Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show everything. Good morning, everybody, It's Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have a great show for everyone today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Rissell?
Speaker 4: Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We have all the latest of the fallout in details
Speaker 1: from President Biden's trip to Israel. We also have some
Speaker 1: additional information which you can do with whatever you want,
Speaker 1: about what happened with that hospital in Gaza, so we'll
Speaker 1: break that down for you. We also have new questions
Speaker 1: about how quickly humanitarian aid could move into.
Speaker 4: Gaza after President Biden says that he was able to
Speaker 4: strike a deal with.
Speaker 1: Netanyahu, so we'll give you those details. We also have
Speaker 1: some new details about how the White House is planning
Speaker 1: on dealing with trying to get Ukraine aid and Israel
Speaker 1: aid and border funding and Gaza humanitarian assistance through Congress.
Speaker 1: Of course, right now there is no Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: so we are actually going to bring in Emily and
Speaker 1: Kyle to talk about some domestic politics, both in terms of.
Speaker 4: The speaker situation.
Speaker 1: New poll, very interesting with regards to RFK and who
Speaker 1: he hurts more in terms of the general elections, some
Speaker 1: details about Cornell West campaign. And excited to bring you
Speaker 1: the last of our results from that focus group down
Speaker 1: in Atlanta with Democratic base voters.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right, and just thank you to everybody's been
Speaker 2: taking advantage. We do have a focus group special going
Speaker 2: on right now. Everybody's been helping support our show. I
Speaker 2: know it's been a lot of work on all of
Speaker 2: our staff's behalf, not only the focus group, but you know,
Speaker 2: keeping up with the day to day grind of Israel Palestine.
Speaker 2: So appreciate everybody for your support and all that. It
Speaker 2: does certainly mean a lot. With that, let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and get to the as you said, fallout really from
Speaker 2: the trip President Biden going on the ground in Israel
Speaker 2: after the cancelation of his follow on Arab summit in Jordan,
Speaker 2: having to turn around and come back. He made these
Speaker 2: comments while he was on the ground. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to what he said when.
Speaker 5: I come to Israel with a single message, You're not alone.
Speaker 5: You are not alone as long as the United States
Speaker 5: stands and we will stand forever. Well, not let you
Speaker 5: ever be alone. We've seen it described as Israel's nine
Speaker 5: to eleven. Well for a nation, the size of Israel
Speaker 5: was like fifteen nine elevens. But I caution this. While
Speaker 5: you feel that rage, don't be consumed by it. After
Speaker 5: nine to eleven, we were en raised in the United States.
Speaker 5: While we sow justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.
Speaker 5: I'm the first dress president to visit at Israel in
Speaker 5: time of war. I made wartime decisions. I know the
Speaker 5: Troyas are never clear or easy.
Speaker 3: For leadership.
Speaker 5: There's always cost. It requires being delivered, requires asking very
Speaker 5: hard questions. It requires clarity about the objectives and an
Speaker 5: honest assessment about whether the path you're on will achieve
Speaker 5: those objectives.
Speaker 2: So that was an interesting That was basically a matchup
Speaker 2: that our team did there. The major takeaway from the
Speaker 2: US was Israel does not stand alone.
Speaker 3: The United States is behind you.
Speaker 2: But a slight note of caution describing it though as
Speaker 2: fifteen times nine to eleven. He's also like, also maybe
Speaker 2: exercise a little bit of restraint. He would certainly know,
Speaker 2: having participated in much of the war beating for up
Speaker 2: to Iraq. But this also really what those comments came
Speaker 2: is after critical meetings not only with Benjamin Netanyahu, but
Speaker 2: with the Israeli war cabinet, and in that war cabinet,
Speaker 2: we are learning more details from Israeli media about what
Speaker 2: Biden promised them. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen again. This is from the Times of
Speaker 2: Israel military reporter. He says, quote, the new Biden administration
Speaker 2: has privately been urging Israel not to launch a military
Speaker 2: campaign against Hezbolah. Washington is working to keep the current
Speaker 2: war from spreading beyond Gaza. The US recognizes Israel must
Speaker 2: respond to the increased targeting of its northern border Hi
Speaker 2: Hesbola since the October seven onslaught but repeated attacks by
Speaker 2: the Lebanese terror group in fact that Israel failed to
Speaker 2: anticipate this assault have led to the intensification of discussions
Speaker 2: about whether Israel must be the one to initiate a
Speaker 2: battle in order to maintain the upper hand. Let's go
Speaker 2: to the next one, because this is where things get very,
Speaker 2: very complicated for America. Sutch talk has been a cause
Speaker 2: of concern for the US, which is privately warning Hasbola
Speaker 2: and Iran not to open a war on the northern Front.
Speaker 2: The US has cautioned Israel to be careful in its
Speaker 2: military responses. But here is the critical tweet Biden officials
Speaker 2: have indicated to Israel in recent days, if Hesbola initiates
Speaker 2: a war against Israel, the United States military will join
Speaker 2: the IDF in fighting the terror group. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next one, please. The Pentagon has already dispatched a
Speaker 2: pair of aircraft carrier strike groups the Eastern Mediterranean near
Speaker 2: Israeli border in order to deter Israeli an American adversaries
Speaker 2: in the region. Has Bulah has already fired dozens of
Speaker 2: anti tank guided missiles, rockets and mortars into Israeli positions.
Speaker 2: So this actually demonstrates crystal that behind the scenes, President
Speaker 2: Biden did give a guarantee, or at least rhetorical assurance,
Speaker 2: that should has Bula officially entered this war, that the
Speaker 2: United States will back them.
Speaker 3: So originally it.
Speaker 2: Was talked about deterrence, this carry a strike Group, but
Speaker 2: we have two thousand United States Marines which are on
Speaker 2: their way already to the region. I mean, certainly if
Speaker 2: it's not like they've given us yet an indication of
Speaker 2: ground troops. But I mean, this is a significant military
Speaker 2: declaration on behalf of the President. And I can't help
Speaker 2: but think nobody in Congress ever voted for this. Just
Speaker 2: so we're all aware, you know, it's not like the
Speaker 2: two thousand and one AUMF can cover has BULA, although
Speaker 2: I'm sure the White House lawyers will try. But it
Speaker 2: just again, the underscores that President Biden's visit was not
Speaker 2: just to try and quote unquote tamp down tensions or
Speaker 2: to give assurances. There were also military talks happening behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, which absolutely and something we've tried to underscore
Speaker 2: here from the beginning, could embroil and bring the United
Speaker 2: States into this war at a very very immediate direction.
Speaker 1: Something Emily and I covered yesterday is this report in
Speaker 1: Axios suggesting that these discussions had taken place within the
Speaker 1: US government context. And one of the things they laid
Speaker 1: out in Axios is the legal justification that they would
Speaker 1: use to get involved in these hostilities with Americans without
Speaker 1: having to go to the American people, let alone go
Speaker 1: through Congress. What they say is that undercommonly held understandings
Speaker 1: of Article two of the US Constitution, the President can
Speaker 1: enter US forces into hostilities to protect Americans abroad. So
Speaker 1: they would use the fact that there are Americans in
Speaker 1: Israel who could potentially be in danger to justify US
Speaker 1: getting involved.
Speaker 4: This expert added that if Biden were.
Speaker 1: To make that decision, he'd be to notify Congress within
Speaker 1: forty eight hours under the War Powers Resolution of nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy three, that would give Biden sixty days to act
Speaker 1: before Congress's approval to use military force would be required.
Speaker 1: And we of course have seen many times presidents use
Speaker 1: authorities without going to Congress whatsoever and getting US involved
Speaker 1: in various conflagrations abroad. So this is a very very
Speaker 1: real possibility, especially as we look in the wake of
Speaker 1: that horrific hospital carnage and you see the protests and
Speaker 1: anger erupting in cities across the region. You see protests
Speaker 1: outside of US embassies, Israeli embassies, you see Palestinians clashing
Speaker 1: with police in the West Bank.
Speaker 4: So the level of anger and outrage.
Speaker 1: Throughout the region is incredibly heightened, which puts a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure on HESBLA to do more. So far, they
Speaker 1: have sort of calculated like, we can do just enough
Speaker 1: to signal our solidarity found this going into a broader escalation.
Speaker 1: But there is a huge, huge risk here, and the
Speaker 1: fact that the US is explicitly telling the Netnyahu government,
Speaker 1: if we go there, we will have your back, we
Speaker 1: will involve our military is incredibly consequentially.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not so sure though, because you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: they've killed five IDF soldiers, not nothing. Imagine if somebody
Speaker 2: killed you five US soldiers, you know, that certainly would
Speaker 2: invite a response. They have used and I can't emphasize
Speaker 2: this enough. Hazbola is not Hamas, it is not Palestinian
Speaker 2: Islamic jihad. These people have serious weapons. They brought it
Speaker 2: to the IDF hardcore in two thousand and six. They've
Speaker 2: only gotten better since then. They have fought sustained military
Speaker 2: campaigns throughout Syria. These are battle trust, battle hardened, trusted veterans,
Speaker 2: and they have, you know, the recruiting pipeline dream. If
Speaker 2: the United States were to get them involved, they would
Speaker 2: have certainly population that would back them. If there were
Speaker 2: to see like an external Western power and not just
Speaker 2: Israel that were to do that. But the real danger
Speaker 2: in all this is that it goes up the escalation chain.
Speaker 2: Because Hespola of course is controlled or at least you know,
Speaker 2: in some way by Tehran. IRGC forces almost certainly would
Speaker 2: be involved. So then you know, Iranians could be getting
Speaker 2: killed if America is and then you just keep going,
Speaker 2: you know, up up the ladder of then Tehran things.
Speaker 2: They have to get involved, and already, you know, the
Speaker 2: very day of the attack, there were already calls for.
Speaker 3: The United States to get involved.
Speaker 2: Now, imagine if a Hesbola rocket or something like that
Speaker 2: falls on a US base, or it goes after and
Speaker 2: hits some American soldiers, or they use you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: look at the Hoho this. They were able to fire
Speaker 2: things against US ships. It's not like it is outside
Speaker 2: of the capability of these of these militias to inflict damage.
Speaker 2: And also there were we focus now on what the
Speaker 2: US has told Israel. Let's also focus on what Israel
Speaker 2: has told the US about what the forthcoming operations in
Speaker 2: could look like, which almost certainly fall on the backdrop
Speaker 2: of how the Arab world itself is going to respond specifically,
Speaker 2: has Bola. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This was a report from Barackravid. He is an Israeli
Speaker 2: reporter here in Washington and he works for Axios. He
Speaker 2: actually put this out in Hebrews, so we are reading
Speaker 2: the rough translation by Google.
Speaker 3: But it's been confirmed. This is just the gist of it,
Speaker 3: he says.
Speaker 2: US President Joe Biden has said during his meeting with
Speaker 2: the members of the War Cabinet that he understands the
Speaker 2: operation in Gaza will be protracted and will take time.
Speaker 2: According to a senior Israeli official who is aware of
Speaker 2: the contents of the meeting, let's go to the next one, please,
Speaker 2: he says. Senior of Israeli officials have stated that Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Netanyahu, the Defense Minister, and the Minister have told
Speaker 2: Biden that the move to dismantle Hamas and change the
Speaker 2: reality in Gaza will be lengthy. Quote it could take years.
Speaker 2: Go to the next one, please, and says Gallant has
Speaker 2: said that the operation in Gaza will be long and difficult.
Speaker 2: Israel will need American political support and security assistance for
Speaker 2: a long period of time. And then finally, he says,
Speaker 2: Biden told the members of the War Cabinet, it is
Speaker 2: important to respond to the humanitarian needs in Gaza in
Speaker 2: order to preserve the international support that currently exists for
Speaker 2: the IDF operation. So this is where I also think
Speaker 2: that we need to spend some time thinking about the
Speaker 2: geopolitics the hospital situation. We're going to talk a little
Speaker 2: bit about what happened with the hospital, all of that
Speaker 2: in terms of what exactly who was responsible for the explosion. Okay,
Speaker 2: in the immediate aftermath though, regardless of how the Western
Speaker 2: media or anybody would have reported it, here's the truth.
Speaker 2: No matter what the New York Times the BBC said,
Speaker 2: people in the Arab world were going to protest anyway, Crystal.
Speaker 2: They are primed to believe that this is something that
Speaker 2: Israel would do because they have done something and stuff
Speaker 2: like that in the past. They are also primed not
Speaker 2: to believe the West and to disregard anything that we say.
Speaker 3: They also are getting instantaneous updates.
Speaker 2: I don't think people really comprehend how much of the
Speaker 2: Arab world is both on Twitter and gets all of
Speaker 2: their news on WhatsApp, which is forwarded to them by
Speaker 2: their friends. It only takes one tweet in order to
Speaker 2: spark something like this. This was just five hundred people,
Speaker 2: and I'm not diminishing the death. And also we don't
Speaker 2: even yet know the five hundred number is real. But
Speaker 2: this was a claim of five hundred people for a
Speaker 2: single Hospit now imagine a full fledged years long according
Speaker 2: to the Israelis urban combat situation with tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of civilian deaths over the course of a year. The
Speaker 2: hospital is happening every day with combined armed tactics. Israelis
Speaker 2: did this, Palestinians says, nobody knows. In the immediate aftermat
Speaker 2: all we do know is videos coming out of carnage,
Speaker 2: blood and dead bodies all over the street. There is
Speaker 2: simply no way that the situation will be contained to Gaza.
Speaker 2: That was one incident, one alleged airstrike and or misfired rocket.
Speaker 2: This is actual combat on the ground that will just
Speaker 2: go on forever. And you know what we as we
Speaker 2: all saw in Ukraine, I mean, the blood in the
Speaker 2: carnage of what modern urban combat.
Speaker 3: Looks like is horrific.
Speaker 2: Luckily, most people did not pay much attention to that,
Speaker 2: at least, you know, outside of the news. For what
Speaker 2: was happening inside of Ukraine. It didn't, you know, hadn't
Speaker 2: have the same level of emotional resonance. But for the
Speaker 2: global Islamic population of two million, like, this is a
Speaker 2: highly emotional issue and they are not going to forget
Speaker 2: in the very same way that many American Jews and
Speaker 2: Israelis will never forget the carnage as well. I'm not
Speaker 2: even morally equivocating it. I'm only saying that if you
Speaker 2: think that they will sit by and just watch this happen,
Speaker 2: you're out of your mind. And so we have to
Speaker 2: consider that, we have to consider what the future is
Speaker 2: going to look like if we want stability.
Speaker 4: Horrific carnage.
Speaker 1: I mean, you already have very high civilian death rate,
Speaker 1: You already have over a thousand children in Gaza, and
Speaker 1: those images will be playing on a loop on social
Speaker 1: media and on regional televisions, you know, for apparently for
Speaker 1: years to come. Let's also think about from a US perspective,
Speaker 1: and we're already embroiled in this proxy war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to be embroiled even if we don't
Speaker 1: get directly involved, which is a big If we're now
Speaker 1: going to be embroiled in a second multi year indefinite
Speaker 1: proxy war. I want to go back to some of
Speaker 1: what Biden was saying. They're, you know, warning, very gently,
Speaker 1: warning about the lessons of nine to eleven, and make
Speaker 1: sure you understand what your objectives are, and make sure
Speaker 1: you understand that if you're if what you're doing right
Speaker 1: now is actually leading to the accomplishment of that of
Speaker 1: those objectives. And we're about to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more of that in a moment, but it's already clear
Speaker 1: that those lessons have not been learned.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's already clear.
Speaker 1: The Israeli government has admitted they have no plan for
Speaker 1: the day after if they actually want to go in
Speaker 1: and root out Hamas, which is an absolutely worthy and
Speaker 1: legitimate goal. Just bombing the hell out of a mostly
Speaker 1: civilian population is not going to accomplish that goal, is
Speaker 1: certainly not going to win you the trust of any
Speaker 1: locals to help you be able to decipher and figure
Speaker 1: out who is part of the Hamas terrorist organization who
Speaker 1: is just an innocent civilian. So you can already see
Speaker 1: the lessons of nine to eleven have not been learned
Speaker 1: here and are not being heated.
Speaker 4: And no little like gentle.
Speaker 1: Warning from the American President who has already said We're
Speaker 1: going to do whatever you need for years to come,
Speaker 1: to whatever extent that you need. None of that is
Speaker 1: going to be listened to whatsoever. And I just have
Speaker 1: to say, on a side note, the like nine to
Speaker 1: eleven math thing really irritates the hell out of me,
Speaker 1: because I understand why they say they want to impress
Speaker 1: upon people like how devastating and how horrific this attack was,
Speaker 1: which I think anybody who is looking at what happened
Speaker 1: here can fully understand and acknowledge. But there's such a
Speaker 1: weird desire to make some sort of math equation to
Speaker 1: analogize it to nine to eleven. And it's like, can't
Speaker 1: we just acknowledge that, like, these lives were lost and
Speaker 1: they were precious and that matters a lot without doing
Speaker 1: some sort of weird nine to eleven math, which by
Speaker 1: the way, is never applied on the Palestinian side of like, well,
Speaker 1: this is an even smaller population, and look how many
Speaker 1: lives are there, then this is like seventy nine eleven.
Speaker 1: It's just it's to me, something about it really irritates
Speaker 1: me and sort of indicates that certain lives mean a
Speaker 1: lot more than other lives.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean we were talking about this previously. The
Speaker 2: only why reason why it's useful is just to emphasize
Speaker 2: that it's a small country, which means that somebody knows
Speaker 2: somebody who was impacted by the attack. I personally think
Speaker 2: you can just leave the weird math out of that,
Speaker 2: because you know, by that standard, it's like every car
Speaker 2: accident in Israel would be magnified higher. It's like no,
Speaker 2: it's like, look, human life is equal. Yes, it is
Speaker 2: a catastrophe. We can intellectually understand that in a smaller
Speaker 2: country it will hit harder than in a larger country,
Speaker 2: although I'm still not even entirely sure that that is true.
Speaker 1: Give you four people will have a direct connection to
Speaker 1: it within that country, right, But.
Speaker 2: I mean I could argue it the other way, which
Speaker 2: is that this is a country which has been at
Speaker 2: war since its foundation and has you know, sustained and
Speaker 2: has baked into it the idea of military service, and
Speaker 2: so maybe they would emotionally see like there's no point
Speaker 2: in trying to do all of these games. It's just
Speaker 2: like fourteen hundred people were viciously and horrifically killed by
Speaker 2: Hamas terrorists leave it at that, and I actually think
Speaker 2: emotively we can all empathize with that because we also
Speaker 2: went through it something similar on nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: If you factor it out more.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think everybody knows somebody who served in
Speaker 2: Iraq or Afghanistan or nor somebody who did, and I
Speaker 2: think we can all just you know, empathize and having
Speaker 2: seen that person with a little bit of the light,
Speaker 2: you know, fade out of their eyes over time, or
Speaker 2: they just changed a little bit after they came over
Speaker 2: from there. So let's just try and you know, bring
Speaker 2: it back to relating to people on a human level,
Speaker 2: and then how we all process collectively the trauma that
Speaker 2: we also went through posts nine to eleven, not just
Speaker 2: from the attack, but from the wars that we engage in.
Speaker 2: I was listening to a podcast by Jocko Willik and
Speaker 2: Darryl Cooper. They do a podcast called Jocko The Unraveling,
Speaker 2: and Darryl in particular, he has a Twitter account called
Speaker 2: Martyr Made and he has a podcast as well, which
Speaker 2: is fantastic.
Speaker 3: I highly recommend it.
Speaker 2: They have been sounding off with some of the most
Speaker 2: sane takes from analytical and strategic historical perspective that I've
Speaker 2: heard yet, And I actually wanted to play some of
Speaker 2: this audio where Jocko, who served as an officer in
Speaker 2: the Battle of Ramadi in Iraq has extensive experience with
Speaker 2: urban combat, gave some advice on how he would handle
Speaker 2: the current situation in Gaza if he was Israel, and
Speaker 2: it was so unlike anything that I've heard yet before.
Speaker 2: I want to play for everybody. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: That immediate military action that they took was really good.
Speaker 6: It was a good, solid military action that they took
Speaker 6: quickly at this juncture. You know, I think it's going
Speaker 6: to be and I think I would, like you said,
Speaker 6: I already kind of said what I'd be doing, I
Speaker 6: would be I would probably stop bombing Gaza right now
Speaker 6: that you've got there's people in tunnels, the enemies you're
Speaker 6: not killing. You're not killing bad guys at this juncture
Speaker 6: with air strikes, so what you're doing is just destroying.
Speaker 6: You're destroying the city and you're giving Hamas opportunities to
Speaker 6: win the information operations. If I was Emperor of Israel
Speaker 6: right now, we would be annihilated on the information operations.
Speaker 6: We would be doing humanitarian missions.
Speaker 7: And you showed me a video of the aftermath of
Speaker 7: some strikes on Hamas. It was just, you know, wasteland.
Speaker 7: And the first thing I thought, whenever I see something
Speaker 7: like that, You know, as you as somebody who who
Speaker 7: has has combat experience as a soldier, when you see
Speaker 7: a landscape like that, knowing that there's tunnels throughout the
Speaker 7: area and everything, what are you thinking when you look
Speaker 7: at that.
Speaker 6: It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare. And that's why I like,
Speaker 6: even again, going to the emperor position, I would not
Speaker 6: be super excited to roll in there and start hunting
Speaker 6: for Hamas with my troops. I'm going to take a
Speaker 6: lot of casualties. I'm going to take a ton of
Speaker 6: You want to start talking about clearing what do they say,
Speaker 6: three hundred miles of tunnels? Is what's down there? Three
Speaker 6: hundred miles tunnels? Three hundred miles of tunnels. This to
Speaker 6: me turns into siege warfare. And I start doing siege
Speaker 6: warfare with this over arching idea of benevolence to take
Speaker 6: care of the civilian populace and show them that we
Speaker 6: will help. We are here. We we don't we want to,
Speaker 6: we want to figure out a peaceful solution to this.
Speaker 6: We're going to help you out, and we're going to
Speaker 6: starve and crush Hamas and oh, you don't want to
Speaker 6: get starved and crushed. Cool come to this location at
Speaker 6: this time, and I know it sucks, but that is
Speaker 6: how you actually get the other side to see your
Speaker 6: perspective a little bit as well.
Speaker 7: The first, the first thing that has to happen if
Speaker 7: you're going to win those hearts and minds, though, right,
Speaker 7: is you have to you have to destroy Hamas. Just
Speaker 7: like when you were in Ramadi you could you could
Speaker 7: uh drill all the wells and do all the things
Speaker 7: you wanted. None of that matters if you don't kill
Speaker 7: the Jihadis in that city.
Speaker 3: So the reason I thought that that was interesting.
Speaker 2: I'm curious for your perspective, Crystal, is these guys were
Speaker 2: are knowledgeable about counterinsurgency warfare. Jocko in particular has successive
Speaker 2: combat experience urban combat operations, and I have not heard
Speaker 2: a single commentator describe it that way.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's immediately where.
Speaker 2: My mind went, just having, you know, spend so much
Speaker 2: time with people who served in the global war and terror,
Speaker 2: but also having really you know, intellectually been fascinated by
Speaker 2: that conflict. Is understanding that this you know, where he
Speaker 2: what he describes exactly is what the United States tried
Speaker 2: to do at its best whenever it was in Iraq
Speaker 2: and the post surge period, which was understand that we
Speaker 2: have to both restore security, but you have to build
Speaker 2: a sustainable political calculus for the Iraqi population not to
Speaker 2: gravitate towards the Jihatis, which would make us less safe
Speaker 2: and actually made their lives miserable. And what he specifically
Speaker 2: points to is the nightmare of what military operations would
Speaker 2: look like. This would look like. But he also, you know,
Speaker 2: very I think correctly pointed out. He's like, look, I
Speaker 2: understand that it sucks. He actually even continues, he's like,
Speaker 2: I had to look my guys in the face and
Speaker 2: tell them why they had to risk their lives running
Speaker 2: humanitarian operations while we were in Iraq and the reason
Speaker 2: why we had a broader strategic goal of winning over
Speaker 2: the population. And yes, many of my men died on
Speaker 2: similar operations, and I still had to explain to them
Speaker 2: why this is part of a bigger picture.
Speaker 3: He's like, that's leadership.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, I wanted to play that because
Speaker 2: you know, these are people who were battle hardened in
Speaker 2: these exact type of conflicts and who intellectually had to
Speaker 2: grapple with the exact same problem of an embedded jihadist
Speaker 2: group inside of a mass urban environment, civilian populations.
Speaker 3: They basically had to deal with all of us.
Speaker 2: They also had to deal with more modern media, and
Speaker 2: they are very very discordant with the current Israeli strategy
Speaker 2: and they're they said multiple times, they're like, I think
Speaker 2: Israel is losing, you know, in terms of the information operation.
Speaker 2: What they mean by that is like the way that
Speaker 2: the rest of the world I understanding the perception exactly
Speaker 2: of what's happening. So I'm curious what you thought about
Speaker 2: what he said.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's also important. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people know who JOCKO is, but this is
Speaker 1: not some like liberal left yeah yeah, which is part
Speaker 1: of what gives them credibility here. And I think what
Speaker 1: for me it underscores is that the truth of the
Speaker 1: matter is net Yahu and his government these are no dummies. Really,
Speaker 1: what the current program is about is vengeance. Because if
Speaker 1: your goal was actually we're going to root out hamas
Speaker 1: we're going to come to some sort of peaceful, more
Speaker 1: secure situation visa VI the Palestinians. I mean, ultimately that
Speaker 1: should look like some sort of statehood, but even leaving
Speaker 1: that off of the table for now, just some sort
Speaker 1: of more peaceful coexistence.
Speaker 4: This is not what you would be doing.
Speaker 1: And let alone the fact that they acknowledge they have
Speaker 1: no plan for what it looks like going forward. And
Speaker 1: so you know, there are doing what is very easy.
Speaker 1: They are doing what is you know, direct like emotional
Speaker 1: reaction to the horror that their population suffered. And you know,
Speaker 1: emotionally you can understand that human instinct, even as you
Speaker 1: recognize first of all, you are inflicting even more carnage
Speaker 1: on civilians in Gaza, and second of all, it is
Speaker 1: completely discordant with your stated goal. But to do what
Speaker 1: Jocko is discussing here, I mean, you're going to lose
Speaker 1: a lot of IDF soldiers. You're going to lose you know,
Speaker 1: you're going to take a lot of casualties. It's going
Speaker 1: to take a lot of time. It's going to take
Speaker 1: you know, really acknowledging the humanity of Palestinians and really
Speaker 1: you know, trying to not only win the messaging, but
Speaker 1: in reality try to improve their lives. And then hanging
Speaker 1: over this whole conversation about what we did in Iraq
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan is.
Speaker 4: That we did it really poorly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it didn't work.
Speaker 1: So even with a better sort of theoretical philosophy about
Speaker 1: how to approach taking out militants and winning over the population,
Speaker 1: you know, tell me what's going on in Afghanistan right
Speaker 1: now and how well this worked out over twenty years.
Speaker 2: One of the things that I really learned from Darryl
Speaker 2: who highlighted and really taught me from his podcast about
Speaker 2: the actual military capabilities of the idea is that the
Speaker 2: last twenty years they're not It's not a good story.
Speaker 2: Two thousand and six was a nightmare against Lebanon. What
Speaker 2: the IDF did is they were taking significant ground casualties
Speaker 2: and they relied on what most modern militaries do is
Speaker 2: they retreated and they just let the air force try
Speaker 2: and do their work for them. But that was a
Speaker 2: story that played out again. The last time that we
Speaker 2: had major ground combat ground combat operations was twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: the major warre in Gaza. Huge portion of the city
Speaker 2: was killed, like sorry, a huge portion of the city
Speaker 2: was leveled. Twenty five hundred something people were killed. We
Speaker 2: don't know yet how many of those people were Hamas,
Speaker 2: but exact same story. IDF rolled in the Hamas had
Speaker 2: learned a lot from two thousand and six hasbo Lah.
Speaker 2: They tried to get as close to the Israelis as possible,
Speaker 2: which means that the IDF can't come in and provide
Speaker 2: ground support. And when you're engaged in a full blown
Speaker 2: like it's almost like hand to hand combat where you're
Speaker 2: flighting like block by block and it's just you know,
Speaker 2: it's just guns against guns. Well, that is a great
Speaker 2: equalizer for a lot of people, especially in urban combat environment.
Speaker 3: It's the same thing.
Speaker 2: The IDF was taken pretty bad casualties, they pulled back,
Speaker 2: they relied more on ground operations and just absolutely bombed
Speaker 2: the crap out of them. But in all of those situations,
Speaker 2: what did we learn. It didn't actually eliminate Hamas and
Speaker 2: it didn't necessarily even accomplish the military objective that they
Speaker 2: wanted it to. So in this case, they are saying
Speaker 2: we need to eliminate Hamas. That is very similar to
Speaker 2: the US mission in Iraq during the surge or like,
Speaker 2: we need to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, and it
Speaker 2: sounds easy. We're like, okay, well we killed Zarkawi years earlier.
Speaker 2: Why does this group even still exist. It turns out
Speaker 2: that the population has been suppressed by the Shia majority,
Speaker 2: and now there are these tribes which are allying with them.
Speaker 2: We spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy
Speaker 2: off tribal leaders, sending in our soldiers who all got
Speaker 2: killed by the way, on behalf of trying to keep
Speaker 2: these people safe and restore security and all that, and
Speaker 2: as you point out, it still didn't needn't. Frankly, it
Speaker 2: didn't work because we didn't commit to the strategy for
Speaker 2: long enough peereriod of time, and that probably wasn't even
Speaker 2: politically sustainable anyway. So what he said repeatedly is he's like, look,
Speaker 2: if they were serious about this, you've got to separate
Speaker 2: the population from the actual jihadis the best way to
Speaker 2: do that is to convince the population that you believe
Speaker 2: in their humanity and you want the best for them.
Speaker 2: He even said, he's like, I would open the border
Speaker 2: right now, and I'd bring these people in and being like, hey,
Speaker 2: come work over here.
Speaker 3: You can have a better life.
Speaker 2: We're going to pay you, even in terms of a
Speaker 2: humanitarian assistance he was talking about. He's like, you need
Speaker 2: to have sector bisector, you need to secure it, you
Speaker 2: could set up checkpoints, and then within that life needs
Speaker 2: to be normal. You can get everything that you want,
Speaker 2: and you need to draw as big of a contrast
Speaker 2: as possible if you truly.
Speaker 3: Want to eliminate this group.
Speaker 2: And yes, it still would take years, but I think
Speaker 2: what nobody's prepared themselves for in that scenario is what
Speaker 2: we're talking about here is thousands of IDF soldiers that
Speaker 2: have been killed. Yeah, thousands, and israel I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't think they've ever lost the number of people
Speaker 2: that it would probably require to have a sustained counterinsurgency
Speaker 2: campaign inside of Gaza. So then it comes back to like, now,
Speaker 2: what you know, your only real option if you want
Speaker 2: to eliminate Hamas without losing a lot of people, is
Speaker 2: to wipe Gaza off the face of the earth. And
Speaker 2: that's two point two million people with you know, a
Speaker 2: million children, and I just don't think that that's a
Speaker 2: politically sustainable solution in the current environment.
Speaker 3: There's just simply, no way the Arab world would sit
Speaker 3: back and.
Speaker 1: Let that happen, not to mention probably shouldn't do a genocide. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know you're just trying to be analytical, but like,
Speaker 1: I can't leave the morality out of the equation that
Speaker 1: you're talking about genociding an entire population when.
Speaker 4: And that kind of rhetoric.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's much closer to the rhetoric that the
Speaker 1: Israeli government is using versus what Jocko is suggesting and
Speaker 1: what Biden has kind of hinted at of like, let's
Speaker 1: be clear, not all Palestinians are Hamas.
Speaker 4: You have to separate the two.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, you have the President of Israel, Herzog saying, quote,
Speaker 1: it is an entire nation out there that is responsible.
Speaker 1: It is not true this rhetoric about villions not being aware,
Speaker 1: not involved, It's absolutely not true. They could have risen up,
Speaker 1: they could have fought against that evil regime which took
Speaker 1: over Gaza in a coup desta. So making the case
Speaker 1: that no, we don't really believe in this whole innocent
Speaker 1: civilian concept. That's their messaging, and that I think is
Speaker 1: in part what Jocko is responding to here. Of you know,
Speaker 1: even if you are on israel side and you want
Speaker 1: them to win this war and you want you know,
Speaker 1: their messaging and propaganda to win the day, they are
Speaker 1: going in the polar opposite direction. The other thing I
Speaker 1: would say is like we already have a track record
Speaker 1: of this specific approach from Israel. They have been mowing
Speaker 1: the grass in Gaza, which is basically like you know,
Speaker 1: periodic indiscriminate bombing of you know, some Hamas terrorists and
Speaker 1: lots of civilians and lots of civilian infrastructure over many
Speaker 1: years now.
Speaker 4: And guess what, it has not worked.
Speaker 1: It is only further served to radicalize the population, and
Speaker 1: you know, hasn't done anything to weaken Humas. And of
Speaker 1: course that's putting aside the fact that people like Netnya
Speaker 1: who thought it was beneficial to actually strengthen Humas because
Speaker 1: they knew that it would help to thwart a potential
Speaker 1: Palestinian statehood movement to have this you know, evil foil
Speaker 1: out there for them to use. So they are going
Speaker 1: in the polar opposite direction of what Jocko is suggesting there.
Speaker 4: And then I would again just remind that even.
Speaker 1: If they followed his advice to a t it's not
Speaker 1: like this really worked out well for US in Iraq
Speaker 1: or Afghanistan, and so it seems like, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't even know if it's not it's that the lessons
Speaker 1: weren't learned, it's that they're not really interested in learning
Speaker 1: those lessons right now. And I think part of it
Speaker 1: also does come from netnya who's incredibly precarious political position
Speaker 1: where he's desperate to hold on to power. And so
Speaker 1: if what the Israeli population wants right now, just as
Speaker 1: we did after nine to eleven, is vengeance and that's
Speaker 1: what feels good, he's not thinking too far in the fire.
Speaker 4: That's what he's going to deliver.
Speaker 3: Well, then they can find it out the way that
Speaker 3: the United States did.
Speaker 2: After you lose you know, fifteen hundred or so of
Speaker 2: your soldiers and you have a heightened domestic terrorist issue
Speaker 2: and you have to spend a couple of trillion dollars.
Speaker 2: We're all trying to save you trillions and.
Speaker 3: Also save lives.
Speaker 2: But they can go through the exact same painful growing
Speaker 2: periods that we did. That's very unfortunate. But you know,
Speaker 2: as Mark Twain famously might have said, history rhymes, So
Speaker 2: there you go.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about where we are
Speaker 1: with regard to humanitarian aid, because, of course, the situation
Speaker 1: on the ground in Gaza continues to worsen as they
Speaker 1: suffer through these siege conditions with little water, no electricity,
Speaker 1: little food, no fuel, et cetera. One of the goals
Speaker 1: that Biden claimed for his visit to Israel was to
Speaker 1: try to make some sort of a deal to secure
Speaker 1: some sort of quarter for humanitarian aid to pass into
Speaker 1: the strip.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 4: he had to say.
Speaker 8: Work this out.
Speaker 9: Was he reluctant to do?
Speaker 10: It's complete?
Speaker 5: Well, I've had a decent relationship with him. He's got
Speaker 5: he's got his own problems on other issues. He's got
Speaker 5: his entire border, there's wars going on the side of
Speaker 5: his country. And so he was U I've known a while.
Speaker 5: He was sure to say, very cooperative. I mean there
Speaker 5: was now I thought I'd have to spend more time
Speaker 5: trying to convince him on the timing, But he was.
Speaker 5: He still stepped up, and as did as his babie,
Speaker 5: and and I was as well. They probably told you
Speaker 5: I was very blunt with the Israelis and uh guse Look,
Speaker 5: Israel has been badly victimized. But you know the truth
Speaker 5: is that if they have an opportunity to relieve suffering, uh,
Speaker 5: people who are have nowhere to go, they're going to
Speaker 5: be It's what they should do, and if they don't,
Speaker 5: it'll be held account ways that may be unfair, but
Speaker 5: that's what being too. And my point to everyone is, look,
Speaker 5: if you have an opportunity to alleviate the pain, you
Speaker 5: should do it, period. And if you don't, you're going
Speaker 5: to lose credibility worldwide.
Speaker 1: So warning there that if they don't take steps to
Speaker 1: move aid and they have the ability to alleviate pain,
Speaker 1: they will lose credibility worldwide. Let me give you the
Speaker 1: details of the deal that was announced. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is per BB dot Yahoo's office.
Speaker 1: He says, in light of the overwhelming and vital support
Speaker 1: from the US and the light of US President Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's demand for basic humanitarian aid to be able to
Speaker 1: reach Gaza, Israel's War Cabinet has decided the following number one.
Speaker 1: Israel will not allow any humanitarian aid to be delivered
Speaker 1: from its territory to the Gaza Strip until the hostages being.
Speaker 4: Held by terror groups are returned.
Speaker 1: Number two, Israel demands Red Cross be able to visit
Speaker 1: hostages and will work to mobilize international support for this demand.
Speaker 1: Number three Israel will not, and this is the key one,
Speaker 1: will not thwart humanitarian supplies from reaching Gaza from Egypt
Speaker 1: as long as it is only food, water, and medicine
Speaker 1: for the civilian population in the strip. Any supplies that
Speaker 1: reach Hamas will be thwarted by Israel. So this all
Speaker 1: comes back to that Rafa crossing, which has been bombed
Speaker 1: four times in recent days. So there is damage to
Speaker 1: the roads there. You know, even with them saying okay,
Speaker 1: we're not going to thwart the AID coming through, it
Speaker 1: is a lot more complex than just you know, now
Speaker 1: those trucks can roll in, the roads actually have to
Speaker 1: be repaired before the trucks can.
Speaker 4: Even come in.
Speaker 1: The White House is indicating that could happen over today
Speaker 1: and perhaps AID could enter tomorrow. There are hundreds of
Speaker 1: trucks that are masked at that border. You also have
Speaker 1: all kinds of you know, foreign nationals, including American citizens
Speaker 1: that are masked at that border, and lots of Palestinians
Speaker 1: also who are right there. Because of promises that were
Speaker 1: made from the US about oh, American citizens are going
Speaker 1: to be able to pass through. Well that has not
Speaker 1: come to fruition whatsoever. But you at this point have
Speaker 1: hundreds of trucks that are lined up there waiting for
Speaker 1: the go ahead and waiting for those roads to be
Speaker 1: fixed so that they could roll through. So far they're
Speaker 1: saying they're only going to allow twenty trucks through. You know,
Speaker 1: we're getting word from from various authorities and you know,
Speaker 1: people who are focused on humanitarian aid that one of
Speaker 1: the critical needs here is water. There are reports and
Speaker 1: figures that people now only have three leaders of clean
Speaker 1: water per person today. The absolute minimum that they should need,
Speaker 1: you know, bare bones, is fifteen leaders for drinking, cooking,
Speaker 1: and basic hygiene. So there's a long way to go
Speaker 1: here before you actually have significant aid rolling into Gaza
Speaker 1: to help the people there who desperately, desperately need it.
Speaker 4: And Saga.
Speaker 1: I've mentioned this before, but just so people remember what
Speaker 1: a dire situation this is with regard to water in particular,
Speaker 1: in the best of times, the majority of water in
Speaker 1: Gaza is not drinkable, not potable. So when you have
Speaker 1: this additional siege light conditions. You've had hospital workers so
Speaker 1: desperate they're drinking IV bags. You've had reports of people
Speaker 1: drinking seawater, you know, really having to limit and curtail
Speaker 1: their use of water. There's also a lot of concerns
Speaker 1: about sewage treatment, and of course with aunt electricity, it's
Speaker 1: it's just a very dire situation.
Speaker 4: So hopefully this aid can roll through.
Speaker 1: But what they're discussing right now would be a real
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket of the overall need.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the real thing, and yeah, I think what is it?
Speaker 2: The number is twenty trucks of aid that I've seen
Speaker 2: floated from the Egyptians and from the US. My also
Speaker 2: major concern is what about our citizens who are currently
Speaker 2: trapped inside of Gaza. As I mentioned, my friend Trey
Speaker 2: yinst Over at Fox News had an interview with an
Speaker 2: American woman inside of Gaza.
Speaker 3: Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 2: How are you feeling right now?
Speaker 3: Just as an American citizen?
Speaker 7: They you know, I'm an American citizen.
Speaker 4: I'm not helping us to leave Gaza.
Speaker 11: We're trapped here.
Speaker 12: They start bombing at night morning, Like you.
Speaker 13: We stay in one room everyone because in Gaza they don't.
Speaker 4: Have shelters under the grounds like Israel, so no one has.
Speaker 7: A safe bawt the house to stay in, so everyone
Speaker 7: stays in the winder.
Speaker 10: Room and people to stay bombed the house you're in, everyone.
Speaker 4: Dies, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can just hear the terror in her voice there, Crystal,
Speaker 2: what she's describing, And yeah, well, I mean, this is
Speaker 2: a woman as an American citizen, and we've gone to
Speaker 2: extraordinary links correctly to get our citizens out of Israel.
Speaker 2: But you know, the Egyptian and the Israeli government have
Speaker 2: not been playing ball with us really at all. It's
Speaker 2: interesting too. I've watched some of the mainstream commentariat be like, hey,
Speaker 2: we give all this money to Egypt and Jordan and
Speaker 2: they don't even meet with our president. It's disgraceful. And
Speaker 2: I'm like, oh, are we setting a standard where we
Speaker 2: give you a ton of money that maybe you should
Speaker 2: listen to something that we say and actually show us
Speaker 2: some respect, because I would love for that standard to
Speaker 2: be applied to Saudi Arabia or Ukraine, maybe a little
Speaker 2: country called Ukraine that we've given more money than probably
Speaker 2: anyone else except for Israel, which also doesn't necessarily listen
Speaker 2: to us.
Speaker 1: But the thing all the time, when the aid has
Speaker 1: zero conditions, and when you're out there just saying like yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll be with you no matter what doesn't matter, then
Speaker 1: of course then like there's no leverage being used here. Well,
Speaker 1: we could have leverage in the situation, we choose impotence.
Speaker 1: It's all on all on our leaders. At the same time,
Speaker 1: another thing I want to point out, the US just
Speaker 1: vetoed a UN resolution that would have condemned all violence
Speaker 1: against civilians in Israel and in Gaza with Palestinians. They
Speaker 1: said it was too early to craft and appropriate Security
Speaker 1: Council response, and in particular they took issue with the
Speaker 1: fact that there was not language in there underlying Israel's
Speaker 1: right to self defense. So in terms of you know
Speaker 1: what's happening at the UN, for whatever it's worth, we
Speaker 1: vetoed that resolution which would have condemned violence and called
Speaker 1: for humanitarian aid to Gaza and condemned violence on both
Speaker 1: the Israeli and the Palestinian side.
Speaker 4: So that's where we.
Speaker 2: Are with that.
Speaker 1: But you know, with that audio that we just played
Speaker 1: of this American woman who is stuck in Gaza, think
Speaker 1: of how dark and chilling that is, there are no
Speaker 1: bomb shelters, So their strategy isn't like, here's how we're
Speaker 1: going to protect ourselves. It's we're all going to be
Speaker 1: in one room so that if we get hit by missiles,
Speaker 1: we all die, that we all die. Like that's how grim,
Speaker 1: that is, how grim it is. And I also want
Speaker 1: to underscore, you know, Israel told one point one million
Speaker 1: Gazans to leave the northern part of Gaza and go
Speaker 1: to the southern part of Gaza, with the idea being
Speaker 1: like that's where safety would be. But that is not
Speaker 1: turned out to be the case whatsoever. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of air strikes that are happening in southern Gaza as well.
Speaker 1: So people really feel like, and you've had you've had
Speaker 1: apartment buildings hit. Let's put the hospital aside. We're going
Speaker 1: to get to that in just a minute. You've had
Speaker 1: apartment buildings hit, you've had residential houses level, you've had
Speaker 1: marketplaces hit, moss, you've had other medical facilities, you've had
Speaker 1: place you know, schools that people had sought relief at.
Speaker 1: All of these places have been bombed and leveled, and
Speaker 1: so people really feel like there is just literally nowhere
Speaker 1: I could go right now and be safe. And they
Speaker 1: are completely trapped in Gaza, whether they.
Speaker 4: Want to be or not.
Speaker 3: I hope we get our people out of there.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's talk about the very latest in terms
Speaker 1: of what we know with regards to this horrific explosion
Speaker 1: at the hospital all of the you know, it's even
Speaker 1: unclear right now what the death count is, what the
Speaker 1: casualty number is, but we've seen from the photos there
Speaker 1: was absolutely horrific carnage here. So we've got some new
Speaker 1: evidence on kind of both sides of the equation. I'm
Speaker 1: just going to lay it out and you all can
Speaker 1: make of it whatever you will. The first piece that
Speaker 1: I think is really critical here is actual photos in
Speaker 1: daylight of what the explosion and the fallout at this
Speaker 1: hospital was. Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: So you can see.
Speaker 1: It looks like whatever happened here did not hit the
Speaker 1: hospital directly. It was in this courtyard where all of
Speaker 1: these cars are. And you know, one of the one
Speaker 1: of the things that people who thought this was Israeli
Speaker 1: missile we're saying is listen, this was way too much
Speaker 1: damage for a Hamas rocket. This paints a little bit
Speaker 1: of a different picture, because now there's a theory of
Speaker 1: all right, but it could have been you know, Islamic
Speaker 1: Jahad or Hamas rocket that you know, missfire and falls
Speaker 1: into this courtyard and then ignites a fire with the
Speaker 1: fuel in these cars. So these photos, you know, give
Speaker 1: some credence to that potential theory.
Speaker 4: You also have Biden.
Speaker 1: You know, yesterday we told you that he indicated he
Speaker 1: thought it was done by the other team, which I
Speaker 1: could really do without the casual like sports team analogies
Speaker 1: here when you're talking about human life.
Speaker 4: But we'll put that aside for a second.
Speaker 1: At that time, he did not indicate whether that was
Speaker 1: based on what the Israeli government was telling him or
Speaker 1: whether that was based on our own intelligence assessments. He
Speaker 1: later clarified that this was based on our own intel community.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he has to say.
Speaker 14: Deeply said and outrage by the explosion at the hospital
Speaker 14: and cousing yesterday. And based on what I've seen, it
Speaker 14: appears as though it was done by the other team,
Speaker 14: not you. But there's a lot of people out there
Speaker 14: not sure. So we've got a lot We're going to
Speaker 14: overcome a lot of things.
Speaker 5: The hospital people all over the region are upset about
Speaker 5: the hospital.
Speaker 2: And don'tus SOSIY believe you or the Israelis that they
Speaker 2: didn't have anything.
Speaker 11: Do they drew a messages to the people in the streets.
Speaker 5: Right now or if you understand why in this circumstance
Speaker 5: they wouldn't leave. I can understand that, but I would
Speaker 5: not notice, I know, safe things like that unless I
Speaker 5: have faith in the source so much on our Defense
Speaker 5: Department says it's highly unlikely that Israelis, but if a
Speaker 5: different flip fan and intercept us anyway, And so that's
Speaker 5: why I noticed. I didn't say it first, and I
Speaker 5: want to make sure that I knew and look, and
Speaker 5: I'm not suggesting that Hermosque that.
Speaker 15: Literally did it either.
Speaker 5: It's that old thing.
Speaker 2: I got a lot of shoe student, you know.
Speaker 5: And it's not the first time Hermas says wanted something
Speaker 5: that couldn't function very well. So I don't know all
Speaker 5: the detail that I do know. If people at the
Speaker 5: Defense Department who I respect in tells the community that
Speaker 5: I respect is highly improbable, it is really so.
Speaker 1: The official statement from a spokeswound for the National Security
Speaker 1: Council is quote, the US government assesses that Israel was
Speaker 1: not responsible for an explosion that killed hundreds of civilians
Speaker 1: yesterday at that hospital. Our assessment is based on available reporting,
Speaker 1: including intelligence, missile activity, and open source video and images
Speaker 1: of the incident. I'll just give you a little bit
Speaker 1: more details of what the intelligence community is anonymously telling
Speaker 1: the New York Times. They're cautioning this analysis is preliminary.
Speaker 1: They were continuing to collect and analyze evidence. Neither side's
Speaker 1: claims about whose response will been independently verified still by
Speaker 1: any news outlet. And this is part of the problem
Speaker 1: is that journalists buy and large not allowed into Gaza
Speaker 1: to be able to see for themselves and interview people
Speaker 1: and try to assess the evidence that exists that American
Speaker 1: intelligence includes satellite and other infrared fread data showing a
Speaker 1: launch of a Rocketer missile from Palestinian fighter positions within Gaza.
Speaker 1: American intelligence agencies have also analyzed open source video recordings
Speaker 1: collected by journalists and others of the want showing it
Speaker 1: did not come from the direction of Israeli military positions,
Speaker 1: according to those officials. Israeli officials have also provided the
Speaker 1: US with intercepts. We're going to get to that a
Speaker 1: minute of Hamas officials allegedly saying the strike came from
Speaker 1: forces aligned with Palestinian militant groups. Of course, I don't
Speaker 1: have to tell you that US intel community and the
Speaker 1: Israeli intel community have every incentive here to paint things
Speaker 1: is in a certain portrait.
Speaker 4: But that is what they are saying.
Speaker 1: We do have a little bit of an independent investigation
Speaker 1: from the BBC of open source information basically that is available.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: BBC investigation. They took some of the photos of the
Speaker 1: site and they were actually able to get one of
Speaker 1: their journalists into Gaza to also talk to people on
Speaker 1: the ground and get like eyewitness reports about what they
Speaker 1: say happened here. But they contacted twenty different think tanks,
Speaker 1: universities and companies with weapons expertise. Nine of them did
Speaker 1: not respond, five couldn't say either way, and then there
Speaker 1: were experts that they spoke to. At the remaining six,
Speaker 1: they asked whether the available evidence, including the size of
Speaker 1: the explosion the sounds heard beforehand, could use to determine
Speaker 1: the cause of the hospital blast. So far they say
Speaker 1: the findings are inconclusive. But they did have three experts
Speaker 1: who say it is not consistent with what you would
Speaker 1: expect from a typical Israeli airstrike with a large munition.
Speaker 1: They were looking at things like the size of the crater.
Speaker 1: They were looking at the size of the fire. They
Speaker 1: were looking at the videos and the flashes that were
Speaker 1: in the sky. One person says they likely indicate the
Speaker 1: projectile was a rocket with an engine that overheated and
Speaker 1: stopped working.
Speaker 4: So that's what they said.
Speaker 1: Let me get you in on this and then I'll
Speaker 1: tell you the piece on the other side as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll be honest. This is the difficulty of really
Speaker 2: covering and operating all this approach for with extreme skepticism
Speaker 2: from the beginning. The big issue that has happened here
Speaker 2: was with Hamas specifically they have I'm not even going
Speaker 2: to say I had any credibility with them, but for
Speaker 2: them to come out immediately and say that the hospital
Speaker 2: itself was destroyed and then report a death count which
Speaker 2: is clearly now not accurate, that does a tremendous blow
Speaker 2: for our ability to even trust the most basic casualty
Speaker 2: information that was coming out of there, which I think
Speaker 2: most of the international community previously. I'm not saying that
Speaker 2: they weren't skeptical, but previously they're like, yeah, this like
Speaker 2: roughly tracks with an independent assessment, So good luck to
Speaker 2: them now from now on out, because it's not like
Speaker 2: you can really believe it out in terms of the pictures.
Speaker 2: The pictures themselves, and based on evidence and testimony that
Speaker 2: I reviewed from people who were former Human Rights Watch
Speaker 2: investigators and others who do not have an agenda and
Speaker 2: previously been highly critical of Israel, they say it's not
Speaker 2: consistent with the Jadam, which is what the type of
Speaker 2: munition that the Israelis typically drop on Gaza and would
Speaker 2: be more likely to be What the Israelis are claiming
Speaker 2: is that it's a misfired Palestindi and Islamic jihad group
Speaker 2: rocket that fell tragically misfired and fell onto this parking lot,
Speaker 2: because the hospital itself remains standing, the scorch burd marks
Speaker 2: that are on the top of the vehicles, the smaller
Speaker 2: crater that is inside of the hospital, and all of
Speaker 2: that combined with the images themselves, which just don't appear
Speaker 2: consistent with the what other images of Israeli strikes inside
Speaker 2: God's which traws a tremendous amount more damage, not necessarily carnage,
Speaker 2: because carnage is different because it could be. And that's
Speaker 2: just only honestly highlights how packed Goza is there. All
Speaker 2: these people are in this freaking parking lot because they
Speaker 2: thought it was safe. So it's a tragedy and a situation.
Speaker 2: From all of that, the only skepticism I have is
Speaker 2: that the transparent nature of how I'm not gonna say fabricated,
Speaker 2: but suspect that much of the evidence is really is
Speaker 2: put out is difficult for me, and I think that's
Speaker 2: where some of us have to be honest, where their
Speaker 2: evidence that they put out actually made me more skeptical,
Speaker 2: Whereas if I had just looked at this from photos
Speaker 2: in daylight, I'm.
Speaker 3: Like, all right, it wasn't.
Speaker 2: In narrowly it is really strike and I still actually
Speaker 2: believe that, you know, based on what I saw. But
Speaker 2: the stuff that they put out has honestly only poisoned
Speaker 2: the well more in terms of what they've released. You
Speaker 2: guys covered it yesterday releasing a video with the wrong
Speaker 2: time stamp than deleting it. And then yeah, if you
Speaker 2: want to get into the transcript of the conversation that
Speaker 2: they put out, where I would almost tell them, my
Speaker 2: black guys, you just shit this out because a lot
Speaker 2: of people don't believe you. There are some serious questions
Speaker 2: about much of the stuff that you've put out there.
Speaker 2: The best thing you have going for you right now
Speaker 2: are the actual photos of the damn parking lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so well, because I mean part of the reason
Speaker 1: the parking lot piece and like the size of the
Speaker 1: crater is so Hamas rockets.
Speaker 4: Have literally never caused this much damage.
Speaker 1: And while we don't know the exact death count, I
Speaker 1: mean there was a significant loss of life here, huge
Speaker 1: numbers of people who were killed. I mean we've seen
Speaker 1: the videos of the dead and the wounded. It was
Speaker 1: obviously a grave catastrophe, whatever the specific death count is.
Speaker 1: So when you look at that and you're like, there's
Speaker 1: never been an Islamic Jahad or Hamas rocket, which are
Speaker 1: these like rinky dink Frankenstinian cobbled together from like leftover
Speaker 1: Israeli missiles, they have never caused this much damage. That
Speaker 1: puts questions in your head. And I mean there's also
Speaker 1: just like Israel's bombing the hell out of Palace out
Speaker 1: of Gaza right now, their whole like, oh, we would
Speaker 1: never target hospitals is bullshit. They even this specific hospital
Speaker 1: was damaged days earlier. They've hit medical facilities in this
Speaker 1: specific war, not to mention going back historically, and you know,
Speaker 1: with a variety of situations, but specifically we'll talk about
Speaker 1: Shri Naboo Aklade like they've been caught basically fabricating evidence
Speaker 1: in the past.
Speaker 4: So that's why.
Speaker 1: People were immediately skeptical. You shouldn't believe what Hama says.
Speaker 1: You should not believe what the Israelis say either. And
Speaker 1: let me tell you. Let me give you a couple
Speaker 1: pieces here. So number one, let's put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen from Kent Roth. This is per Lamon, but
Speaker 1: I've seen other outlets also validate this. At this point,
Speaker 1: they report that this hospital had already been damaged by
Speaker 1: Israeli bombings on October fourteenth, and on October fifteenth, they
Speaker 1: had done these like you know, little they call them
Speaker 1: like a warning or a like knock on the roof.
Speaker 1: Israeli army had called the hospital's director to tell him
Speaker 1: those two shots were warnings to evacuate, according to the
Speaker 1: local health ministry, but again has also been independently verified.
Speaker 4: A saw in the New York Times this morning, for example.
Speaker 1: That this specific hospital they had hit with minor damage
Speaker 1: twice on October fourteenth and October fifteenth, said you have
Speaker 1: to evacuate and then so then you know, it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem crazy that then it was actually hit at least
Speaker 1: in the courtyard by something. So that's one piece of evidence.
Speaker 1: On the other side, the other one is you reference this.
Speaker 1: So we already had the video that they put out
Speaker 1: that they had to delete because it had the wrong
Speaker 1: time stands. They got called out immediately like this is
Speaker 1: not the same strike that you know hit this hospital.
Speaker 4: What are you doing? So they had to delete it.
Speaker 1: Then they claim to have additional visual evidence and this
Speaker 1: intercepted conversation between what they are claiming is two Hamas
Speaker 1: militants that has really been called into question for its veracity.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to this is a British news channel,
Speaker 1: as Channel four talking about this quote unquote intercepted conversation.
Speaker 16: They present what they say is to has operatives talking
Speaker 16: about the.
Speaker 13: Attack of the supers.
Speaker 4: Have you.
Speaker 16: Hamas called this an obvious fabrication. Two independent Arab journalists
Speaker 16: told us the same thing because of the language accent dialect, syntax,
Speaker 16: and tone, none of which is they say credible. Equally,
Speaker 16: Israel claims the Islamic you had failed missile was fired
Speaker 16: from here, a cemetery very close to the hospital. But
Speaker 16: look again at the video of the event. The trajectory
Speaker 16: of the missile doesn't line up with that location. Too high,
Speaker 16: too horizontal. Confusingly, the Israeli's presentation also says the missile
Speaker 16: was fired from a location down in the southwest. It
Speaker 16: can't be both Islamiger had say it was an Israeli missile,
Speaker 16: and they have the warhead to prove it, but they
Speaker 16: haven't produced it.
Speaker 2: Well, release the damn warhead, Yeah for sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and again this would all be.
Speaker 1: This could be ameliorated if journalists were allowed into gazas.
Speaker 1: You could have more independent verification because we're relying on
Speaker 1: you know, propaganda both sides.
Speaker 4: But if you I don't.
Speaker 1: Speak Arabic, I have no idea what a local Gaza
Speaker 1: accent sounds like.
Speaker 4: But there were you know, I was seeing a lot of.
Speaker 1: People online who were saying, this does not sound like
Speaker 1: a local Gaza accent. And then you have two independent
Speaker 1: journalists who were saying, no, I'm not buying it from
Speaker 1: the tone, the like, the way they're talking, the expressions
Speaker 1: they're using. This doesn't sound like it at all, And
Speaker 1: just reading the conversation itself is so stilted as to
Speaker 1: be sort of ridiculous. They're like, yes, it was certainly us,
Speaker 1: it was definitely not the Israelis. And another piece they
Speaker 1: point out is that their claimate came from the cemetery.
Speaker 1: That doesn't line up with the visual evidence. So there
Speaker 1: you go.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Look, I don't know. I'm not ammunitions expert.
Speaker 2: I don't speak any Arabic. I can barely order food
Speaker 2: or not coffee. That's the extent of what I've got.
Speaker 4: What I know to say, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's there you go. In terms of how it
Speaker 2: all goes for me, it has nothing to do with
Speaker 2: anything that the States have put out. It is purely
Speaker 2: based on what you see from there, and again from
Speaker 2: munitions and analysts, experts who are attached to organizations here
Speaker 2: in the West, who I believe not have an agenda
Speaker 2: that's not the best from my analysis and of theirs,
Speaker 2: And based on all that, it doesn't seem to me
Speaker 2: like it was in Israeli strike.
Speaker 3: So there it is. I just think though that I
Speaker 3: don't know. I mean, it is difficult.
Speaker 2: This has become some sort of like massive crisis online.
Speaker 2: I'm curious what you think of it. You know, for
Speaker 2: all of that it is, I have sympathy for the
Speaker 2: people who believe it was the Israelis. I think most
Speaker 2: people did to be honest, and I think correct it
Speaker 2: was a very logical explanation. At the same time, I
Speaker 2: think it's a good lesson that we can all move
Speaker 2: in forward, like we cannot really believe.
Speaker 3: A single word that Hamas says.
Speaker 2: We have to be deeply skeptical from all of them,
Speaker 2: and everyone's like, oh, like Rashida Talib and ilhan Omar
Speaker 2: and all that. I honestly do think they should delete
Speaker 2: their tweets at this point. I did think because based
Speaker 2: upon the evidence or the very least, they should come
Speaker 2: forward and should clarify their core message was not a
Speaker 2: bad one and it is not unacceptable or pro terrorist.
Speaker 2: If you go and you read what they were saying
Speaker 2: is they're like, look, we want to stop hostilities.
Speaker 3: People want to die.
Speaker 2: And I think, look, I will not live in a
Speaker 2: world where that is not acceptable discourse In the United
Speaker 2: States of America. So anyway, that's my take for all
Speaker 2: of this, for the assessment and all of that, be
Speaker 2: skeptical and you should wait.
Speaker 3: I'm glad that you guys.
Speaker 2: I'm actually very thankful that you guys didn't come on
Speaker 2: the air until the next morning when there were more
Speaker 2: details and you could offer more And now you know,
Speaker 2: we're forty eight hours or away.
Speaker 3: So into this.
Speaker 2: I will say, though, the most annoying take that I've
Speaker 2: heard on this is they're like, it's the New York
Speaker 2: Times fault for reporting what Hamas said that there were
Speaker 2: protests in Lebanon. I'm like, yeah, you know, guys in
Speaker 2: Lebanon are like, hey, let's go storm the US embassy
Speaker 2: because the New York Times said so, right, not because
Speaker 2: they're you know, shthead friend on WhatsApp is like, brother,
Speaker 2: they have done this based upon what Hamas says. It's like,
Speaker 2: if you really believe that you don't know anything about
Speaker 2: the Middle East or about how these people getting in
Speaker 2: their news.
Speaker 1: It's preposterous to imagine that the US media is anti Israel.
Speaker 4: There is that's a whole zero.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at the language they use about,
Speaker 1: you know, the humanity they grant rightfully, so to the
Speaker 1: Israeli citizens who were killed versus the way Palestinians are treated.
Speaker 1: And look at the way they've covered this conflict, there
Speaker 1: is no doubt which side they tend to favor. So
Speaker 1: I think the idea that you know, New York Times
Speaker 1: or any of these US based media outlets are anti
Speaker 1: Israel anyway is completely absurd. But you know, the last
Speaker 1: thing I'll say, just to put all of this in context,
Speaker 1: is you already have thousands of Palestinians who've been killed.
Speaker 1: You have over a thousand Palestinian children who have been killed.
Speaker 1: You have a million Palestinians in Gaza who have been displaced,
Speaker 1: You have a dire humanitarian situation. Like whatever happened with
Speaker 1: this hospital doesn't take away from the fact war is hell.
Speaker 1: The carnage is horrific, and this is only just the beginning.
Speaker 3: So I do agree with that.
Speaker 2: I will say though, that you do they do a
Speaker 2: desperate at a disservice to their cause whenever they're caught
Speaker 2: lying like this, and so it's important to be It's
Speaker 2: important to be accurate, you know, if you're going to
Speaker 2: be Yeah.
Speaker 4: That's true for Israel too. Lie all the time.
Speaker 2: Of course, here I'm not talking about them. I'm talking
Speaker 2: about people in the United States who are boosters of
Speaker 2: their cause. It's like it just makes you, like, I think,
Speaker 2: to leave in an ilhan Omar, they look like fools,
Speaker 2: you know, for immediately jumping on this and they haven't
Speaker 2: deleted it, they haven't even addressed it. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: you know you already know when you're in a position
Speaker 2: of weakness, like you have to do everything in your
Speaker 2: power in order to bolster the ground that you stand
Speaker 2: on because you know that your critic. I mean, we
Speaker 2: know this when on Ukraine, right, Like the media can
Speaker 2: lie about Ukraine ten out of ten times, and nobody's
Speaker 2: going to say a damn right. If we say one
Speaker 2: wrong thing one out of ten times, that's it. The
Speaker 2: next nine out of ten, if you get them right,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter. I don't think it's fair, but like
Speaker 2: that's just how it goes. And so I think for them,
Speaker 2: they have a responsibility to the anti war cause, to
Speaker 2: the pro Palestinian cause here in order to try and
Speaker 2: be more accurate and retrenching than behaving on the other side.
Speaker 2: I mean, that doesn't make you noble or good, you know,
Speaker 2: based on what I've seen from the two of them
Speaker 2: so far.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's just my I'd be curious what you think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think it would be reasonable for
Speaker 1: them to address now there are way more I see.
Speaker 1: For me, I'm still fifty to fifty on what you
Speaker 1: know the evidence actually shows and who was actually responsible.
Speaker 1: But it was an entirely logical conclusion when your Israel's
Speaker 1: literally dropped, you know what, six thousand and seven thousand
Speaker 1: bombs on Gaza at this point, to see this carnage
Speaker 1: and say obviously was and especially when you have no
Speaker 1: track record of any Himas or Islamic Jahad rocket creating
Speaker 1: this kind of damage, to come to that conclusion, I
Speaker 1: think it would be appropriate for them to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: there is a lot more evidence in the other direction now,
Speaker 1: I think absolutely.
Speaker 4: But your point about you know.
Speaker 1: Of course they're going to be held to a higher standard,
Speaker 1: like how much of the like Israeli propaganda and lies
Speaker 1: that have been documented over many years goes down And
Speaker 1: there's never any question about it, there's never any like
Speaker 1: demands to retract or correct or whatever. But you're right,
Speaker 1: the expectation should be that they're going to be held
Speaker 1: to a different standard because anytime you have a distant
Speaker 1: political view.
Speaker 4: That's just the way it work.
Speaker 2: That's how it goes. I mean, I'm not saying it's fair,
Speaker 2: but it's life, and that's just how it goes. Speaking
Speaker 2: of Ukraine, as we were just talking about, let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, the White House is
Speaker 2: now pushing for a one hundred billion dollar package for
Speaker 2: Israel Ukraine border and disaster relief. That will mean United
Speaker 2: States is requesting approximately ten billion dollars for Israel, sixty
Speaker 2: billion dollars for Ukraine. They just happen to sneak that
Speaker 2: one in there, even though it's six times times the
Speaker 2: number for the actual conflict that this is allegedly being
Speaker 2: tied to. And then the rest of it is border
Speaker 2: and disaster money that they had tried previously to get
Speaker 2: through the Congress. Included in that is a one hundred
Speaker 2: million dollar announcement today for Palestinian aid that will be
Speaker 2: directed towards humanitarian efforts. This comes at a very critical
Speaker 2: time actually for the war in Ukraine. Remember, previously, the
Speaker 2: United States had not passed through the Congress any extension
Speaker 2: of aid or even transfer authority that has not stopped
Speaker 2: the Biden administration though, from throwing even more weapons into
Speaker 2: the conflict, this time arguably one of the most escalatory
Speaker 2: weapons that they've sent there so far.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Confirmed now use of long range missiles inside of Ukraine
Speaker 2: against Russian forces for the first time, used against the
Speaker 2: Russian Air Force. At least these were used crystal inside
Speaker 2: of occupied Ukraine, so you know there were used actually
Speaker 2: on their own territory.
Speaker 3: But let me repeat again, there is not one thing stop.
Speaker 2: Them save for their word, which they have broken, that
Speaker 2: striking deep inside of Russian territory. Not one thing of
Speaker 2: which they have done before. They've used drones, They've repeatedly
Speaker 2: struck inside of Russia. I'm not talking about what Russia
Speaker 2: claims is Russia or Crimea. I'm talking about Russia Russia.
Speaker 2: There's nothing stopping them from being able to do this.
Speaker 2: And I also wanted to bring up something very critical
Speaker 2: behind the scenes. The New York Times had one of
Speaker 2: their long profiles inside the decision to send this directly
Speaker 2: leaked from the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin opposed
Speaker 2: this decision for a single reason. He said this dramatically
Speaker 2: draws from US readiness. We cannot produce these on a
Speaker 2: long enough timeline, and if we need these in the
Speaker 2: immediate term, within the next year, we're screwed. Biden sent
Speaker 2: them anyway. That's from the Secretary of Defense, not any
Speaker 2: chicken hawk. This is a guy who's like, look, my
Speaker 2: job is to tell you this is making us a
Speaker 2: lot less safe and it will be very difficult for
Speaker 2: us to produce seas in the future. And Biden sent
Speaker 2: these weapons to Ukraine anyway, even though we're at the
Speaker 2: tail end of any amount of aid that's ever going
Speaker 2: to pour into this conflict.
Speaker 4: Do you think so, I'm not so sure about that.
Speaker 3: I think that calculus sixty billions going that.
Speaker 1: Calculus has changed significantly with the introduction of the Israeli conflict,
Speaker 1: because there's nothing to keep you know, there is an
Speaker 1: overwhelming bipartisan consensus in favor of sending, you know, Israel
Speaker 1: whatever Israel wants, and there's no end to just tying
Speaker 1: the two together and pushing them both through for you know,
Speaker 1: forever and ever. And you've already got the Israelis saying, hey,
Speaker 1: this is going to last year. So to me, whereas
Speaker 1: very recently it looked like, you know, they could be
Speaker 1: coming really at the tail end, or perhaps Ukrainian AID
Speaker 1: was not going to get through any longer at all.
Speaker 1: I think that that landscape has dramatically shifted very quickly,
Speaker 1: and even have you know, well like it's probably not
Speaker 1: going to be Jim Jordan's speaker now, but the fact
Speaker 1: that he was even out there at least in trying
Speaker 1: to convince some moderates that he may even be amenable
Speaker 1: to doing that after he's been very si I firstly
Speaker 1: opposed to Ukrainian AID, I think tells you the changing landscape.
Speaker 1: But you know, just to pause again on these long
Speaker 1: range missiles and just remind everyone this is one of
Speaker 1: the things that Joe Biden had originally specifically said no to.
Speaker 1: And you know, it should have been the minute that
Speaker 1: Ukraine started striking inside of Russia, including drum strikes in
Speaker 1: Moscow itself, that should have been an absolute red line.
Speaker 1: Now you will never get the long range missiles, and
Speaker 1: instead they provide them. They don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1: You know, they did it quietly without really announcing it publicly.
Speaker 1: They won't comment on the delivery or use of these missiles.
Speaker 1: But they're there, and we're still in this quagmire situation
Speaker 1: with really no end in sight, but additional prospects for
Speaker 1: continuing the aid flowing in definitely. So this is why
Speaker 1: I'm very happy with the speaker chaos.
Speaker 4: I hope it lasts forever.
Speaker 1: I hope they never get a speaker, like the next
Speaker 1: election or whatever. I hope it just continues in perpetuity
Speaker 1: to be a quagmire because the instant that you have
Speaker 1: a speaker in place, some major aid packed package, both
Speaker 1: for Ukraine, Israel and probably border securities. Likely.
Speaker 2: This is the point that Michael Tracy he is making.
Speaker 2: He's like, the longer we have no speaker, the safer.
Speaker 3: That this nation is.
Speaker 2: I think he's absolutely it's correct on that front. And
Speaker 2: it's very important to remember that this is now having
Speaker 2: the full weight of the White House being put behind it.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there, President Biden. Just everybody knows,
Speaker 2: we'll be making an address from the Oval Office, a
Speaker 2: very rare thing for him to do directly to the
Speaker 2: American people, both on the Israel Hamas conflict and the
Speaker 2: war in Ukraine, on Thursday evening at eight pm. I
Speaker 2: don't know why these people are using military time. I
Speaker 2: despise military.
Speaker 4: You get a war, you get a war, whatever, you
Speaker 4: get a war.
Speaker 2: So the White House set on Wednesday and pre announced that,
Speaker 2: so everybody tune in. I guess at eight pm if
Speaker 2: he says anything worthwhile, we will cover it here on
Speaker 2: the show and make sure bring breaking coverage. But he
Speaker 2: just goes to show you they're gonna milk this thing
Speaker 2: for everything it's worth. They're going to use the overwhelming
Speaker 2: bipars and consensus on Israel. They're going to tie Ukraine
Speaker 2: in there. And then, like I said, do not forget
Speaker 2: what the actual breakdown is. They're using a biparts and
Speaker 2: consensus for ten billion on Israel to try and shoehorn
Speaker 2: sixty billion. And let's just remember the track record of
Speaker 2: Ukraine's use of US military aid. They have not made
Speaker 2: one square inch of net gain in twelve months. That
Speaker 2: is according to even the most hawkish analytical groups in
Speaker 2: the United States, for their so called counter offensive. In fact,
Speaker 2: if you look at it, you have a better case
Speaker 2: for Russia came out better during this counter offensive, and
Speaker 2: analysts predict that the winter months will almost certainly be
Speaker 2: to the benefit of the Russian forces given what they've
Speaker 2: learned in their overall industrial capacity. You know, I was
Speaker 2: just reading the Russian spun up Crystal, a sophisticated ammunitions
Speaker 2: production manufacturing center in eight and a half months, eight
Speaker 2: and a half months inside of Russia. Can you imagine
Speaker 2: that in the United States we have not done anything
Speaker 2: like that since World War Two? You know, we can't
Speaker 2: even we can't replace AMMO. And it's like, I'm watching them,
Speaker 2: and we are severely underestimating their wartime economy, their ability
Speaker 2: in order to you know, I mean, look, they had
Speaker 2: no choice. They're basically like, fine, we have to bring
Speaker 2: everything in house and produce what we need. They're spending
Speaker 2: everything that they need to in order to keep the
Speaker 2: war machine going. And there is not a single sign
Speaker 2: of degradation of what we were promised from day one
Speaker 2: about these so called sanctions.
Speaker 1: So let me let me also just quickly make a
Speaker 1: political point. Janet Yellen recently was a famous hey, can
Speaker 1: we afford these two wars? And her answer was, I
Speaker 1: think the answer is absolutely Okay. Now that that may
Speaker 1: be the case, but you know, to make a political
Speaker 1: point here, as we're heading into a presidential election, how
Speaker 1: do you think the American people who feel very poorly
Speaker 1: about the economy, who feel very poorly and are struggling
Speaker 1: in terms of their own financial well being, who are
Speaker 1: you know, housing has never been more unaffordable, who have
Speaker 1: struggled with inflation, wages declining, all of those issues, bank
Speaker 1: accounts declining, credit card debt going up. And you see
Speaker 1: the answer when it comes to sending you know.
Speaker 4: Military aid is Oh, of course, of course, We'll.
Speaker 1: Find the money for that, and we'll find a will
Speaker 1: to do it. It doesn't matter if Republicans are a
Speaker 1: post something. We're going to find a way to get
Speaker 1: this done. Where is the urgency when it comes to
Speaker 1: our own financial situation? And so, you know, this is
Speaker 1: a real problem, most important materially for American people who
Speaker 1: are struggling, but it is also a huge political problem
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden to have the specter of endless money
Speaker 1: or these two conflicts and nothing for our own people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, said Crystal.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go and bring in Emily and Kyle
Speaker 1: to talk about a few domestic political issues.
Speaker 4: Let's get to it.
Speaker 2: Okay, We've got Kyle Kleinsky and Amily Guiski here at
Speaker 2: the desk. We're going to have a nice power panel.
Speaker 2: We're going to discuss the speakership RFK. Let's start with
Speaker 2: the speaker. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan has lost support yesterday for his second failed
Speaker 2: House speaker vote. There will maybe be another vote today.
Speaker 2: Everything is up in the air and it comes after
Speaker 2: a sustained campaign by Jordan allies. We can put the
Speaker 2: next one, please up there on the screen to try
Speaker 2: and what is it?
Speaker 3: Arm twist?
Speaker 2: Some of the people who had actually voted against him turns,
Speaker 2: I'm actually fine with that, but it didn't work, so
Speaker 2: I guess we're not fine with it.
Speaker 3: Whenever that happens.
Speaker 1: His like wife got anonymous emails like your husband better
Speaker 1: support Jim George.
Speaker 4: I support that apparently I.
Speaker 2: Sent it to I told him, Emily, give us your take.
Speaker 2: You're tapped into the conservative circles first, Just like, what's
Speaker 2: going on? What is going to happen? Is there doesn't
Speaker 2: appear to be a vote today. Is Patrick McHenry the
Speaker 2: speaker pro tempt? Is he going to get expanded speaker powers?
Speaker 2: Deal with the Democrats? What are you hearing?
Speaker 3: What are you thinking?
Speaker 10: Yeah, so there's a package being discussed right now to
Speaker 10: give Patrick McHenry the pro tem people remember him banging
Speaker 10: the gavel really hard in his little bow tie, to
Speaker 10: give him powers until janu third, so for the rest
Speaker 10: of the year and then they can come back to
Speaker 10: the table and figure things out. Well, that's not going
Speaker 10: to happen because now Conservatives, the same people who were
Speaker 10: doing the arm twisting campaign to support Jim Jordan are
Speaker 10: basically never mckenry, because the Conservative movement is mounting a
Speaker 10: campaign to say a deal to put McHenry in office
Speaker 10: is a deal with Democrats. Basically, to make that math work,
Speaker 10: centrist Republicans are probably going to need the help of
Speaker 10: centrist Democrats and maybe then they can get it. Either way,
Speaker 10: it's going to be difficult because of that never McHenry
Speaker 10: faction of Jordan supporters. The problem with the math though,
Speaker 10: is that there are never Jordan supporters that are now
Speaker 10: in the McHenry camp, which basically is impossible. And again
Speaker 10: this is why after fifteen ballots with Kevin McCarthy, they
Speaker 10: went through those fifteen ballots. McCarthy went through those fifteen
Speaker 10: ballots because every single person in the Republican Conference knew
Speaker 10: that only Kevin McCarthy could bridge what are now the
Speaker 10: people in the never McHenry and the never Jordan Camps.
Speaker 8: He was the only person who could do it.
Speaker 10: And that doesn't mean Kevin McCarthy is amazing, does mean
Speaker 10: Kevin karthy is a hero for the Savior of the Republic.
Speaker 10: It just means he had put years of work into
Speaker 10: bridging those two groups and nobody else is able to
Speaker 10: do that, so they're completely at an impasse.
Speaker 1: He actual like had no shame, like he was willing
Speaker 1: to do whatever, yeah, to get to get it done.
Speaker 4: I mean, what are you making?
Speaker 11: First of all, I think all the speakers are like that,
Speaker 11: the ones who actually get to power.
Speaker 17: It's like you raise the most money and.
Speaker 11: You can like appease the most people behind the scenes,
Speaker 11: and maybe you know, got like a snake in a
Speaker 11: sense and say one thing over here, one thing over here.
Speaker 11: But I found it really interesting because Jim Jordan was
Speaker 11: a vocal supporter of McCarthy, and he actually argued with
Speaker 11: Gates on the House floor that I think McCarthy should
Speaker 11: stay in power. But he also has gates blessing because
Speaker 11: he's a mentor to Gates. So the thing that I'm
Speaker 11: stuck on is like, if it's not him, who's it
Speaker 11: going to be, Because this guy in theory should have
Speaker 11: the blessing of the McCarthy people and the Gates people.
Speaker 11: And I think that what it comes down to is
Speaker 11: Jordan is an outsider conservative firebrand who's like, you know,
Speaker 11: built his name on right wing media, and I don't
Speaker 11: think he does the behind the scenes backslap in politics
Speaker 11: like a speaker needs to do. Yeah, he doesn't, And
Speaker 11: so I think, never mind, that's awesome.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, let me push back on your McHenry
Speaker 1: thing here, because you know, I have made the prediction
Speaker 1: that it will just end up being mckenry by default.
Speaker 1: So I'm very invested in my prediction coming true. That's
Speaker 1: the only thing. I really don't care about this fight
Speaker 1: otherwise personally, But it seems to me like no one
Speaker 1: has the votes. Jim Jordan is actually further behind where
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy was, and so the status quo is the
Speaker 1: most likely outcome here where McHenry may not be like
Speaker 1: elected speaker, but they could figure out workarounds of like
Speaker 1: all right, you know, like a government funding is about
Speaker 1: to run out or about to have a shut down,
Speaker 1: A very short period of time.
Speaker 4: It's not like the House was doing that much anyway.
Speaker 1: So if they come up with these workarounds of like,
Speaker 1: all right, I guess you can keep the government open.
Speaker 1: I guess you can pass your Israel in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: border aid or whatever it is that they're putting this
Speaker 1: package together, that seem still seems to me like the
Speaker 1: most likely outcome because I don't see any other person
Speaker 1: being able to cobble together sufficient votes to get this done.
Speaker 8: I agree with that.
Speaker 10: I mean, if I had to put money on any
Speaker 10: outcome right now, it would be the mckenry outcome. And
Speaker 10: I think your reason for that is really like probably
Speaker 10: the most correct, like default is the easiest way for everybody?
Speaker 8: Is the default exactly.
Speaker 10: Yeah, And so at the same time, though, that's becoming
Speaker 10: more and more difficult for people. As we're seeing this
Speaker 10: develop right now, and you've probably noticed this over the
Speaker 10: last couple of days, people who work in the sort
Speaker 10: of activist conservative circles are putting together a really strong
Speaker 10: campaign to pressure and this.
Speaker 8: Is actually partially what pushed people away from Jordan.
Speaker 10: Yeah, they're really trying to say, they're trying to make
Speaker 10: this a red line in the sand. They're trying to
Speaker 10: mobilize constituents and say, the Republican grassroots wants Jim Jordan.
Speaker 3: If you're voting.
Speaker 10: Against Jim Jordan, if you can't get on this bandwagon,
Speaker 10: we are going to cast us a rhino. We're going
Speaker 10: to punish you. And for some of them that might
Speaker 10: be good. They might like that in their districts and
Speaker 10: purple districts. The other hand, probably for most of them,
Speaker 10: it's not good, and so it's becoming I thought Jordan
Speaker 10: was basically dead in the water when so many people
Speaker 10: started shifting towards mckenry. But then you started to see
Speaker 10: this really get traction in the conservative movement, and that
Speaker 10: does make it difficult for Republicans to vote against.
Speaker 8: It doesn't mean that it's.
Speaker 3: Going to happen, That's right, Kye.
Speaker 17: Somebody say, I have a question for Emily.
Speaker 11: Is it not Jordan because people are still mad at Gates?
Speaker 11: Or is it not Jordan because Republicans from purple districts
Speaker 11: are like, I can't do Jordan because you know he
Speaker 11: supported the insurrection, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 17: Which is what is it both of them? Or what
Speaker 17: is it?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 10: I think it's mostly that because people Jim Jordan like
Speaker 10: basically was one of the early Freedom Caucus people. He
Speaker 10: was very close with Mark Meadows, founder of the Freedom Caucus,
Speaker 10: actually with Ronda Santis.
Speaker 8: All of those.
Speaker 10: Guys were the bomb throwers in the Bayner era, and
Speaker 10: so they earned so much bad will, Like people just
Speaker 10: bitterly resent them for throwing the house into chaos so
Speaker 10: often during those years, they blame them for Trump, they
Speaker 10: blame them for January sixth, and some of that is
Speaker 10: now personal, not just political.
Speaker 8: So it's a really like a lot of bitter feuds.
Speaker 11: Or did some of them fall in line like the
Speaker 11: Purple District Democrats, because I know twenty two now voted
Speaker 11: against Jordan. So would you say, like the twenty two
Speaker 11: Republicans are the more moderate Republicans where they're also like
Speaker 11: thirty more moderate Republicans who were.
Speaker 17: Like, all right, I'll just fall in line as well.
Speaker 2: A lot of them did, but don't forget that of
Speaker 2: that twenty the New York Caucus in particular is highly
Speaker 2: represented because a lot of those people are like Long
Speaker 2: Island folks, and they are more in purple districts. My
Speaker 2: personal favorite thing I stuff floaded behind the scenes, Crystal
Speaker 2: Is Jordan was like, Okay, well, maybe we'll lift the
Speaker 2: salt cap. Yeah, we're just to explain to everybody. Yeah,
Speaker 2: state and local tax deduction got straight lifting a tax
Speaker 2: cut for the rich people so they can write because
Speaker 2: New York has very high state and local taxes, so
Speaker 2: that they would be previously, before Trump, they were able
Speaker 2: to write off that portion from their federal income tax.
Speaker 2: And they're like, this is an outrage, We're being double
Speaker 2: tax The overwhelming majority of the benefit for the salt
Speaker 2: cap goes to people who make over one million dollars
Speaker 2: per year. Therefore, it is the number one priority of
Speaker 2: the New York Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 4: And I'm not in New Jersey too. That's Gotten Jersey
Speaker 4: is New Jersey.
Speaker 17: I call him mister Saul.
Speaker 2: Anyway, the one promise that I think it Jordan has
Speaker 2: is he was like, okay, guys, what do you want
Speaker 2: And they were like, you got to.
Speaker 3: Lift the salt I anything.
Speaker 1: I have to think that another part of it is
Speaker 1: not just like his his the things he's done in
Speaker 1: the past and the bomb throwing nature and like you know,
Speaker 1: the shutdowns and the debt ceiling showdowns and all of that,
Speaker 1: But they also have to be worried about if he
Speaker 1: is their leadership in the House, what is he going
Speaker 1: to do going forward? Because he's very interested in the like,
Speaker 1: you know, impeach Biden and let's have all of these
Speaker 1: hearings and investigation. I mean, that's what he wasn't legislating.
Speaker 1: Those are the things that he was focused on. So
Speaker 1: I have to think part of their fear is, like,
Speaker 1: how are we going to look if this guy who's
Speaker 1: been nothing but a bomb thrower is our leadership in
Speaker 1: the House, Like, we can't be closely associated with this
Speaker 1: guy and Kyle like there's nothing he can promise them,
Speaker 1: he can't promise them to, like I'm no longer going
Speaker 1: to be Jim.
Speaker 11: Jordan, But like, is there really that much of a
Speaker 11: substantive difference on policy between like him and Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 11: Like I'm genuinely curious about that in my opinion, because
Speaker 11: it would you if you have Jordan's Speaker of the House,
Speaker 11: would you just like not get bills that pass at all?
Speaker 17: Passes at all?
Speaker 3: It depends on which policy.
Speaker 2: For example, Kevin McCarthy was far more i think less
Speaker 2: ideological on Ukraine. He was one of those people's like, look,
Speaker 2: I just want to pease everybody personally. I like pro Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He almost certainly he would have brought something to the floor.
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan from the very beginning was like, I'm not
Speaker 2: bringing any a to Ukraine. Yeah.
Speaker 17: But then but then.
Speaker 1: Behind the scenes, But then behind the scenes, there was
Speaker 1: that least reporting that he indicated to moderates who were
Speaker 1: on the fence, like well, maybe I would put Israel
Speaker 1: and Ukraine AID together.
Speaker 4: So I don't know whether that was just.
Speaker 1: Like him lying to try to get their votes or whatever,
Speaker 1: but he definitely left them with the impression that that's
Speaker 1: what was going to happen.
Speaker 8: Maybe someone needs to lift the soul.
Speaker 2: In Ukraine, Yes, but I don't think the oligarchs are
Speaker 2: pantextic is.
Speaker 4: Must be lifted. Jim Jordan is your man.
Speaker 10: See Kyle's question is super interesting, I think because Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 10: It speaks to I think Kevin McCarthy moved over a lot,
Speaker 10: and he when I talked to him, he.
Speaker 8: Talked about how the first.
Speaker 10: Impeachment was he didn't use this word, but kind of
Speaker 10: radicalizing for him. And the question then becomes, what's the
Speaker 10: substant in different substance in difference between Jim Jordan and
Speaker 10: like now ken Buck, who is out in moderate land.
Speaker 17: It's been right, like is this what happens when you
Speaker 17: become speakers?
Speaker 11: Like, well, I guess in some ways we got to
Speaker 11: get something done, like we have to get a budget passed,
Speaker 11: So I guess I gotta do this in this because
Speaker 11: Democrats hold a Senate, Democrats out the White House.
Speaker 17: You could pass virtue signal bills all day, but Biden
Speaker 17: can veto it for the Senate. You know, not bad,
Speaker 17: I will say.
Speaker 2: And this is actually why I thought Jordan was the
Speaker 2: best candidate, is I thought he was the best to
Speaker 2: avoid a government shutdown because they have the most credibility
Speaker 2: amongst the people who would have pushed for a shutdown,
Speaker 2: as in he would have been able to wrangle votes
Speaker 2: that I think McCarthy never would have been able to
Speaker 2: on a future debt ceiling. So you almost want like
Speaker 2: a member of that elk to be in higher power
Speaker 2: because when the push comes to it, they're like, look, guys,
Speaker 2: we got a shutdown. You know me, this is the
Speaker 2: best deal I possibly could get. They never trusted that
Speaker 2: with McCarthy, and they said that over and over.
Speaker 17: That's true.
Speaker 11: The boys for a shutdown too. You know, that's the
Speaker 11: risk you run. Yeah, but you know, like he might
Speaker 11: be like, no, I want to do the shutdown too.
Speaker 2: Maybe, but the political calculus is, Look, Republicans have lost
Speaker 2: every shutdown ever. You know that every single time they
Speaker 2: shut down the government, they took the public eyre and
Speaker 2: the blame all the way going back to nut Gingrich.
Speaker 2: I don't Jordan is I mean, even right now. And
Speaker 2: while you know this, like he hates to lose. He
Speaker 2: would not want to be on the losing end of
Speaker 2: a government shutdown and be like the like a fill
Speaker 2: in the country's eyes for the wrong reasons. He's happy
Speaker 2: to do it whenever it comes to being anti Hillary
Speaker 2: or any for a political benefit. But I don't think
Speaker 2: that there is that benefit for that. So I don't
Speaker 2: know least thing Christal would.
Speaker 1: Well, the last thing I would say is, you know,
Speaker 1: part of why I don't haven't been that invested emotionally
Speaker 1: and who ends up as speaker is because I do
Speaker 1: feel like whoever ends up in that position is going
Speaker 1: to be an extraordinarily weak place, just as McCarthy was.
Speaker 4: Yes, you're right, and so it's not like McCarthy was
Speaker 4: like running the show.
Speaker 1: He was trying to appease these various factions and navigate
Speaker 1: in this certain way, and ultimately, you know, ended up
Speaker 1: in an untenable position where he had no other option
Speaker 1: but to basically make a deal with Democrats and then
Speaker 1: head out the exits. There was no other move left
Speaker 1: on the chessboard. And so to me, whether it's Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan or McHenry or who you know, Ken Buck or
Speaker 1: whoever the heck else might pop up, they're going to
Speaker 1: be basically subject to those same pressures. They're going to
Speaker 1: be an incredibly weak position. They're still going to have
Speaker 1: these same factions that they're trying to deal with that
Speaker 1: this has really been the case or Republicans for quite
Speaker 1: a long time. So that's why I feel like the
Speaker 1: person who ends up in that slot it probably doesn't
Speaker 1: make all that much of a difference my personal opinion.
Speaker 10: And they're obsessed with the motion of ak because that's
Speaker 10: what empowered Matt Gates. Yeah, that's on the table in
Speaker 10: these negotiations, and if that doesn't go away, there's nothing
Speaker 10: you can do about Matt Gates. There's always going to
Speaker 10: be a Matt Gates and it just takes one when
Speaker 10: you have the motion of.
Speaker 3: A K word it good point. Why don't we get to.
Speaker 4: All right, let's move to the presidential election.
Speaker 1: And as you guys all know, RFK Junior has moved
Speaker 1: out of the Democratic primary is now running as an independent,
Speaker 1: and we're just starting to get some polls indicating what
Speaker 1: that might look like. Let's put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen with some numbers we have here showing who he
Speaker 1: takes more away from. So in a head to head,
Speaker 1: if it's just Biden versus Trump, Biden has an edge
Speaker 1: by just three points forty nine forty six. But when
Speaker 1: you add RFK into the mix, he grabs sixteen percent
Speaker 1: of the vote, which is not too shabby. Biden gets
Speaker 1: forty four and Trump gets thirty seven. So Biden's lead
Speaker 1: surges to seven points in the event that you have
Speaker 1: Kennedy on the ticket as an independent. Part of why
Speaker 1: this happens is Trump loses actually ten points with Republicans,
Speaker 1: Biden only loses five points with Democrats. RFK also tends
Speaker 1: to take more of the independence who were backing Trump.
Speaker 1: They tend to move towards him, so at least Kyle
Speaker 1: in this particular poll, it does look like, you know,
Speaker 1: all the Mega people who are like freaking out now
Speaker 1: about the fact that RFK is running independent after they
Speaker 1: propped him up a lot, it looks like their analysis
Speaker 1: is reflected in this poll that this could be a
Speaker 1: problem from Trump.
Speaker 11: Well, what's interesting is what will happen if Trump really
Speaker 11: starts to go in on RFK. Right, And we already
Speaker 11: saw like Sean Hannity very clearly turned on RFK when
Speaker 11: he had previously been boosting him.
Speaker 17: Yeah, he's like, actually, I looked at your record. You're
Speaker 17: really liberal.
Speaker 2: Bro. That's an opening question, I question, Yeah, what is that?
Speaker 11: So I'm curious if that dynamic will hold. You know,
Speaker 11: I don't know. I feel like anything could happen on
Speaker 11: election day, where theoretically he takes fifty percent from Trump,
Speaker 11: fifty percent from Biden, or seventy percent from Trump three
Speaker 11: percent for Biden or the reverse of that.
Speaker 17: So like, I don't know what's going to happen, But
Speaker 17: you know you have in the conversation is what you're saying, Yeah,
Speaker 17: I wouldn't conut on this.
Speaker 11: And also, okay, so in that poll, it's like you
Speaker 11: have Biden up seven points nationally.
Speaker 17: There was a pole like two weeks ago that at
Speaker 17: Trump up.
Speaker 11: Ten points nationally, and then I looked at the polling
Speaker 11: average last night and they were literally dead tied at
Speaker 11: forty four point three percent in the polling average nationally.
Speaker 11: So it's like we're kind of reading the tea leaves
Speaker 11: a little too much here. But any analysis about RFK
Speaker 11: should also include Cornell West because in theory, both of
Speaker 11: them will be on at least some ballots in some states, right,
Speaker 11: so you have to include him in the picture as well.
Speaker 2: That's an excellent way, you think, Goluge.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great point, especially
Speaker 10: because we saw what Jill Stein and like the oh
Speaker 10: it was all Russia stuff. But like when you're in
Speaker 10: on the bout in Pennsylvania, even if you're you know,
Speaker 10: not like at rfk's level, you can still eat away
Speaker 10: at some really really important margins. And I'm curious about
Speaker 10: you guys think, because I have a theory that as
Speaker 10: soon as RFK starts to really look like he's a
Speaker 10: threat more to Trump than to Biden, which this pole
Speaker 10: starts to show us that, it'll be fascinating to see
Speaker 10: where people go, when Trump starts attacking him as super liberal,
Speaker 10: does that make him more appealing to the types of
Speaker 10: people that might be interested in Cornell West but also
Speaker 10: might be like a Bernie Sanders voter that is like,
Speaker 10: holy smokes, this guy did so much for the environment
Speaker 10: in New York State.
Speaker 8: He has this like very long record.
Speaker 10: I'm not I don't know whether that's the case, because
Speaker 10: there's so many points of tension now, even between you know,
Speaker 10: kind of Bernie people and you know somebody who might
Speaker 10: like RFK first stance on vaccines, right.
Speaker 2: A lot of that's that's my thing is like, look
Speaker 2: for I think Oliver Anthony is a good archetypal person.
Speaker 2: I don't know how big of a constituency represents, but
Speaker 2: it's not zero. And when I listen to his interview
Speaker 2: with Rogan, he was like, look, I'm pro Second Amendment,
Speaker 2: you know all of this. But he's like, well Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, he had a lot of problems too. He's
Speaker 2: like like Operation WARF Speed And I was like, oh.
Speaker 17: That's interesting, but vaccine.
Speaker 2: But but I was like, oh, okay. And so then
Speaker 2: he starts talking, you know, positively about RFK junior, and
Speaker 2: so look, maybe there's a million two million people who
Speaker 2: exit who are very upset about the vaccine or vaccine mandate.
Speaker 3: They especially RFK.
Speaker 2: I just saw put a tweet out the other day
Speaker 2: about I'm not going to take your guns away. He's
Speaker 2: very sympathetic on h a lot of libertarian esque type
Speaker 2: border right, so he's like he is as long as
Speaker 2: he strikes the right message. I could see an Oliver Anthony,
Speaker 2: you know, our type voter photo of him. Now, how
Speaker 2: big is that? I don't know, As Emily says, though,
Speaker 2: I think we did this right when it announced.
Speaker 3: I pull the numbers.
Speaker 2: In terms of Joe Jurgenson, she won like one point
Speaker 2: six percent of the vote in Georgia, I mean or
Speaker 2: the libertarian camp in twenty twenty. That's arguably the Trump
Speaker 2: margin of victory. She won over one percent in Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: and in Arizona. Once again, we are talking in all
Speaker 2: three states. It's funny because on the right there isn't
Speaker 2: the same like yeah, culture, like.
Speaker 17: It's all her fault.
Speaker 2: But I mean, you could make a good case under
Speaker 2: that idiotic theory. So yeah, I mean to me, RFK
Speaker 2: with his last name, let's say you guess three percent,
Speaker 2: which I think will probably get more.
Speaker 3: Let's say it's five percent. I mean, that's some serious carnage.
Speaker 17: Will be on the all.
Speaker 11: My question is about the ballot though, Christal, do you
Speaker 11: think they're going to be on the ballot.
Speaker 4: Well, he has a lot of mine. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 4: I know, even.
Speaker 17: The Green Party is only forty six out of fifty
Speaker 17: states or something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, But I mean I'm saying I think I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't have enough detailed knowledge about like the ballot
Speaker 1: process and how involved it is and whatever. But he
Speaker 1: certainly has the funding to be able to build out
Speaker 1: an organization, surely to get on a ballot, especially in
Speaker 1: key states. I do think it's worth adding into this
Speaker 1: conversation the fact that, you know, especially looking back at
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, and this is traditionally what happens. A lot
Speaker 1: more people say they're going to vote third party than
Speaker 1: actually end up voting third party, because it makes sense
Speaker 1: when it comes down to it, you know, it's getting
Speaker 1: close to election day, things are, emotions are as pitched
Speaker 1: as they could possibly be. You know, it can feel
Speaker 1: very existential and you realize, like this guy's not going
Speaker 1: to win. So let me pick between the two candidates
Speaker 1: who actually it's going to be one or the other
Speaker 1: of them, and so usually or not, but usually the
Speaker 1: third party number tends to collapse as you get close
Speaker 1: to election day. So I don't think he's going to
Speaker 1: get anywhere close to sixteen percent.
Speaker 4: Of the vote.
Speaker 1: But I have always been wary of the ironclad assumption
Speaker 1: that because his support tends to be more Republican leaning now,
Speaker 1: that it will stay static through election day, because that
Speaker 1: Kennedy name is very powerful.
Speaker 4: Number one and number two.
Speaker 1: I do think when Trump and his allies really go
Speaker 1: in on him as like this guy voted for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: That's all I have to say to really kill his
Speaker 1: esteem with you know, the Republican base that has been
Speaker 1: interested in him thus far, And.
Speaker 10: They started circulating his quotes about Hillary Clinton on the
Speaker 10: day he announced, the Republican Party was circulating those, and yeah,
Speaker 10: you can see how they would be really devastating with
Speaker 10: a Trump voter who you know, is tweeting things about
Speaker 10: hashlea Clinton body count, like that's not going to these
Speaker 10: are not compatible possessions.
Speaker 4: It's not going to go well.
Speaker 10: And then it's like when I saw Harrelson and I
Speaker 10: think he was wearing like a Kennedy twenty twenty four hat.
Speaker 10: I was like, oh, boy, like you start seeing stuff
Speaker 10: like that popping up. I know that sounds silly, but
Speaker 10: there's something about the Kennedy brand, and you talk and
Speaker 10: think about this a lot that's just really potent, especially
Speaker 10: with left leaning Americans, not entirely, but especially with like
Speaker 10: your average left of center voter, that if he can
Speaker 10: tap into that by running a smart campaign, there could
Speaker 10: be something pretty powerful.
Speaker 2: What he is a perfect example, you know, especially for RFKR.
Speaker 2: If he's lived in LA for a long time, he
Speaker 2: knows a lot of these celebrities wh obviously have a
Speaker 2: lot of brand. But like Wood, he is anti war.
Speaker 2: He was, you know, I'm not he wasn't anti vax
Speaker 2: but he's like skeptical of big pharma in the vaccine.
Speaker 2: I have no idea his personal views on the vaccine.
Speaker 2: It's a long time, Like what is a pothead. He's
Speaker 2: like dissident to mainstream like left culture, but also is
Speaker 2: socially liberal. That's the perfect voter for our RFK junior
Speaker 2: who hates Joe Biden also, so I mean again, I
Speaker 2: don't think that's the vast majority of the country I
Speaker 2: do think it is x Millie.
Speaker 3: I don't know what that looks like.
Speaker 11: Always going to continue to run though, is a big question,
Speaker 11: because if he keeps stressing like I'm really tough on
Speaker 11: the border and I really love Israel, Like, there's certain
Speaker 11: arguments that he could make going forward where these numbers
Speaker 11: would stay the same, right, and you would take more
Speaker 11: from Trump people. But then there's other arguments he could
Speaker 11: make where all of a sudden that flips.
Speaker 2: And you take more advice for him to be do
Speaker 2: exactly what it is was remember Chris what we played
Speaker 2: his ad It was just like we're being ripped apart.
Speaker 3: I'm not perfect.
Speaker 4: It's like, don't you hate parties in the media.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people are like yes, and if
Speaker 1: you stay out of the specific, that's probably the best
Speaker 1: that he could possibly do. One other piece I want
Speaker 1: to get in here really quick is there was this
Speaker 1: news item that came out you mentioned Cornell West should
Speaker 1: be included on any of these polls, because if you've
Speaker 1: got RFK there, like, you're not getting an accurate picture
Speaker 1: if you're not also asking people about, well what about
Speaker 1: if Cornew.
Speaker 4: West is on the ballot.
Speaker 1: So there's this news item that came out that Harlan Crowe,
Speaker 1: who has now become infamous for his so's close association
Speaker 1: with Justin Thomas and the fact that he was funding
Speaker 1: all these vacations and all sorts of other things.
Speaker 4: Clarence Thomas and his.
Speaker 8: Name, just his name that'll stick with that you very true.
Speaker 4: It is a very memorable name. It's like a movie name.
Speaker 1: Anyway, he apparently has made a max ount donation to
Speaker 1: Cornell West presidential bid, thirty.
Speaker 4: Three hundred dollars donation.
Speaker 1: It was in August, weeks before they say West abandoned
Speaker 1: his bid for the Green Party nomination, so this was
Speaker 1: when he was still running with the Green Party, before
Speaker 1: he announced his independent bid. Apparently Crowe, who's called West,
Speaker 1: a self proclaimed non Marxist socialist and longtime professor at
Speaker 1: Princeton University, is a good friend. So that's the reason
Speaker 1: that he's giving. I mean, Ky, do you read into
Speaker 1: this like nefarious intent, Like we're using that you know,
Speaker 1: West up as a spoiler.
Speaker 4: What do you think?
Speaker 11: I'm not buying the friend thing. It's obviously to hurt
Speaker 11: Biden the whole idea. Absolutely, if he's running, isn't into it?
Speaker 11: Give him money then runs in independent. Hopefully he knocks up
Speaker 11: two three four percentage points, and then that would theoretically
Speaker 11: take more from Biden.
Speaker 17: I think sure, it's ruthlessly pragmatic.
Speaker 10: There's an interesting connection between the two, which is that
Speaker 10: Robbie George, also professor person, is really close with Cornell
Speaker 10: West and Robbie George is sort of a stalwart of
Speaker 10: the conservative legal movement that Harlan Crow has really helped create.
Speaker 8: And so that would be my theory.
Speaker 10: That theory, and now maybe it's also a little bit like, oh,
Speaker 10: we'll have some fun with that.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah, Harlan is anti Trump. This guy's like pro
Speaker 2: Nikki Haley.
Speaker 3: He like funds Jonah Goldberg.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are not.
Speaker 17: Tump's right, They're all going to fall in line with Darlan.
Speaker 2: I genuinely don't think. So what do you think I would?
Speaker 2: I highly doubt that.
Speaker 4: So let me me say I actually my initial.
Speaker 1: Reaction was the same of your as yours, like, oh,
Speaker 1: of course, he's just like thinks that Cornell will be
Speaker 1: a spoiler, and I'm sure in the back of his
Speaker 1: mind that's probably part of it. Thirty three hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: though in the context of a billionaire and an in context,
Speaker 1: the presidential campaign is nothing. So if he was like
Speaker 1: funding a super pack, which with millions of dollars, that
Speaker 1: would be one thing. But like a thirty three hundred
Speaker 1: dollars donation for him is like, I mean, it's literally
Speaker 1: chump change.
Speaker 4: It means nothing.
Speaker 17: Probably all he thought he could do while staying under
Speaker 17: the radar, right.
Speaker 1: Because it's public and they're doing funding a super pac.
Speaker 1: That's actually what we are behind the right.
Speaker 11: This headline turns a million if he funds a super pack.
Speaker 11: But but I think he will give more and I do. Look,
Speaker 11: the reason for my point is if you look at
Speaker 11: what happened with Hannity and RFK, I see this ruthless
Speaker 11: pragmatism among many people on the right.
Speaker 17: And Hannity was boosting up RFK relentlessly.
Speaker 11: When they thought this guy's gonna hurt Biden, and they
Speaker 11: were really intelligent about it, right, and then the second
Speaker 11: they thought, oh he might actually hurt Trump, they flipped
Speaker 11: on a dime.
Speaker 17: And I feel like it's the same this guy, Oh
Speaker 17: yeah he said.
Speaker 11: It, didn't say it, he said yeah, he's like I
Speaker 11: was boosting him when he heard Biden he's gonna hurd Trump.
Speaker 17: I'm gonna go after him and at least the dogs
Speaker 17: of Hell. I think this is the same thing. I
Speaker 17: think this is the same thing. But that's how politics is.
Speaker 4: Look.
Speaker 17: Yeah, he's this guy smart. Okay, he knows what he's doing.
Speaker 3: Maybe I don't. I don't know, Kyle.
Speaker 2: I just think I think you're probably right. They probably
Speaker 2: it's some sort of personal connection. Here's what we'll find out.
Speaker 2: If he spends more money on more now than then,
Speaker 2: we'll watch. Yeah.
Speaker 17: I look forward to being told I'm right.
Speaker 4: You're getting used to that on this panel.
Speaker 7: Huh ok.
Speaker 4: All right, guys, thanks for dropping by.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys, appreciate both shortly, all.
Speaker 1: Right, guys, very excited to bring you some additional results
Speaker 1: from that focus group of Democratic base voters that we
Speaker 1: hosted with Jail.
Speaker 4: Partners down in and around Atlanta.
Speaker 1: Really interesting stuff here, and we just want to thank
Speaker 1: you guys again for enabling us to do this. As
Speaker 1: a thank you, I want to give you a little
Speaker 1: ten percent discount. Can put this up on the screen
Speaker 1: for annual memberships if you are able and you are interested.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things that we have always
Speaker 1: tried to do here is as you know, mainstream cables
Speaker 1: falling part and failing and their ratings are way down.
Speaker 1: Trying to build out a real independent ecosystem, and you
Speaker 1: guys are enabling us to do some of the things
Speaker 1: that mainstream media does, but obviously with an independent media perspective.
Speaker 4: So thank you guys for that.
Speaker 2: That's it, I mean, really, what it is is we
Speaker 2: wanted this to be unique. It would have been easy
Speaker 2: in the beginning to just focus on the core and
Speaker 2: just you know, people talking, but that's not differentiated. We
Speaker 2: keep trying to build out ad partnerships do things like
Speaker 2: this where you really can't get anywhere else, especially in
Speaker 2: an independent show.
Speaker 3: So it means a lot to us.
Speaker 2: And if he can help us build even more things
Speaker 2: like this, we've got the independent group that we also
Speaker 2: want to do. You can sign up Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: But with that, why don't we set up the first clip.
Speaker 4: Let's get to the results.
Speaker 1: So we already showed you how people were feeling about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was a little complicated.
Speaker 4: We're a little worried.
Speaker 1: About the age, but we were affectionate for him and
Speaker 1: we don't want him to be challenged. We're all those
Speaker 1: sorts of things Trump hanging over all of it. So
Speaker 1: we also asked how they feel about the vice president.
Speaker 1: This is obviously incredibly critical since Joe Biden is at
Speaker 1: such an advanced age, so if he were unable to
Speaker 1: continue to serve, What do you think about Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris wat she's knowledgeable.
Speaker 13: I did not feel like she lived up to the
Speaker 13: expectations because I was so excited when she became the
Speaker 13: vice president. I think she's a wonderful person. I don't
Speaker 13: think she's been given an opportunity to really shine and
Speaker 13: grow in her position, and I'm not impressed overall.
Speaker 15: I think she's competent. Everything she has done has been domestically,
Speaker 15: so I don't think she's had much the opportunity to
Speaker 15: work in international affairs.
Speaker 9: Intelligent, fierce, strong sense of right and wrong, and fearless.
Speaker 18: I think she does a lot of backup for Biden.
Speaker 18: I think that she's in that air and that is
Speaker 18: where he makes those decisions, believe it or not, even
Speaker 18: though he's president. He confirms with her a lot and
Speaker 18: they make decisions together.
Speaker 19: I do think she's experienced, but she also gets very
Speaker 19: nervous during interviews. I don't know whether it's insecurity or
Speaker 19: just nervousness that I sense sometimes, but I think she's hidden.
Speaker 18: I think we will fail if she was president did
Speaker 18: because she's that active on a down low.
Speaker 2: I don't even know why she ate my vice's birthday.
Speaker 17: I don't really really know a lot about her.
Speaker 12: I would come on hires be good president or by president.
Speaker 15: I think she would be a capable good president. I
Speaker 15: really wish that there was some sort of initiative she
Speaker 15: could be in charge of that is seen by the
Speaker 15: general public. I don't think there's been a situation that
Speaker 15: Kamala Harris has been able to kind of show that
Speaker 15: she's a good leader.
Speaker 13: I do not think she would be a good president.
Speaker 13: I don't get a strong sense of leadership from her.
Speaker 13: When I see her speak, I think she's somebody who
Speaker 13: knows how to speak. I just don't feel that I
Speaker 13: would have confidence in her as a leader.
Speaker 18: I don't think if she wasn't able to do her
Speaker 18: job and wasn't capable, she would even be in that position.
Speaker 18: So they had to see something in her for her
Speaker 18: to get that position. Push came to shove and she
Speaker 18: had to do what she had to do, she would do.
Speaker 12: It, and she beat Trump in the election.
Speaker 8: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I think he would eat her lunch.
Speaker 3: I hate to say it.
Speaker 2: He'd tear her to shreds.
Speaker 12: Put your hand up if you think she could beat
Speaker 12: Donald Trump in an election. Put your hand up if
Speaker 12: you think Kama House could beat Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Not an amazing yield, Not in a million years.
Speaker 1: Says I love her in the front, she says, I
Speaker 1: think we fail if she's president. On the download, I
Speaker 1: don't even know why she's vice president. Only one person
Speaker 1: in the group, which we should say, I mean the
Speaker 1: emotions for mixt Some people are like, I like her,
Speaker 1: she's farce, she's competent. They must have seen something in
Speaker 1: her to put her in that position, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But when it came down to it, only one person
Speaker 1: said that they thought that if she was the nominee,
Speaker 1: she would.
Speaker 2: Be these her primary voters, not even independent voters. Independent voters,
Speaker 2: by all poling accounts, have an even lesser view of her.
Speaker 3: So there you go. What's one eighth what's the fraction
Speaker 3: on that? I don't even know, but.
Speaker 2: Percentage wise, that's a complete disaster. I also think that
Speaker 2: with these people who are the most disposed to be
Speaker 2: affective by institutionalism, identity, politics, media, and doctrination, even with
Speaker 2: all of that, they're like, no, I don't think that
Speaker 2: she could win.
Speaker 3: I mean, what does that tell you.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just one of the worst political choices
Speaker 2: and historical choices that Biden has ever done, probably the
Speaker 2: single biggest mistake of his entire career. You could easily
Speaker 2: argue that if he'd chosen somebody who was better as
Speaker 2: a vice president, he could have done a handoff. People
Speaker 2: would feel far more secure about his age. It fed
Speaker 2: into the worst stereotypes of like wokeism or whatever as
Speaker 2: part of his administration, and I think it validated some
Speaker 2: of the worst fears that people were skeptical of him.
Speaker 2: And it does show that it's genuinely a bad judgment
Speaker 2: on all these things.
Speaker 1: And obviously you have a mixed race group there, and
Speaker 1: not well of them brought up like the importance of
Speaker 1: her historic trailblazing whatever. And some you know, the biggest
Speaker 1: critic they're Mary. You know, this is an older black
Speaker 1: woman I know who was saying not in a million
Speaker 1: years do I think that she could beat Trump, and
Speaker 1: I think we'd fail as she was president. I don't
Speaker 1: even know why she's vice president. So I think it
Speaker 1: blows up some of their excuses from the Harris team
Speaker 1: that they're constantly leaking in the process of like, oh,
Speaker 1: the problem is just her race, her gender, like people
Speaker 1: don't take her seriously, and well, sexism and racism are
Speaker 1: very real things. But there's also something else going on
Speaker 1: here that I think you see reflected in this group.
Speaker 1: And it was interesting to me that even the people
Speaker 1: who you know, had positive things to say about her,
Speaker 1: they had some sort of narrative about why she hadn't
Speaker 1: really been able to shine on the national stage. Like
Speaker 1: I think she's providing backup for Biden. She's more under
Speaker 1: the radar. They must have seen something in her.
Speaker 4: She needs.
Speaker 1: The one gentleman who said he did think she could
Speaker 1: beat Trump, he's like, they need to put something forward
Speaker 1: for her so she can really, you know, show off
Speaker 1: what she can do to the American public. So even
Speaker 1: the ones that had positive things to say about her,
Speaker 1: they had some sort of a story that they had
Speaker 1: to construct about why it hasn't really worked.
Speaker 4: Out for her on the national stage.
Speaker 1: Are all right, so we have one fun little exercise
Speaker 1: that James asked our focus group participants to do, which
Speaker 1: was to draw what animals they think would represent either
Speaker 1: Trump or Biden. Will see if you've got any real
Speaker 1: artists in the group.
Speaker 4: Let's take a look.
Speaker 12: I want you to draw two animals for me. On
Speaker 12: the left hand side, I want you to draw what
Speaker 12: animal would Joe Biden be? And on the right hand
Speaker 12: side you guessed it, guys, what animal would Donald Trump be?
Speaker 12: It doesn't have to be art.
Speaker 17: I want you to do it.
Speaker 12: You can also you can write the word under the
Speaker 12: drawing nice and big. I want you to hold it
Speaker 12: up and I want you to say who you've drawn
Speaker 12: and one quick reason why you've drawn them in that way.
Speaker 18: Okay, I get Baden he's a lamb because you care
Speaker 18: about everybody else. And I get Trump as a tiger
Speaker 18: because you are a way trying to keep up stuff gone.
Speaker 3: We need to put him in the zoop.
Speaker 19: I have Biden as a dog because he's intelligent hes
Speaker 19: but he can also be tough.
Speaker 2: And Trump is a snake.
Speaker 3: Snake because he's a snake.
Speaker 2: He's mean as a snake.
Speaker 18: I said, Biden is a bit he's a teddy beer.
Speaker 18: And then I put Trump is a bad dog. Tell
Speaker 18: us wife reach because he's a teddy be because he's compassionate,
Speaker 18: he's kind, you know, he's one he's one of the
Speaker 18: people you just want to hug. And of course I
Speaker 18: put Trump is the bad dog, the one that he
Speaker 18: like a like a pit.
Speaker 8: Is this girl want your eye?
Speaker 2: I don't want to let go.
Speaker 9: Biden has a kitten because he's docile. Donald is the
Speaker 9: horse's ass because he's an As.
Speaker 15: For Biden, I had an owl because I think he's wise,
Speaker 15: and I also think an owl is not like the
Speaker 15: strongest thing, but the owl is trust ready. And then
Speaker 15: for Trump had a snake head fish. It's an invasius
Speaker 15: species in Florida. When they get caught, they kind of
Speaker 15: go crazy and they kind of they attack anything that's nearby,
Speaker 15: whether they want to eat it or not. And it's uh,
Speaker 15: it rereaks havoc on the wildlife report.
Speaker 13: Biden is a German shepherd, but basically because their dog Commander.
Speaker 13: But I think he's loyal, you know. And then Trump
Speaker 13: the skunk because I think he stinks.
Speaker 20: Bro Biden, I said a cat. I mean I had
Speaker 20: the cats I thought of the cat, So I mean,
Speaker 20: they're independent, they're loving. And for Trump, I know you
Speaker 20: said an animal, don'tnything that came to mind? It was
Speaker 20: a roach because nobody like roaches.
Speaker 4: So there you go, sneakhad fish or Trump you know
Speaker 4: what I mean.
Speaker 2: Bad dog?
Speaker 3: Some of them are boomery horses.
Speaker 2: Ass.
Speaker 3: I'm like, come on, brother, come on, you can do.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: If I'm going to take anything away from this, not
Speaker 1: that you want to read too deeply into any of it,
Speaker 1: but the Trump ones tended to be sort of like fish,
Speaker 1: like tiger, snake whatever. The Biden ones seemed to were
Speaker 1: more about his like empathy, even though it's like it's
Speaker 1: a dog, it's because he's nice, it's loyal and well
Speaker 1: we'll set aside commander in his behavior.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was like, who wants to tell her about
Speaker 2: commander and the biting anyway?
Speaker 1: Well, and someone actually said he's like a kitten, which
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's as a president, you know, commander
Speaker 1: in chief. Even your supporters are like, you're a kitten.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's really what I want, but
Speaker 1: I think I mean that is they always say that
Speaker 1: you vacillate between these extremes and American politics, like after
Speaker 1: you elect one president, then you go and elect their
Speaker 1: polar opposite. And I think you do kind of see
Speaker 1: that in those drawings in terms of the public impression
Speaker 1: of their predominant qualities. You do see this like total
Speaker 1: dichotomy between how they're seeing these two figures.
Speaker 3: No, I think you're right.
Speaker 2: I mean, for I mean, I think for an ideal president,
Speaker 2: you want to be like I don't even know how
Speaker 2: this would fit as an animal, but the characteristic to
Speaker 2: me would be like dignified, like stately having command and control.
Speaker 3: A male line isn't exactly.
Speaker 2: What it is. It's a little bit cliche, but something
Speaker 2: like more akin to that. Whereas both of them clearly
Speaker 2: are not getting ones where that's what you would want as.
Speaker 3: A lead, especially as like a stronger.
Speaker 2: Leader that has both confidence warmth but also can lead
Speaker 2: at the same time.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe commander is not a bad because you've got
Speaker 1: the loyalty, but then also you can buye it when
Speaker 1: you need.
Speaker 2: Now, because that just shows bad behavior and then you
Speaker 2: have a bad owner.
Speaker 3: But I guess that's a whole other.
Speaker 1: Discussion anyway, Thank you guys again for enabling this there
Speaker 1: is nothing like just hearing directly from actual voters how
Speaker 1: they're processing everything that's going on, and you know, and
Speaker 1: to see where it corresponds with and where it diverges
Speaker 1: from some of the public polling, and just get a
Speaker 1: little bit of the nuance of how people are actually
Speaker 1: looking at the political landscape.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I agree. Thank you guys. Again, We'll put the
Speaker 2: graphic up there just one more time. If you are
Speaker 2: able to help us out breakingpoints dot com ten percent off,
Speaker 2: help us build something that's even better. Let's do even
Speaker 2: more of these focus groups.
Speaker 8: Guys.
Speaker 2: It's really really inspiring that so many of you believe
Speaker 2: in the same mission that we do. It's been a
Speaker 2: great privilege for us. We will have breaking coverage for
Speaker 2: you over the weekend if necessary. Otherwise, we will see
Speaker 2: you all on Monday.
Speaker 17: The red to Crimen
Speaker 5: In the com