with that. I don't see any other option. And so, whether it's now or a month from now, or two months from now or a year from now, we are very likely to end up with something like the Iranian ten points becoming a new reality, including a new status quo with regard to the Strait of Hormuz. How does that change the world? How does that change the US is standing in the world? How does that change the is Raley standing in the world? China? Like, what does the world look like if we end up with Iran as this now emerging fourth power, tremendously frankly wealthy from the tolls they'll be able to charge, and having demonstrated this incredible deterrent ability through their control of the Strait of Hormuz, and. 00:50:44 Speaker 9: I'd toss in Russia as well, Professor Well, the Russians have obviously benefited enormously from this, at least in terms of the war in Ukraine. I mean, the amount of weaponry that we can give to Ukraine is going to be much less as this war. And furthermore, Putin has benefited in the short term economically. I would say that I think from China's point of view and from Russia's point of view, the short term effects of this war are all positive for sure, But neither one of those countries has any interest whatsoever and seeing the international economy go off a cliff, and I believe that this is the principal reason the Chinese have been putting pressure on the Iranians to go to Islamabad and try to negotiate a settlement to this war. The Chinese do not want this war to go on and on, nor do the Russians, because it could crash the international economy. We could have a worldwide depression that looks worse than what happened in the nineteen twenties. That's what we're talking about here. So I think in the short term this is good for the Russians, good for the Chinese, but they understand in the long term that's not the case. 00:52:01 Speaker 2: What was your question, Crystal, We was asking about if we have a final settlement along the lines of the Iranian ten points, including a new status quo in the in the Strait of Removes, how does that change the world. 00:52:14 Speaker 9: Well, let me just say one thing you do not want to talk about Iran as if it's going to emerge is a new great power from this conflict. We did enormous damage to the Iranian economy before February twenty eighth, and we have done enormous damage to Iran, to its infrastructure since February twenty eighth, and it's going to take them many, many years and many billions of dollars to begin to recover. So this is a country that is in many ways in terrible shape. They have two great levers though, that give them huge influence in the region and in the world. One is they control the Strait of Hormuz and number two, they have a huge inventory of ballistic missiles, both short range and long range. They have a huge inventory of cruise missiles and an even bigger inventory of drones, and they can use those weapons very effectively. So there's no question that the Iranians are going to come out of this war having more leverage over politics in the region and around the world once the conflict ends. But it's very difficult to say at this point in time how the war will finally end. In other words, if you look at the ten point plan and you look at the ten demands that the Iranians have made, how many of those are the Americans going to accept? For example, the Iranians demand that the United States leave the region, that we get out of the region with our military forces. Are we going to do that? If we don't do that, how do we think about those thirteen bases? Do we go back to those thirteen bases and rebuild them? Will the Gulf states that hosted those bases allow us to do that. These are all open questions and they have huge consequences for what the architecture, the security architecture in the region looks like. So I think one thing that is clear is that Iran will be more powerful for sure after February twenty eighth than it was before. I think it's also clear that relations between the GCC countries and the United States will never be the same, and we will not have a close alliance with them in the future the way we have had in the past. And I think as far as Israel is concerned, this is just another major defeat for Israel. The the most interesting aspects of how the mainstream media reports Israel's actions in these various wars is that they're always portrayed as great victories. Israel's always seen as doing very well. Their situation is seen to be constantly improving, and so forth and so on. They're remaking the Middle East. I think this is fundamentally wrong. First of all, with regard to Hesbelah, they have not defeated Hesbelah. Hesbelah has beaten them up badly in southern Lebanon. They were talking about going all the way up to the Latani River and controlling all of southern Lebanon up to the Latani River. This is the Israelis, but the IDEF has had a devil of a time fighting with Hesbelah, and Hesbela has actually been winning, and the Israelis have retreated to a narrow buffer zone on the northern border of Israel. And in terms of the bombing, they can bomb Beirut, they can bomb Tehran, but it doesn't ever lead to anything positive. And I believe the principal reason that the Israelis are interested in negotiations now with the Lebanese government is they want the Lebanese government to disarm has Blah because they can't. The Israelis can't disarm has Blah. So in terms of the war against Hasbolah, they have not won. Against Iran. This is a colossal defeat for Israel. With regard to Gaza, they have not defeated Hamas. Hamas still is there. It is still fighting. With regard to the Huthis, they're still there and they'll grow more powerful over time. With regard to Iranian nuclear weapons or Iranian Iranian nuclear enrichment capability that you know, that's all still on the table. So the Israelis are in deep trouble. And furthermore, they've poisoned their relationship with the United States where this all ends up. As we were talking about at the beginning of the show is hard to say, but there's no question that there has been a significant deterioration in US Israeli relations. So I think that the idea that Israel is going to come out of this is the dominant force in the region is simply wrong. Israel has been badly damaged and it has no real strategy available for fixing the situation. So I don't know the specifics of how this plays itself out because I don't know what the end of the negotiation process will look like. But I think there's no question that our influence in the region is going to go down, Israel's influence is going to go down, and Irans is going to go up. But again, I don't think you want to overestimate the position that Iran is in simply because of the huge amount of damage that we've done to that country. 00:58:07 Speaker 3: Well, Professor, this has been illuminating, and I did just want to flag on your way out that the President in recent Truth seems to agree with you. Recent Truth posted this morning World's most powerful reset President DJT, So it seems like he acres to the professor. 00:58:29 Speaker 9: I don't know whether I should be happy about that. 00:58:31 Speaker 5: Or not. 00:58:34 Speaker 4: Sign of the Times. 00:58:35 Speaker 9: I guess yeah, to sign at the Times. 00:58:40 Speaker 3: Well, thank you so much for professor for joining us. Any final words before you leave. 00:58:45 Speaker 9: No, I just hope we get a cease fire and then I hope they reach a quick conclusion to the negotiations so we can put this war behind us. I mean when I think about all the damage that's being done around the world. Also, it would be really wonderful if somehow we could lean on the Israelis to stop running around the Middle East murdering people. It's truly amazing the number of people that the Israelis, often in cohoots with us, end up destroying huge chunks of countries like Lebanon and Iran and killing huge numbers of people. It would be really wonderful if we could put an end to all of this and create some sort of peace in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. 00:59:34 Speaker 3: All right, Well, on that note, thank you so much, Professor. I'm sure that we will be asking for more from you very soon, and until then, enjoy the rest of your weekend. 00:59:43 Speaker 7: Thank you. 00:59:45 Speaker 9: You too as well, and thank you very much for having me on the Show's always our pleasure. 00:59:50 Speaker 7: Thanks professor. 00:59:53 Speaker 3: All right, welcome to the liberated second half of the Friday Show. That Ryan berated he stormed the steel and has that. 01:00:05 Speaker 2: Free the second half of the Friday Show. 01:00:07 Speaker 4: Mm hmmm, that's right. 01:00:09 Speaker 5: So sounded so. Ryan posted this clip also on Instagram Ryan, which was impressive, but Julian that oh good, okay, soccer sounded like gritted teeth. He was announcing this through gritted teeth. Place. 01:00:26 Speaker 4: Now someone's got to make around here. 01:00:30 Speaker 3: And you know, Soger, if you want to make decisions on the Friday Show, you're you're welcome to join any time. 01:00:36 Speaker 2: Until that, Yeah, I just like how I I hadn't even been like read in on that this was a possibility before Ryan just announced it on you guys show. 01:00:48 Speaker 5: That it was. 01:00:49 Speaker 9: It was. 01:00:50 Speaker 10: It was floated on one of our production calls as a hypothetical, and I was like, oh, Ryan already said that this morning, So it's it's happening. 01:00:56 Speaker 2: It's done. 01:00:59 Speaker 5: Learned, he's learned. He is like Benjamin netsa Yahoo. He has learned a dangerous lesson about how to negotiate. 01:01:06 Speaker 2: On the ground. 01:01:07 Speaker 7: I think it's the truth. 01:01:08 Speaker 2: Yeah, you just create facts on the ground and then it is and it is what it is. But anyway, we're grateful to be able too, glad to be able to share the entire Friday show with the whole world. 01:01:17 Speaker 3: So absolutely, And on that note, why don't we get to a little bit of Crystal's best friend, Alissa Slotkin, who has been, you know, doing town halls, potentially gearing up for a twenty twenty eight run, And there has been a tense town hall between a few people and Alyssa, And I'm going to play both of these videos back to back to get the full experience and then Crystal's reaction. So why don't we start with the first one here? 01:01:46 Speaker 11: Going back to what was said over here, you have not taken money from APAK, but pro Israel lobbies and their donors have spent four point five million dollars on your campaigns. But I do have a question un really to that. I just wanted to add that. So I'm curious why left leaning media, but I guess mainstream media and establishment democrats are spending energy attacking influencers like Hassan Piker as has been in the news lately, and why the democratic establishment is just like immune to criticizing democratic leadership like Haikim Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer, who are some of the main drivers in the reason that the Democratic Party is that it's lowest approval rating in history. 01:02:38 Speaker 2: Well, a couple of things. 01:02:39 Speaker 12: First, just to correct the record, and I'm not sure what you're referring to on not a peck, but the Israel lobby. If you're equating Israel lobby to Jews, I got a problem with that, and that just like you wouldn't say, you know the Iranian that you know Iranians. Whatever happens the Iranian government does is what Iranian Americans believe. I think it's really important, especially now, to make a distinction between it Israeli government and the choices that they're making and the average Jew. 01:03:10 Speaker 5: Okay, and you're the only one, so there's not a distinction in that back and forth. 01:03:17 Speaker 3: Yeah, that is the that's the first one. And now I'd like to present the follow up. This was a second questioner that came right after that. Gentleman there, let's take a listen. 01:03:26 Speaker 5: There was no indication that he was conflating those two. 01:03:28 Speaker 2: Just no, no, not at all, quite the opposite. 01:03:31 Speaker 13: First off, I wanted to say I found your response to the gentleman in front of me, offensively bad faith to conflate support for Israel while they are committing genocide, and while they just had a terror attack on Lebanon yesterday killing almost three hundred people. 01:03:47 Speaker 7: To conflate that with the Jewish identity. 01:03:49 Speaker 13: That is what anti Semitism looks like. But my question is I am so tired of the Democratic Party villainizing the left, villainizing progressives. And we've seen it here where they've tried to push away progressive voices. How can we empower those progressive voices? If you said you want to be a big tent right now, that you're not growing the tent, you're moving the tent away from its pace. 01:04:11 Speaker 5: Okay, let's start. 01:04:13 Speaker 12: I'll go round, or maybe I'll start with you and come back. So what I take issue with is someone saying that I took four point five million dollars from the pro Israel lobby. 01:04:26 Speaker 2: That's not apac I don't know what that is. 01:04:29 Speaker 12: But if that's counting Jewish donors and saying Jewish donors are somehow the same as pro Israel lobby, I got a problem with that, and not just as an elected official, as a Jew, so I have no problem standing by that statement in terms of the progressive wing of the party. Look, I don't think there's anyone shoving anyone. 01:04:49 Speaker 10: Look at the. 01:04:49 Speaker 12: Election like in New York City. 01:04:51 Speaker 2: Wow, I mean all I can say is good luck with your twenty twenty eight run, lady, Like if you're already this fragile and lashing out like that at very basic and obvious questions where the Democratic base at this point is overwhelmingly anti Israel, anti apac, they are going to be asking you about where you stand on these issues repeatedly, and if all you can do is immediately reach for insinuating that they're anti Semites for even asking about it, like this is just this is not going to work. This is mostly for you whatsoever, And. 01:05:29 Speaker 5: In the most like theatrical, sanctimonious way that doesn't even give off a like ounce of authenticity or sincerity, that like it's it's just going to the old talking points without ever appearing to have engaged in the recent discussion. You would think after her breaking points appearance, the Senator would have tried to like really understand in good faith where people were coming from on this and it honestly from that exchange looks like she's not familiar with the discourse and has just reflexively retreated to the old talking points. 01:06:06 Speaker 2: No, I think she's familiar with the discourse. I mean what's interesting to me is when she asked she she wanted to come on Breaking points, right, she reached out to us. We're like, great, let's have you on, and we had that whole exchange. My impression in that exchange is she had realized that her lockstep pro Israel stance was now anathema to the base, and she was trying to workshop some sort of a middle ground thing. And effectively, there is no way to either you are, you know, supporting arms to a country that's funding aid that's committing a genocide. 01:06:38 Speaker 10: Or you're not. 01:06:38 Speaker 2: There's really not a middle ground that you can sort of carve ount there. And so what I get from it Ryan is that she's sort of realized that and has decided, well, I'm gonna I'm going to be more hardline Prosionist. And I don't know how these twenty twenty eight contenders are so incredibly delusional to think that there's a lane for that that exists within the Democratic But there's just not. If you look at the numbers. And one other thing to add to this is there was a resolution being put forward at the DNC to you know, to go after directly go after a pack and condemn a pack and you know, say we shouldn't take a pac money, and that got shot down. Reportedly there were two twenty twenty eight contenders who intervened to make sure that that resolution was ultimately spiked. And as I went through the list of like who could it be, it is shocking to me how many It's basically like almost any of them with you know, except for like Rocanna and AOC that would be potential suspects for getting involved to spike the anti apack resolution at the DNC. 01:07:42 Speaker 7: So so this figure seems to be coming from Track a Pack. 01:07:46 Speaker 6: And I've been going back and forth a bunch with track APAC about their methodology because now that they're becoming, you know, a significant part of the conversation, I've been telling them, like, you need to tighten up and be clear about what you're what you're saying here, and they actually they're telling me that they're actually they're doing that, They're they're working on that. And so they delineated some of the money here, So she's twenty one, twenty two, fourteen thousand. Now California Jewish Democrats. This they got dunked on because it's like, this is her exact point and two hundred and fifty dollars Is that a typo? But California Jewish Democrats, Isn't this her point that you're flagging Jewish Democrats and calling them apacs out? 01:08:25 Speaker 7: No, this organization used to used to. 01:08:28 Speaker 6: Be called something like California Jewish Democrats for a pack and or for Israel and dropped just dropped the name. But they should be clear about this knowing that they're under fire here DMFI four k Joint action committees. So J Street two hundred and eighty thousand pro Israel America is kind of to the right of a pack and knack pack. I think they're kind of a little bit more to the right of a pack. But that's only a few hundred thousand here to get to the four million. You need this one down here. Lobby donors four million, So that's a key question. What do they mean by lobby donors. My understanding is they mean people who have donated to J Street or APAC, which will include a lot of evangelical Christians, but can also slot into Slotkin's argument. So, like, is it if it's true that you're saying anybody who donated to j Street at any point is then forever going to be considered Israel lobby, Like you got to be clear about that and let people decide whether or not they want to factor that in. 01:09:35 Speaker 7: That's that's that's my view. 01:09:37 Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, in fairness though, I mean, Ryan, you can you can tell me if I'm wrong about this. But one of the strategies that APAC has been using since they recognize they're so toxic now in democratic primary races in particular, is rather than having people donate through APAC, they have people donate separately individually who are known APAC donors. So, I mean, it is a tricky It is tricky how to characterize that, how to get the right group here identified and there. 01:10:03 Speaker 6: So there's a and there's a super pack that has been getting in to kind of fight against a pack. And what what they've been trying to do is develop this algorithm to to try to find those donors. And because some some somebody might just give to Jay Street and not be part of like a big kind of a pack conspiracy. But you're right, a PAC does do that, and so what they've been trying to do is say, okay, if on the same day and and because of like basically AI and Claude and others like, it's it's easier to start figuring this stuff out. Okay, on the if if you in the same cycle gave to like Steve Scalise, Alyssa Slock you. 01:10:45 Speaker 7: Know you know, or like. 01:10:47 Speaker 6: You know, Haley Stevens or like any like these these like clear people that like a PACK is directing money to it isn't actually slot him. But let's so let's say he gave to Haley Stevens some other a PAC candidate and then also Scalise like and all of your donations are like all of these top APAC people. It's like, okay, we're tagging you as somebody who is clearly like part of this network. 01:11:10 Speaker 7: Because you're right, APAC does this. 01:11:11 Speaker 6: They have these private links where they will send out an email to like thousands of people saying here's a private link. We're not endorsing this person publicly, but we suggest that you do so that you give them the max donation and for transparency, you want the public to know that this that they're trying to evade public disclosure. So you so you now track a pack is like two people or three people or something. 01:11:41 Speaker 7: They don't have. 01:11:41 Speaker 6: They don't have that put together yet, and I think they can get there, but until they do, it's going to be it's it's going to leave some kind of gray area, which then is going to allow slot Can to be like, oh, you're just saying that I'm getting money from Jews, right. 01:11:56 Speaker 2: But you know, for her to say, like if she was talking to the track APAC people and she had that response and disagreeing with them on their methodology, it's one thing you have multi there were I think three different constituents here that asked her similar questions and to take them in the most bad faith and assuming that they are intentionally lumping in every Jewish person who's ever donated to her and making this blanket statement, I mean, not only is it, it's so it's really really gross to throw around claims of bigotry that are unfounded. That is a very aggressive thing to do. And so you're insinuating that you know, these people who want to know about where you stand and why you stand. There to immediately hurll that accusation is just really gross. And also, you know, for her from a political standpoint, I think it's a very bad look because she just comes off super defensive and super fragile about again a question that she has to have anticipated receiving, because she's a smart person. She's you know, I definitely came you know, away from that with from Mike exchange with her. She's a very intelligent person and she knows where the polls are, she knows what kind of question she's going to get, and this is the best that you can come up with. You know, it's not I don't think politically it looks very good. 01:13:19 Speaker 9: For her. 01:13:21 Speaker 7: Real quickly, Yeah, I totally agree with that. 01:13:23 Speaker 6: And in track APAX defense, it is one hundred percent true that APAC tries very hard to hide its involvement in supporting these candidates, Like that is a fact, and so that if you want to expose their involvement, then you have to go figuring out how they're moving their money through and if they make if they make one mistake on that, you can't say, oh, the entire thing is you know, bigoted and can be dismissed. It's like APAC APAK has set up this trap by being so secretive about its money. If APAC would just do what every other lobby does and say, we support this person because they support our values and we're proud to endorse them. If they would just do that, we wouldn't need any of this. Well, they do it after theate with and actually this. 01:14:15 Speaker 7: Has been a decent place to talk about the polling if you want to. 01:14:18 Speaker 5: Well, if you do, I just want to make a quick point. There's gonna be interesting in this that she's trying to be this third way type candidate on culture war issues where she's trying to kind of reject the peak woke Democratic Party. 01:14:34 Speaker 4: It's trying to be normal. 01:14:35 Speaker 5: Yeah. Right, But what's so interesting about that is one of the big lessons, and like we talked about this during that time period, one of the big lessons is that it's very alienating and defensive when you use lump definition inflation terms of bigotry and assume that somebody who disagrees with you on a policy question is necessarily categorically a bigot. That was a huge problem for Democrats during the like twenty twenty era. It did alienate a lot of voters like there's polling on that's that was a real thing. And now to see her try to be someone who rejects that framework of the binary you're either with us or you're a bigot. She's doing it to her own voters once again because they don't agree with her on a policy question. 01:15:24 Speaker 2: Well, and the Hassan thing fits in that with that too, because she would have been one of the I don't know if she specifically said this, but she would be the type to be the accomplis should have gone on a rogue and we need to meet people where they're at blah blah blah. And then it's like, Okay, Hassan Piker absolutely not. 01:15:36 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well she said she said on Bill Maher we need to be alpha again, we need male alpha energy again, but not Hassan. 01:15:44 Speaker 9: Yeah. 01:15:44 Speaker 10: Well, two quick things I'll add on that before we get to the polling. Number One, it's incredible to hear from somebody like Alyssa Slodkin this, you know, attacking the conflation of the Jewish people with the state of Israel, when the biggest perpetrator of that conflation has been the Israeli government and the US government by extension of some of the most hardcore pro Israel politicians in this country constantly conflating the actions of the Israeli government with the Jewish people as in its entirety. So, you know, I think there has been some element of an increase in anti Semitism because of this intentional effort to confuse people as to that. And ironically, it's the left. It is the most hardcore pro Palestine people, the most hardcore Israel critics, who are constantly making an explicit effort to draw that distinction and say, no, no, no, we're not talking about Jewish people as a whole. We're talking about the Israeli government. So I found that to be incredible there. And then point number two that I think it's important for us to keep in mind is like the Israel lobby stuff is an important lit mis test because I think people just get the feeling that if you're willing to openly take this money, you're kind of just admitting this baseline level of corruption that you're going to be engaging in as an elected representative. But the more important thing to me, at least is the policy. It's are you going to cut off weaponshipments to Israel? Are you willing to sanction Israel. What how do you view the US Israeli relationship moving forward, Because you may have some pro Israel Democrats who say, oh, I'm not taking a PAC money or I'm not taking any sort of pro Israel money, and then their position on Israel is still horrendous from any you know, left wing perspectives. So we got to like be specific about exactly what they're actually running on. So Ryan, we've got your poll in here, I'm going to pull up and gri Griffin, let me let me actually pull it up because I have a sepal one that has the cross tabs with ages that I think you'll like. So so to Max's point, we actually so we we actually pulled this this specific question. So we Zteo and Dropsite went out into the field in Michigan with with a poll and we did the top lines. 01:17:53 Speaker 7: I think it was we'll look at it. We can look at it exactly, but I think it was. 01:17:57 Speaker 6: Twenty two twenty two twenty one at that, you know, between the three candidates and with El sayahed like one point behind the other two, or it was twenty three twenty three, twenty two. Either way, it's like a dead heat. But to what we asked some interesting questions, as we do. We asked about Hassan Piker. But hold that for one second. So to max point. I asked this question because I wanted to get I wanted to see where this is Democratic primary voters in Michigan, and I wanted to test max proposition here. So we said, so, do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If a candidate is not willing to stand up to APAC, I am less likely to trust them to stand up for Michigan ers on other issues and across the board. 01:18:44 Speaker 7: So if you look down here to agree at. 01:18:45 Speaker 6: The bottom across the board, the minimum is kind of plus forty and that's moderates. So moderate Democrats vote likely voters in the in the primary by a fifty five to fifteen margin, with the rest saying they don't know say that yes, it is a proxy to them for whether they will stand up for other things. Obviously under forty five people under forty five, it's plus fifty four. Overall the top line plus forty nine, So sixty two percent of Democratic primary voters in Michigan say that how you stand up when it comes to APAC determines for them whether or not you're going to fight for them on other issues. 01:19:36 Speaker 2: And this is she's the most interesting sorry real quick. The most interesting thing though from that crosstab to me, though, Ryan is where you have you ask people, Okay, you know, if it's the elsiaed voter, how do they feel about it Versus McMorrow versus Stevens, And I think people mostly know, but Elsaia it is the like Bernie Left candidate. Moorrow you can kind of think of like Elizabeth Warren. She's trying to be the Goldilocks candidate, and then Stevens is like the Chuck Schumer picked candidate. And you know mcmarrow has been trying to again find this middle ground on Israel and use language that signals she's with the base but not totally go in there. And she has thrown in on the side of Hassan Piker is a line too far, and kind of affiliated herself more with the Stevens Schumer side of the equation. And so if you look at these numbers here, you see for the alsaiaed voters ninety one. Well it's plus ninety one for yeah, no, if you are not going to stand up to APAG like I want nothing to do with you, and McMorrow and Stevens interestingly are at the same level of only plus thirty three. So you can see that already mcmarrow is being more associated by the electorate with the you know, more pro Israel promar pro Zionist side, even though she's tried to kind of split the difference here. That's very interesting to see. 01:20:53 Speaker 7: Yeah. 01:20:53 Speaker 10: Well, one other thing I was just going to add on to that is I think it's you know, incredible that people like you know, Slot can frame themselves as the moderates on this question when according to their own base of voters, they're actually the extremists on this question. 01:21:09 Speaker 7: They're in the minority when it comes to this. 01:21:12 Speaker 2: Yeah, ay, the fringe absolutely. 01:21:15 Speaker 7: So here's a related question. 01:21:19 Speaker 6: The lower actions that a candidate could take for each police say, if the act would make you more or less likely to support the candidate receives political donations from APAC and other pro Israel groups. So you can just see the blood bath at the bottom there with the more more likely negative means they're less you know, you see. So it's it's weird like the way it phrases, but the negative means they don't they don't like this. So if you yeah, if you look at Stevens, people are twenty six percent less likely to support or forty nine percent less like twenty six percent forty nine to twenty three. 01:22:01 Speaker 7: You guys see it. 01:22:02 Speaker 6: People are less likely to support Steven's Steven's voters by forty nine to twenty three if she takes a PAC money. So that's Steven's own voters. For mc morro, it's sixty five to eight. So if mc morro starts to be seen as the candidate who is taking a PAC money or is supported by or a pack aligned, yeah, then now for SIAT is eighty six to one. 01:22:28 Speaker 2: I like imagine being I know exactly imagining the person who's like, I love a pack and I'm voting for Abdula science. 01:22:35 Speaker 7: That person is not paying attention to the poll and it's just like just going through it. 01:22:41 Speaker 6: Do you want let's without the Hassan we got we got some Hassan questions here, the like most people don't know who Hassan is. 01:22:50 Speaker 7: Like, that's that's the that's the takeaway from this. 01:22:54 Speaker 6: Now when it comes to people under forty five years old, you've got. 01:23:03 Speaker 7: Only eighteen. 01:23:04 Speaker 6: Uh, here we go under forty five new new or we're like most familiar with him obviously, so the question you know they should have should he do the event with Hassan Piker? 01:23:19 Speaker 7: Plus ten is what it comes out to prove. Thirty percent disapprove. The rest don't know. 01:23:27 Speaker 6: But when it comes to people under forty five, it's a it's plus eighteen. 01:23:32 Speaker 9: Uh. 01:23:32 Speaker 6: The only people who really don't like it are Stevens voters, So he disapproved by twenty seven points. 01:23:40 Speaker 7: Moderates basically fifty fifty moderate destiny viewers. 01:23:44 Speaker 6: Moderates are are eleven points underwater McMorrow, interestingly, who kicked this off her people approve of it by a plus three margin. 01:23:55 Speaker 7: Inter you guys will like this, and well, we ask people. 01:23:59 Speaker 6: Where they get their news, and actually people are still pretty heavily getting their news. Who are primary voters like from like CNN and doesn't now, but look at look at breaking points to tao drops that we said, we asked them about independent news outlets like the Teo Drop site news and breaking points for people under forty five. 01:24:22 Speaker 7: Whereas that twenty four percent. 01:24:24 Speaker 2: So that's pretty good, that's pretty good. 01:24:27 Speaker 7: It's creeping up. 01:24:27 Speaker 6: So thirteen percent overall of Democratic primary voters answered yes to independent news. 01:24:34 Speaker 2: Now, and it's third of ELSAIAED voters. 01:24:38 Speaker 6: Yeah, which makes sense. And three percent of Steven's voters are watching this show. Wow, y hey, ladies sitting there sleeving. But now, if you add in YouTube, YouTube is twenty seven percent interestingly tied with Facebook and podcasts twenty two percent, Instagram nineteen blue Sky not doing so great down here at seven. 01:25:05 Speaker 7: And did you find that? 01:25:07 Speaker 2: Did you find ELSAIAED voters tended to be the youngest of the you know, the three candidates. Let's see that would also correlate with the you know, more independent media watchers. 01:25:18 Speaker 6: Yeah, let's see. Okay, abdila al sayad so favorable or unfavorable? So under forty five plus forty one, so certainly his highest favorability rating is among those. Stevens is just plus four with people under forty five. See how mcmorro's doing, Memoris plus two with people under forty five. Oh, here's a son, here's a son. Piker haven't heard enough to say, Okay, yeah, here's the number. So for people under forty five, fifty eight percent don't really have an opinion on Piker uh, so forty two percent due which is the highest number or overall eighty percent of primary voters are just like I don't know, Like, so with all this focus on this, most people are basically like, I don't even know who you're talking about? 01:26:11 Speaker 4: Right right? 01:26:11 Speaker 6: Yes, even Google SAD voters. Fifty four percent of l side voters are like, what are you talking about now? 01:26:18 Speaker 10: So I think we can pull out of this, Ryan. But one final question that I had I noticed on the far right with the initial undecideds on most of these questions, it seems like it's like very aggressively splitting in the I don't want to vote for somebody who takes Israel lobby money. You know, with the election being as close as as it is, where do you think it's going to go into the future. Do you think that'll have a major impact or it's one side thing or before I pull last thing. So yeah, it's twenty two to twenty two. So Stevens twenty three, mcmorro twenty two, el Side twenty two is what our polling is showing. But this is really interesting, and don't tell Schumer this, but this is why Schumer is now signaling that he wants Stevens to drop out. That's how I'm perceiving the signals coming out of DC. Who's your second choice? 01:27:04 Speaker 6: McMorrow is the second choice of thirty eight percent of people, whereas Elside is only the second choice thirteen percent and Stevens is twenty two And so head to head against el Side and McMorrow, mcmorro' is up eight points over el Siad And so you started to see Schumer. And Schumer's so unpopular that he can't even say this publicly, but there's been there's been like reporting that Schumer is okay with mcmorro now recognizing that Stephen The only way Elsiat can win is if Steven stays in. 01:27:40 Speaker 7: That's Schumer's view. 01:27:42 Speaker 2: That's probably why McMorrow has decided to take this stance on Hasan Piker et cetera, et cetera right to make herself palatable to the Chuck Schumer's of the world, So you know sort of. 01:27:52 Speaker 7: See her path like she has to knock Steven Stephens out. 01:27:56 Speaker 4: Yeah, well, let's let's see a clip from this. 01:27:59 Speaker 3: In FA miss Abdullah El Sayed and Hassan Piker town hall meet up where one Free press enterprising journalist known as Olivia Reinold asked Abdul a question. 01:28:12 Speaker 4: Let's take a listen. 01:28:14 Speaker 5: We're gonna take you two more questions. We're I'm sorry, We're gonna have to move on to the person. I'm sorry, Olivia as the Jewish Olivia. 01:28:21 Speaker 4: So I'd love to take the question. 01:28:22 Speaker 2: I'd love to take a question. 01:28:23 Speaker 10: Actually you what do you mean by your say? 01:28:27 Speaker 13: I feel if you can to find the question, I'm not going to answer your question. 01:28:31 Speaker 5: We're gonna move on to the expert. 01:28:32 Speaker 4: All right. 01:28:33 Speaker 3: So that was the video that went around the world. Uh, and then Olivia Olivia video Yes. But then Olivia went on to UH do a write up of her experience there, she says Abdullah al Sayed, who is Muslim, walks a fine line on the Jewish state. On Tuesday night, he told the crowd, as he does often, that his problem is not with Jews. So then later that night, in a makeshift spin room, assettled by the campaign, he rebuffed my question whether he believes in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. What do you mean by a Jewish state? He retorted, narrowing his eyes. If you can't answer that question, I'm not going to answer it. For someone who often waves around his respect for Judaism, he seemed unaware of something elementary. Judaism is not only a religion, but a people with a long standing connection to Israel that runs through its prayers, traditions, and histories. 01:29:32 Speaker 4: Which some people said was not the quote. 01:29:35 Speaker 2: Well, okay, so just all it's not the quote. 01:29:38 Speaker 7: That's not what he said. 01:29:40 Speaker 2: I do think they ultimately under pressure corrected it to at least say the correct quote. But there were many zumans of Abdul's eyes at that moment. 01:29:50 Speaker 5: And where he narrowed them. 01:29:52 Speaker 2: Did not Mostly I think he may have blinked, but we don't typically call it narrowing of the eyes. But anyway, narrowing of the eyes stayed in. And I mean, can you imagine if someone wrote an article about Olivia rein Gold or we started this segment Olivia rhin Gold, who is a Jew blah. 01:30:15 Speaker 7: October, Yes, did she actually convert? Or like what's going on? 01:30:19 Speaker 4: She's working on it. There's a lot of paperwork. 01:30:22 Speaker 2: You get my point? When the paper works in like so we can properly characterize your religions, and that's apparently an important part. 01:30:30 Speaker 7: She's understanding that her dad was Jewish and a mom isn't, so she's not Jewish, like that's her. 01:30:36 Speaker 2: Well, I mean some reform congregations would say she is whatever. Anyway, Yes, I believe she sees herself as Jewish, and I would like to honor that. But can you imagine the freak out if she started the segment by saying, you know, Olivia rein Gold, a Jew did ex ra y or Z. It's very obviously racist. It's also weird. Imagine if someone talked about me and was like Crystal Ball, who is agnostic, et cetera, et cetera, Like why do I do why do we mean? 01:31:03 Speaker 7: Sell that a woman? 01:31:05 Speaker 2: I mean, it's very obvious what she's doing here. She wants to make him sound sinister. She wants to make him sound anti Semitic, even though he did nothing wrong and in fact that question. Then he asked her, that's a great question, what do you mean by a Jewish state? And she fumbles around before he says, okay, Well, if you can't define it, then I'm not going to answer the question. It's giving very much. Tucker, when he was interviewed by I think the lady at the economist, and she said, do you know, do you believe Israel has a right to exist? And he said, well, what do you mean by that? And she couldn't answer the question of what she meant by that. And the problem for someone like Olivia answering that question is that if you answer it honestly, what you're laying out as an ethnosupremacist, apartheid state and it clashes very obviously with liberal values. This is why Zorn's answer of I support Israel as a state with equal rights is so brilliant and devastating because it showed, like, how can you object to that? If you object to that, you're rejecting like the most obvious basic principles of liberalism. So that's why it was such an intelligent question on his part is that, okay, well clarify what do you mean by a Jewish state? Because if you just mean a state where you know, Jewish people have the same rights as Muslim people or anyone else, then sure, fine. But the problem is that's not what she means, and she has never explained what she actually means by that. 01:32:26 Speaker 5: It's like if we were doing a segment on driving and identified Crystal as a woman a woman, no, but really like it's just like nobody, yes, yes, but no, I agree. I think that her response in the piece to what appears to be not even the accurate quote is so patronizing and it it's patronizing to the point where it's out of touch with the reality that again, if you engaged in good faith with Abdua s a Ed, you would obviously not think that about him, because he's She even says in the piece, he like, what does she say hand waves about how he understands Judaism and respects Judaism. Obviously he understands all of that. So either you're not understanding his position or you're taking a cheap shot. 01:33:29 Speaker 7: Mm hmmm. 01:33:29 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:33:30 Speaker 10: And Olivia also seems to be sort of like a Hassan Piker stalker, which is weird and I think, like in a broader sense, like they're making and this goes for like Dana Bash on CNN and Jake Tapper and all these other people who've been doing relentless segments on Hassan recently. It's like, as Griffin pointed out, the Google searches for Hassan Piker are skyrocketing. He's probably gaining more subs now than he has in a long time. Like they're making him to be a king maker when he really just like wasn't before. Like maybe some influence with you know, some degree of young people around the fringes. But I think at the end of the day, for a huge bulk of the Democratic Party that is critical of Israel, that is, you know, against the Israel lobby and whatever else, it's like you're kind of just showing them, Oh, hey, look, here's a political commentator over here. Here's a candidate who agrees with you on these questions. So they're just going to end up like it's going to backfire, and they're just gonna end up pushing more and more people, you know, towards these spaces they want them to avoid. 01:34:26 Speaker 3: Yeah, and Olivia like if she is desperate to find people running for office that are anti Semitic, there's plenty of options for her to find those people. One that I actually just searched her Twitter for James Fishback running in Florida. I did a quick search on Olivia's Twitter to see what she said about James Fishback, and I was only able to find a few positive replies to James Fishback, including this one where she says December thirty one, twenty twenty four, Ah, thank you you for sharing. 01:35:00 Speaker 4: You're the incredible one. 01:35:03 Speaker 5: That's that's back before James fishbacks his chance, which happened in like the last six months. 01:35:11 Speaker 3: Well absolutely nowhere he was an update frasing Barry. 01:35:17 Speaker 2: Before you realized he was being fed goyslop. That's prior to that. 01:35:25 Speaker 3: Yes, So anyways, i'd love an update or like a follow up on the fishback campaign. If we're rooting out anti Semitism in the candidate's running. 01:35:35 Speaker 5: That is almost certainly coming. 01:35:40 Speaker 3: All right, Well, we got a big final segment that we have to get to that crossed all of our desks late afternoon yesterday. And of course I'm speaking about Mulania Trump, who came out to speak about Epstein. 01:35:54 Speaker 4: Why don't we take a listen. 01:35:56 Speaker 14: The lies linking me with the disgraceful Efrey Epstein need to end today. The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean spirited attempts to defame my reputation. I never be in friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach. To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice Maxwell. My email replied to Maxwell cannot be categorist as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a tribal note. I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband by chance at the New York City party in nineteen ninety eight. 01:37:33 Speaker 5: It's the best part. 01:37:34 Speaker 14: This initial accounter with my husband is documented in a detail in my book Millennia. 01:37:42 Speaker 5: For which we all have copies of, also referring to your husband as Donald Trump like Christal's like. You can read about my initial meeting with my husband Kyle Kalinski in my. 01:37:57 Speaker 2: Book Crystal Crystal. Yes, I mean it's really the it's literally the meme where it's like no, one, absolutely no, Melania. I was not friends Whichevery Epstein. I barely knew the guy. It's like, yeah, tell me. 01:38:12 Speaker 5: Okay, because they're they're competing theories, and I'm not like one hundred percent sure of this, but Trump told ms Now that he did not know this was going to happen. So a debate whether or not that's true. My theory is that Milania Trump spent January and February seething over the allegations that she because she is in emails with Gilaine Maxwell, she has this what she characterized as a reply appears to actually have been an email to Gallaine Maxwell, which I have pulled up here, where she says something like looking forward to Yeah, here's the email. She says something to the extent of like G addresses her as G. It's almost certainly Glaine Maxwell. It's a someone based in New York named Glaine. Says, nice story about JE and NY mag. You look great on the picture. I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How is Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you are back in n Why. Have a great time, Love Milania, and then Maxwell replies, sweet Pee, thanks for your message. Actually plans changed again and now I'm on my way back to NY. I leave again on Friday. So I still do not think I have time to see you. Sadly, I will try and call, though. The implication here is that they had a close enough relationship where Maxwell's referring to her sweet Pea, She's referring to Glaane as g The dates do match that New York mag story on Jeffrey Epstein, and they are have a relationship where they call each other. So that's what was revealed. I think Malania spent January and February being upset because her reputation is getting dragged through the mud, but reasonably so, given these emails back and forth with Maxwell, and then her husband launched a war. Before she could launch a response to Epstein. She was told, there's no way that you can address this when we're at war, but as soon as there's a ceasefire, you can, literally, like the next day, she comes out out of nowhere and gets it done as quickly as possible in case the ceasefire falls apart. 01:40:20 Speaker 2: This is my fieu. It's just so weird because no one was thinking about her, that the Epstein coverage was successfully buried by the war, and then you just come out. I'll show you what the sort of dominant internet theory is right now. So this requires a little bit of bagstery, of course. Obviously Milania, you know, it's from eastern Europe. She was brought to the US. She came as a model, and so in this very close Trump friend who's a formal modeling agent named Pallo Zampoli, is the guy who helped her secure her visa to be able to come and stay in the US. Well, this guy is actually now in the administration, and he asked Ice to arrest his former Brazilian girlfriend, who also was you know, a model and potentially also underrated, potentially when she was first in this whole network. But anyway, she's the father of their teenage son, and he asked Ice to arrest her. Well, she is now apparently she's out on Twitter leg I will I know everything about Donald and Milania. I'm gonna spill. I'm going to ruin everything. I have nothing left to lose. And it just came out that she apparently recorded an interview with a Spanish language channel that is set to air this weekend. So maybe that's what is going on here, because she certainly has been going out there and saying that she has the goods that she's gonna spill the tea, et cetera. Because of course, what people think when they see this thing from Milania is like, what is she trying to get ahead of here? Because none of us were thinking about you or talking about you in this way at all, girls, So what is up with this? And you know, I mean that's the most obvious explanation, is that there's some story or some develop that's about to happen that she wanted to get out there in front of. I guess everyone agrees. 01:42:11 Speaker 5: It's just like nobody knows because it's out an absolutely left field. 01:42:16 Speaker 10: I'm just loving this like circular, like little spiral that we're in of like distract from the Epstein files by going to war with Iran and then distract from the war with Iran with the Epstein files, so we might who knows where are we going to go to war next? 01:42:30 Speaker 2: But way back with Iran again, we always get back in that one any any second that could happen, that could be happening right now as we're speaking. 01:42:37 Speaker 5: So I don't know. 01:42:37 Speaker 2: I mean, it does just remind I guess too of what I mean. The Trump administration is just a mess. Trump is truly, it's disaster on all fronts because even okay, let's say that he agrees to the Iranian surrender conditions. I mean, that is a devastating well, he's going to have a very hard time selling that as victory to anyone, including his own baby, let alone the world. So you've got that mess, and then it freeze everybody up, you know, Ryan and Code to get back on the the Epstein files reporting, which was already an utter disaster for him, And we just had numbers that came out this morning, a very hot inflation reading, so prices going back up. Of course, gas prices are extremely high. The economy is very shaky, shaky, the AI bubble seems on the verge of collapse, and you know, midterm elections around the corner that are likely to deal a devastating blow. So little reminder of just how bad the whole landscape is for this administration at this point. 01:43:32 Speaker 7: It's a golden age, that's what it really do. 01:43:36 Speaker 3: We want to play that video you sent me, Crystal. It's a little long. I'm not really sure that's okay. 01:43:41 Speaker 2: I think it was. It was that guy Pallo, the modeling agent, saying that, you know, talking about that relationship and saying that he was the one who introduced Milania to Trump, because you know, I mean the. 01:43:56 Speaker 5: Malania. 01:43:57 Speaker 2: Well, and here's the other thing is that's right exactly. And then the other thing is there's allegations that have been made by Michael Wolfe that Milania has threatened to sue him over, including that Epstein had had a relationship with Milania prior to Trump, and that Trump and Milania. This again is his allegations and food over it. So I am not saying that this is what happened, but he claims that they had sex for the first time on his plane and that there was obviously like deep entanglement there. And this whole modeling world is so incredibly disgusting and was rampantly used for human trafficking, and that's that's well documented. And so the you know, the Trump and Epstein and John Casablancas and this Pallo guy like all in that cesspool of a world is you know, is obviously very noteworthy as well. 01:44:53 Speaker 7: Yep. 01:44:54 Speaker 3: Well, on that note, it's been a jam pack show. But I will not not do some AMA questions here at the end. Let's hit a few right off the bat rapid fire here to take us out on this Friday. This one is to Emily from nelso oh sorry, this is from Emily from sebas One oh one for Emily. With the rise of Catholicism and younger generations and the growing dissatisfaction with the Iran War, will Zionist evangelicals denominations decline in membership and power in politics? 01:45:28 Speaker 5: I mean, I think actually it's sort of the inverse in that what would be called dispensationalism, So this idea that biblical Israel and the modern nation state of Israel are interchangeable, that you have to read that into prophecies and scripture. I think that's actually just declining among evangelical voters who previously had been attached to that and a very particular political Zionism because of it. I think, you know, it's just like younger people gen z evangelicals have i think, really moved away from it. So it's not so much that the denominations are declining. Catholicism is actually continuing to decline. They're more younger Catholics. Like, there's obviously something going on, but it's declining in the United States. So actually, I think what's really happening is it's not so much the denomination or it's not so much that the evangelical churches are losing members or anything like that, so much as it is the members are less likely to be dispensationalists the younger they are. 01:46:38 Speaker 4: Gotcha, all right? 01:46:39 Speaker 3: This next one is for Crystal from Jacob rp Two seventy three. Crystal, do you think if Israel does deploy a nuclear bomb that Trump will have the guts to do anything about it? Do you think his need to protect himself from getting exposed will outweigh the ethical obligation to permanently restrain Israel. 01:46:58 Speaker 2: I don't see any evidence of Trump branding in Israel at this point, so not very not very hopeful in that regard. I mean, but look, his options, you know, whether a nuclear weapon is deployed or not, are all impossible for him. So you know, it's hard to see him standing up to Israel. It's also hard for to see him staying in a war that's destroying the entire economy and entire global economy. It's hard to see him accepting the Iranian surrender demands. It's just all of these things are going to be very painful for him. So you know, your guess is as good as mine. Which of the extremely painful for Donald Trump options he's going to choose at this point? 01:47:34 Speaker 3: All right, This next one is for Ryan, more of a statement, but you can still react to it. From Nick Strickland, you guys should start a new segment called Ryan's Message to the White House, where Ryan directly addresses Trump plus his ADMIN and maybe offers advice. 01:47:51 Speaker 4: We will all pretend like it doesn't have an effect. 01:47:56 Speaker 6: Stutt already working. I'm here to starve the country. Yeah, very nice, very nice. And I thought this one the MAC the final one today. This is from Hamster wheel a m A question. Are you aware, either through your own analysis or via told top down, when a news story seems to be a limited hangout? Could the fine BP crew speak to the concept of limited hangout? Do all breaking stories go through this process or is it just Epstein? 01:48:29 Speaker 5: Usually when I see the byline Natasha. 01:48:30 Speaker 4: Bertrand yeah, Emily, you have takes on this. 01:48:35 Speaker 2: Mac. 01:48:35 Speaker 4: Do you have any do go for it? 01:48:36 Speaker 9: Emily? 01:48:37 Speaker 5: No, no, no, I just often the byline and the sourcing. But that's probably what you were going to say, Mac. 01:48:42 Speaker 6: Yeah, mm hmm, all night question. I mean we got to tell people what the concept is if they don't know. Everyone's at a different stage of their life's journey. Limited hangout means you're you have an enormous amount of stuff that you're hiding and you put a tiny piece out of it to try to kind of settle the issue and get people to move on. 01:49:07 Speaker 2: So, like the Epstein file release is kind of the definition of a limited hangout, and we know that it is because there's some millions more. We don't even know how much files that are being hidden, but they're like here public files. 01:49:21 Speaker 7: They stop talking about it. 01:49:23 Speaker 2: That is like definitionally limited hangout. And but that's you know, a common technique that's used like information you know, operation kind. 01:49:31 Speaker 7: Of and the feature of it is to put people in in the wrong direction. 01:49:36 Speaker 6: Well, you put a little bit of it about that seems to implicate somebody over here, when actually the real thing is over here. So you get some of the information, but you get everybody chasing the wrong lazy yeah. 01:49:48 Speaker 2: Or it's like, you know, you take a little bit of damage, but to avoid the more you. 01:49:52 Speaker 7: Know, significant something's going on. 01:49:55 Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So and that gives credibility to the idea of people have gotten the truth, and really the thing that would be more devastating is still being hit. Right. 01:50:03 Speaker 6: Trump's attempt to be like, yeah, this was actually all just Bill Clinton and Democrats is a good example, like all right, fine, you got me, I'll give you the information on Epstein. 01:50:14 Speaker 3: It was the Democrats. Okay, not to share that, but you've forced it out of me, gotcha? All right, Mac, Maybe this will be one that you have something more to say about. Patrick Mulligan says, hello, everyone. It is good to be able to criticize friends and allies in that spirit. What is your most serious criticism of Hassan? Do you have any Hassan Piker criticisms? I mean, yeah, I don't think the word like perfectly in line on everything. I don't know, I mean nothing crazy. I feel like he can have some cringe takes some times. I feel like he gets involved in some of the drama stuff and some of the sort of like slop stuff a lot more than I would personally. 01:50:59 Speaker 7: But you know, maybe that's more his wheelhouse. 01:51:02 Speaker 10: Like he has a lot of people who find him through those kinds of avenues, and he does a lot of content outside of just like strict news coverage or political commentary or whatever. 01:51:10 Speaker 3: But yeah, yeah, when you stream for eight hours a day, you're probably gonna say some things you regret. 01:51:18 Speaker 2: And get into the delve into some drama, and yeah, you got a lot of time in that eight hours to explore all facets of our universe. 01:51:24 Speaker 3: We get in enough trouble in two hours, so I can't imagine eight that's gonna do it for us this Friday. 01:51:30 Speaker 4: Thank you everyone. 01:51:32 Speaker 3: Welcome to the new ring of the Freedom, Freedom Rings, Freedom Free Friday Show, Comrade Ryan, Welcome to all. 01:51:40 Speaker 2: The Hailey Stevens voters who absolutely hated watching us. Did it anyway? 01:51:45 Speaker 3: We tip our hat to you, and of course, if anything major breaking happens over the weekend, we will be unlike keeping our eyes wide open for anything that occurs over the weekend, and if not, we'll see you on Monday. Goodbye, everybody,