Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and get to a big
Speaker 2: Scotus ruling that came.
Speaker 4: I guess that's right.
Speaker 3: This is a major Supreme Court ruling that happened in
Speaker 3: the middle of ceasefire, so you may have missed it
Speaker 3: and you're definitely forgiven. We can go ahead and put
Speaker 3: this up there on the screen, and I'll just read
Speaker 3: a little bit from the decision. Quote, the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: has now made it easier for the Trump administration to
Speaker 3: deport convicted criminals. To quote third countries to which they
Speaker 3: have no previous connection. In a brief unsigned order that
Speaker 3: did not explain its reasoning, the court put on hold
Speaker 3: a federal job is ruling that said those affected Nation
Speaker 3: nine should have a needingful opportunity to bring claims. They
Speaker 3: would be at risk if they were sent to countries
Speaker 3: the administration has made deals with to receive deported immigrants.
Speaker 3: As a result, the Administration will be able to quickly
Speaker 3: remove immigrants to such third countries, including South Sudan. Affected
Speaker 3: immigrants can still attempt to bring individual claims. So what
Speaker 3: you're basically seeing there is this happened I know while
Speaker 3: I was gone, but there was what was it? A
Speaker 3: deportation to South Sudan of several I think individuals here
Speaker 3: illegally in the United States. Well, what has now happened
Speaker 3: is that the Supreme Court is allowing the deportation of this. However,
Speaker 3: the legal process which is done still remains up in
Speaker 3: the air. As I understand it, it allows for such
Speaker 3: deportation to take place, but there's still open questions around
Speaker 3: due process, just like with the Alien Enemies Act. But broadly,
Speaker 3: it was a win for the Trump administration at an
Speaker 3: executive level.
Speaker 2: No doubt about it, and was split along partisan lines.
Speaker 2: The I don't think there was much question about whether
Speaker 2: or not the administration could deport people to third countries
Speaker 2: places they're not from. That has been, you know, a
Speaker 2: long standing practice. You know, this is something that's going
Speaker 2: to get broadly acknowledged that you know, the administration has
Speaker 2: this power, whether I like it or not. The questionnaire
Speaker 2: was all around due process. Do you have a chance
Speaker 2: to challenge that decision to send you? For example, Libya
Speaker 2: is one of the countries that they want to send
Speaker 2: people to. We've talked about Libya a lot lately because
Speaker 2: in the context of Iran, things are not going well
Speaker 2: in Libya. Reports are that, you know, they certainly in
Speaker 2: the past add effectively slave markets, and in fact a
Speaker 2: lot of the people who were sold on those slave
Speaker 2: markets were migrants into the country. So to me and
Speaker 2: Soccer and I agreed, we don't have time to fight
Speaker 2: about this today, so we'll table this, you know, for
Speaker 2: a longer discussion later. To me, you should have the
Speaker 2: ability have enough time to say, Hey, I think I'm
Speaker 2: going to be tortured and murdered and sold into a
Speaker 2: slave market if I go to this country, if I'm
Speaker 2: shipped to this country and have that go through an
Speaker 2: adjudicated process, effectively the Supreme Court here. And I think
Speaker 2: you may agree with this, like not only did they
Speaker 2: say no, you don't really deserve like any sort of
Speaker 2: lengthy do process, but this is an important decision, and
Speaker 2: it really bothers me that they didn't even explain their thinking,
Speaker 2: you know, because.
Speaker 3: That really it's a procedural thing in terms of the
Speaker 3: unsigned order, because it's like the un.
Speaker 2: They couldn't know they could have, and the descent, the
Speaker 2: descent was written out and explained, but the actual decision
Speaker 2: here they give no rationale for. So it continues to
Speaker 2: leave all of these questions about why they interpreted it
Speaker 2: this way and what made them come to this decision.
Speaker 2: And I think that, you know, I disagree with the
Speaker 2: decision outright, but I also think it's outrageous that they
Speaker 2: didn't even bother to explain what is in effect quite
Speaker 2: consequential decision here. Ultimately, we also wanted to highlight for
Speaker 2: you guys a couple of interesting comments that I'm a
Speaker 2: little bit surprised at from Joe Rogan and then some
Speaker 2: from Andrew Schultz, where obviously, you know, both of them
Speaker 2: were supportive of Trump in this past election, and Rogan
Speaker 2: expresses here some discomfort with the extent of the Trump
Speaker 2: deportation policy and the way they've gone about it, which,
Speaker 2: you know, most of the people who are being detained
Speaker 2: at this point, like the A Royal Major, I think
Speaker 2: ninety percent are not violent criminals who have been picked
Speaker 2: up by the Trump administration. And so he expresses in
Speaker 2: this clip some discomfort with that. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: take listen to that.
Speaker 5: Ice raids are fucking nuts, man, watching this protest on television,
Speaker 5: it's like.
Speaker 6: Doing the raids or nuts. The broke the Yeah, it
Speaker 6: a little too hard.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't think if they the Trump administration, if
Speaker 5: they're running and they said we're going to go to
Speaker 5: Home Depot and we're going to arrest all the people
Speaker 5: at Home Depot. We're going to go to construction sites
Speaker 5: and we're going to just like tackle people with constructions,
Speaker 5: I don't think anybody would signed up for that. They
Speaker 5: said we're going to get rid of the criminals and
Speaker 5: the gang member first, right, and now we're we're seeing
Speaker 5: like home depots get rated.
Speaker 6: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: Something that the Home Depot really struck accord with these
Speaker 2: guys was just kind of interesting, I guess because it's.
Speaker 4: Just like so known, so suburban Joe.
Speaker 2: Probably maybe even has been to because he used to
Speaker 2: live in La. The particular home depot that was READD.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I just say sager, Like on
Speaker 2: the Iran war stuff, yes, Trump said we should bomb
Speaker 2: the nuclear sites. He also said he would be the
Speaker 2: peace candidate. If you weren't paying that close of attention,
Speaker 2: I can maybe sort of give you the benefit of
Speaker 2: the doubt in thinking.
Speaker 1: There was genuine ambiguity there. Yeah, they were Okay.
Speaker 3: The guy literally came out and said, fuck Israel and Iran,
Speaker 3: what the fuck they're doing today? And then also called
Speaker 3: and then said no regime days today.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying you can read whatever you wanted.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 2: You could also have looked at his first term in
Speaker 2: the how hawk as she was towards run. But like
Speaker 2: I said, I okay, I can see where you were
Speaker 2: coming from and why you may have gotten the impression
Speaker 2: that he would not be a hawk fece of the Iran.
Speaker 2: I don't know how you could give that impression on deportation,
Speaker 2: like the whole campaign was mass deportation or holding up
Speaker 2: signs at the R and C that said mass deportation. Now, like,
Speaker 2: what about that made you think that this was going
Speaker 2: to be some targeted, we're only going after the criminals
Speaker 2: kind of approach, because that was not at all what
Speaker 2: was sold during the election whatsoever. And so I'm glad
Speaker 2: to see him express concern, But i just think it's
Speaker 2: insane that you didn't think that was the direction that
Speaker 2: Stephen Miller was going to go and Tom Homan, we're
Speaker 2: going to go in if they were put back into power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, look, I don't disagree. I mean, the
Speaker 3: mass deportation was about as clear as it was. I
Speaker 3: think the mass deportation in the trade war. I guess
Speaker 3: it's about implementation or seeing like there's something visceral probably
Speaker 3: about it. I mean, I don't know, because it is
Speaker 3: one of those things where, look, sometimes people believe in something,
Speaker 3: but they don't necessarily understand what the overall implication of
Speaker 3: what it's going to play out is going to look like.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's understandable.
Speaker 3: I guess there hasn't really been a serious massive ortation
Speaker 3: effort like this in literally what fifty years or something
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 1: So you know, to that extent that makes sense.
Speaker 3: But yeah, broadly, I mean I would say, in particular
Speaker 3: with like Maga and you know what they were saying
Speaker 3: literally at the time, and also in terms of practice,
Speaker 3: there has not really been a single thing I would
Speaker 3: maybe Seacott, I would say, the rest of it has
Speaker 3: not personally surprised me, like like.
Speaker 4: Home Depot surprised me.
Speaker 1: But that's what I'm saying, Seacott.
Speaker 3: But even if he said he was going to do
Speaker 3: the Alien Enemies Act literally on the campaign trail, I
Speaker 3: think in the seventy days before he came to seventy
Speaker 3: days before he was elected, he's like, here's my plan
Speaker 3: to use the Alien Enemies Act and to immediately expedite deportation. Again,
Speaker 3: you could sympathize because people are not paying attention, but
Speaker 3: at a lack mass deportation level. They made it pretty clear.
Speaker 3: I mean, yes, they were talking about criminal and illegal,
Speaker 3: but you know, a large part of it here was
Speaker 3: about labor and cheap labor specifically. That's been a central
Speaker 3: point of the Trump talking points on immigration now for
Speaker 3: quite some time.
Speaker 1: But I guess people.
Speaker 3: Sometimes maybe see what I want to see as well
Speaker 3: with a criminal comment.
Speaker 4: I think that I think that's a good point.
Speaker 2: Let's go and take a listen to Andrew Schultz just
Speaker 2: did this long interview with the New York Times, which
Speaker 2: I listened to all of I don't know.
Speaker 1: I haven't listened the full thing yet.
Speaker 4: It wasn't I don't know.
Speaker 2: The two of the interviewer and him were kind of
Speaker 2: like at odds the whole time.
Speaker 6: I was.
Speaker 1: I think the interviewer really didn't get his deal.
Speaker 3: And yet anyway, yeah, what I read in the transcript,
Speaker 3: I didn't listen to it.
Speaker 2: I did listen to it, and you didn't get a
Speaker 2: lot out of it. I don't know if it was Andrews.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's an interviewer's fault. They just
Speaker 2: didn't really there wasn't. It wasn't a great pairing. I
Speaker 2: would say, the two of them together in any case,
Speaker 2: Andrew made some kind of similar comments with regard to
Speaker 2: immigration and Trump. Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 7: And in terms of immigration, like I want more like
Speaker 7: if you broke the law, you did any if you
Speaker 7: if you broke the law, you you fucked up. You
Speaker 7: already here illegally, so you already broke the law, and
Speaker 7: you're breaking the law.
Speaker 6: You got to go.
Speaker 7: If you've been working your ass off for ten years here,
Speaker 7: you've got a family. There's got to be a system
Speaker 7: where we can just give these people a pathway to
Speaker 7: citizenship or a Greek card or something. There has to
Speaker 7: be a better way than simply just hey, you go.
Speaker 7: And that's what I was pleading with him for on
Speaker 7: the pod, which is maybe pleading is a strong word,
Speaker 7: but I was asking him to show empathy for these
Speaker 7: people that he's also employed. I was like, listen, you've
Speaker 7: had hotels. You know these people. You know that they're
Speaker 7: going to bust their ass, They're going to work hard,
Speaker 7: and they want a better life. It's like, why my
Speaker 7: mom came here, so why your parents or maybe his
Speaker 7: great grandparents.
Speaker 6: Or some shit came here.
Speaker 7: So it's like, I would like there to be much
Speaker 7: more empathy in that department.
Speaker 6: I don't think that that's happening.
Speaker 1: And what would Democrat have to do to win your
Speaker 1: vote back?
Speaker 7: He would just have to be named Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 7: I fucking vote for him in a heartbeat.
Speaker 4: No, enjoy that last time was there.
Speaker 2: I'm an interesting horseshoe, But in any case, I'm actually
Speaker 2: a little bit surprised that these guys didn't know what
Speaker 2: they were getting with.
Speaker 3: Well, no, I see, I think it's a little bit
Speaker 3: more fair on Rogan's d on Andrews. And Andrew actually
Speaker 3: literally was pressing Trump about immigration, and to the extent
Speaker 3: that he was like pro Trump or whatever. I don't
Speaker 3: think he ever signed up for the quote master.
Speaker 1: And that's my point.
Speaker 3: And this is why people are not to be put
Speaker 3: into a box. And it is important as well to
Speaker 3: play this all out. I would not have done it
Speaker 3: the way that Trump has done it. However, you know,
Speaker 3: and this I look, Andrew is a good friend of mine,
Speaker 3: and I do disagree with him though. I mean, I
Speaker 3: don't think that just coming to the country illegally and
Speaker 3: just because you quote haven't committed a crime gives you
Speaker 3: some great license for a green card. Frankly, it's absurd policy.
Speaker 3: But as you just said, you don't want to fight.
Speaker 3: But my main point remains is that immigration. You know, look,
Speaker 3: the polling is all over the place. We can, I
Speaker 3: think probably agree it's still the strongest place for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Maybe war will replace it.
Speaker 3: I still think it's the central reason why he was
Speaker 3: elected president. Both in twenty sixteen and again in two
Speaker 3: thousand and twenty four. But broadly, I mean, I think
Speaker 3: one of the reasons, maybe it's the lesson for Democrats
Speaker 3: as well, is that you have people who literally believe
Speaker 3: in comprehensive immigration reform, but when you have border chaos,
Speaker 3: they're like, yeah, fuck this, and they're going to go
Speaker 3: with somebody who stands for mass deportation. In general, Americans
Speaker 3: react to whoever they think is being more chaotic on
Speaker 3: the issue of crime and or immigration. If anything, I
Speaker 3: think it's a good lesson for those people. Also that
Speaker 3: you can win people back or you know that the
Speaker 3: narrative is not locked in if you want it to
Speaker 3: be part of why I would encourage the Trump administration
Speaker 3: to do this efficiently and not constantly. Just I mean,
Speaker 3: this is now like the strategy of Trump is everything
Speaker 3: is a show. Everything is dialed up to one hundred,
Speaker 3: like we're doing regime change and unconditional surrender, and the
Speaker 3: next day we're.
Speaker 1: Calling all piece It's like, what are we doing?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 2: In terms of it's like the reporting, is he basically
Speaker 2: on source the deportation policy to Steven Miller.
Speaker 3: Yes, no, but then also he takes control of it
Speaker 3: and then there's been a five time swing back. At
Speaker 3: this point, I literally still am not clear. And so
Speaker 3: whether we're raising farms or not, and it's been twenty
Speaker 3: days of we're raiding farms. Actually, hotels and farmers need
Speaker 3: illegals to work there, let's all ruminate on that for
Speaker 3: a second two as to why that's apparently an allowable reason.
Speaker 3: Then Steven Miller is like, no, actually we're going to
Speaker 3: be rating them, and then Trump comes out as like, no,
Speaker 3: actually we're not going to be rating them. I believe
Speaker 3: we are back to some sort.
Speaker 4: Of strategic CAPLI oh no, I thought we were back on.
Speaker 3: No, we were, but then two days ago, apparently in
Speaker 3: that change. This is what I'm saying is that there's
Speaker 3: been a complete like schizophrenia here and if anything, I mean,
Speaker 3: that's what really hurts Trump's cause, is that nothing is
Speaker 3: coherent and ideologically sold. America is I think absolutely on
Speaker 3: board with criminal or illegal or criminal specifically people who
Speaker 3: have committed crimes, but they've done a bad job. I
Speaker 3: think of messaging, specifically on the labor issue, especially when
Speaker 3: the President is out there talking about how these farmers
Speaker 3: and hotel workers literally need illegal labor to function I
Speaker 3: mean again, just it boggles the mind that a segment
Speaker 3: of industry cannot function without hiring a US citizen. It's absurd,
Speaker 3: And why would an American president endorse that? If that's
Speaker 3: actually the case, that's your job to fix. So, you know,
Speaker 3: I think that's the problem though, is these constantly got
Speaker 3: these rich people in his ear, you know, talking his
Speaker 3: head off about how, oh, we can't do that without
Speaker 3: doing all of this. And it actually drives me particularly
Speaker 3: crazy because one of JD's canned speeches on the campaign
Speaker 3: trail I probably heard this like fifty times, is about
Speaker 3: a hotel executive telling him about how he can't run
Speaker 3: his hotels at a profit without using illegal ban work.
Speaker 3: And so then the president is now parroting that same
Speaker 3: the thing is at the podium.
Speaker 4: But the president is that no executive.
Speaker 1: That's really my point.
Speaker 2: I mean here, But I mean, here's the thing is,
Speaker 2: I do actually want to fight with you, but we
Speaker 2: don't have time to fight fully on this today because
Speaker 2: there's we got Emily waiting, that we got Professor Sachs.
Speaker 2: I will just say, I think where the confusion comes
Speaker 2: from is that Trump aggressively sold the idea on the
Speaker 2: campaign trail that undocumented immigrants overall were criminal, that there
Speaker 2: was a huge number millions of criminals who had flooded
Speaker 2: the country in an invasion. Oh my god, they're taking
Speaker 2: over entire time. Oh my god, they're taking over entire
Speaker 2: apartment complexes.
Speaker 4: And so I think.
Speaker 2: That's where a lot of people, not just your Wogan,
Speaker 2: probably got the idea of like, oh, mass deportation, we
Speaker 2: can do a mass deportation that is just criminals, when
Speaker 2: in reality the numbers are comparatively small of actual like
Speaker 2: violent criminals who are also undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying there aren't any.
Speaker 2: But you really get the sense of that when the
Speaker 2: guys they shipped off to Seacott to a literal slave
Speaker 2: labor camp for the rest of their lives with no
Speaker 2: due process, when the mass majority, even of them, had
Speaker 2: no criminal record here or in other countries around the world.
Speaker 2: So I think that's where, you know, not only was
Speaker 2: their confusion about what mass deportation would ultimately mean, but
Speaker 2: also where there has been and significant yes, immigration is
Speaker 2: still the strongest policy is now underwater on his strongest policy, though,
Speaker 2: where there's been significant upset in the way that this
Speaker 2: has gone forward because yes, if you ask people, should
Speaker 2: we deport criminal illegal alience, you'll get like eighty nine percent, right,
Speaker 2: including myself, Sure, yes, go do it. If you ask
Speaker 2: them about you know, the person that Rogan or Andrew
Speaker 2: are talking about there that have been like here for
Speaker 2: years and years and they don't commit any crimes and
Speaker 2: they pay tax, they do.
Speaker 4: The right thing.
Speaker 2: Should you report them? It's actually the polar opposite. You
Speaker 2: get almost eighty percent opposed to the deportation of those people.
Speaker 2: And so I think that's why you've had a decline
Speaker 2: and support and why you've had you know, some people,
Speaker 2: some former supporters who are expressing concern over this and why.
Speaker 2: I think it was an overreading of the mandate that yes,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm not downplaying that immigration was an
Speaker 2: important factor. I'm not downplaying there was, you know, rejection
Speaker 2: of the of Biden eraror immigration policies. But I think
Speaker 2: the reading was that then people wanted the Stephen Miller
Speaker 2: deportation policy when that is not actually popular either.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean you also could say that they have
Speaker 3: their last second term and now they don't have to
Speaker 3: get reelected. So if in a sense they're like, look
Speaker 3: this is the only chance that you actually have at
Speaker 3: literal mass deportation. Again, we don't have time to fight.
Speaker 3: But you know, if it's twenty million in the future,
Speaker 3: we know one percent and twenty million is it's two
Speaker 3: hundred thousand, So that's actually a lot of people, even
Speaker 3: if just one percent are people who are violent criminals,
Speaker 3: which would I mean, even the shit libs will admit
Speaker 3: that that's a big number, I think, and that has
Speaker 3: not yet reached for what in terms of the deportation
Speaker 3: numbers that have been.
Speaker 4: Released, so they're also not targeting those people.
Speaker 2: You know, it's the percent of immigrants who are detained
Speaker 2: who have criminal records is way down under the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: No, it's not.
Speaker 2: It's like ten percent, so violent criminal records, it's roughly tender.
Speaker 2: According to a new Cato Institute said study.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, yeah, that's good.
Speaker 4: But I don't think anyone wouldn't.
Speaker 2: I don't think that anyone would deny that there has
Speaker 2: been a reduction in the percentage of people who have
Speaker 2: been in pain. Stephen Miller's policy went in and yelled
Speaker 2: at I was like, why are you going after criminals?
Speaker 4: Go to the home depot? So that I mean that
Speaker 4: is his that is his policy.
Speaker 3: I will grant part of it is about the larger number.
Speaker 3: I'm not trusting a literal libertarian Open Borders Institute number
Speaker 3: study for that, and I would like to I'm not
Speaker 3: trusting the government either.
Speaker 1: So let's also say that.
Speaker 3: And I'm not going to deny that there have been
Speaker 3: major problems I think on the Trump administration's end. However,
Speaker 3: at a narrative level victory, how will Trump fare on immigration?
Speaker 3: I think that the more that it is literally that,
Speaker 3: the more that it is about order specifically, which is
Speaker 3: really what I think he was elected to restore, the
Speaker 3: better off he will be part of the reason. I
Speaker 3: thought that LA really did not go well for him,
Speaker 3: and I think a lot of the polling broadly backs
Speaker 3: that up to the style of the government was kind
Speaker 3: of part of what instigating more disorder than order. That's
Speaker 3: broadly what America really wants in terms of its crime
Speaker 3: and its immigration policy. And that is really the eternal
Speaker 3: fight and large, I mean where the people suffer. Biden
Speaker 3: suffered because you led eight to ten million people illegally
Speaker 3: in the country, which is nuts, with literally no policy.
Speaker 3: And if Trump suffers, it will be because it deported
Speaker 3: people with no due process, and it's shoddy and shitty,
Speaker 3: you know, obvious lies from the government, and people would
Speaker 3: see through them and be like, okay, well, you know,
Speaker 3: even though I was on board, this doesn't look like
Speaker 3: restorant order to me, so to you know, for my
Speaker 3: personal criticism of them and all that, it's the constant
Speaker 3: chaos as it is throughout the implementation of all of
Speaker 3: their policy, which actually undermines any real stated goal and
Speaker 3: broadly will lead to pushback, I think from the American people.
Speaker 3: And that's part of what these guys are picking up
Speaker 3: on as well when they say home depot I don't
Speaker 3: think it's actually physically just about the home depot rate.
Speaker 3: I think it's about the fact that, like you said
Speaker 3: about the Stephen Miller thing, being like, oh.
Speaker 4: Actually no, go in there and go against yeah, home dealer,
Speaker 4: get the credit.
Speaker 3: Look, we're going from this, and it's the schizophrenia actually
Speaker 3: which makes people really react in a certain way. But
Speaker 3: anyway we have.
Speaker 1: We really need to get to her apologize. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to it.
Speaker 3: We're very excited, how to be joined by our very
Speaker 3: own Emily Jishinski, who is also the host of a
Speaker 3: new show called After Party with Emily. You truly are
Speaker 3: the Marco Rubio of podcasting. You have all these different shows,
Speaker 3: You're working.
Speaker 4: For it on your behalfly you know.
Speaker 1: No, I mean it's it's a compliment.
Speaker 3: It's a compliment for the ability to very, you know,
Speaker 3: competently hold all these hats. But Emily, you debuted your
Speaker 3: new show with a major interview with Tucker Carlson could
Speaker 3: literally not have been newsyear. We pulled a clip from it,
Speaker 3: and then we want to get your reaction. So let's
Speaker 3: take a clik Listen.
Speaker 8: Ted Cruise is already taking a victory lap. He says,
Speaker 8: quote it turns out that Tucker was wrong. I just
Speaker 8: want to get your thoughts on this. Tucker, did Trump
Speaker 8: prove you and all of us who doubted the wisdom
Speaker 8: of this strike wrong tonight?
Speaker 9: Well you could ask Trump, I mean, was this fraught
Speaker 9: with like existential peril? Of course, I'm so grateful that
Speaker 9: he brought it in for a landing. I mean, I
Speaker 9: think we should be grateful to him. I think we
Speaker 9: should be grateful to God. I think we should understand
Speaker 9: how close we came. But I also think we should
Speaker 9: step back and ponder what we've learned. And what we've
Speaker 9: learned is who cares about the fortunes of the United
Speaker 9: States and who doesn't? And Ted Creuse doesn't obviously, the
Speaker 9: people who acknowledged no risk at all because they were
Speaker 9: so focused on helping other country, like Ted Cruz or
Speaker 9: like you know, the many people who revealed themselves in
Speaker 9: the last two weeks, Mark Levin chief among them, Like,
Speaker 9: those people should not have any access to power at all.
Speaker 9: Those people roll the dice with your life and with
Speaker 9: the lives of your children. It's disgusting. And so I mean,
Speaker 9: just ask yourself, is is Mark Levin concerned it all
Speaker 9: about the United States?
Speaker 6: Like at all?
Speaker 9: And the answer is no. Mark Levin is a repulsive
Speaker 9: ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people
Speaker 9: get blown up. He was upset that there was a
Speaker 9: ceasefire and said, so, how could you be upset with
Speaker 9: a ceasefire? How could you be upset that people are
Speaker 9: no longer dying? By the way, I think this seasfire Israel.
Speaker 9: We have no idea where anything goes in life. That's
Speaker 9: up to God. But as of right now, it's absolutely
Speaker 9: real and we should be thankful for it. And so
Speaker 9: if your first instinct is this is bad, then you've
Speaker 9: just told us who you are. And look, that's between
Speaker 9: Mark Levin and God. And I think it's going to
Speaker 9: be a tough conversation. But for our purposes, you know,
Speaker 9: Mark Levin should not have access to power. I mean,
Speaker 9: he almost pushed the President of the United States into
Speaker 9: a path that would have destroyed the presidency and the
Speaker 9: United States.
Speaker 8: Why do you think the Mark Levin's of the world
Speaker 8: didn't get what they wanted in this case, at least
Speaker 8: as of right now.
Speaker 1: Because the President Trump doesn't want nuclear war.
Speaker 9: I mean, as he said a million times, like he
Speaker 9: doesn't want Ron to have the bomb because he doesn't
Speaker 9: want more bombs, because he's afraid of nuclear war, because
Speaker 9: he understands what it is. I've talked to him about
Speaker 9: this on and off camera many times, and he has
Speaker 9: unique among world leaders, like an instinctive aversion to killing
Speaker 9: millions of people in seconds. And so he's tried about
Speaker 9: nuclear awards. The reason Telsea Gabbard supported him is the
Speaker 9: reason they hit Telsea Gabbard now because she raises the actual,
Speaker 9: the very real specter of mass annihilation.
Speaker 3: So did what were your broad takeaways considering how newsy
Speaker 3: it was. You're reacting in the middle of the ceasefire.
Speaker 3: A lot of people were going after Tucker saying his
Speaker 3: predictions were wrong and all that. So you had a
Speaker 3: lot more in that interview. What were your main takeaways here?
Speaker 8: Well, yeah, I mean, I think that point is really crucial.
Speaker 8: His predictions were wrong. But where he goes from there
Speaker 8: he admits, I mean, in our conversation, he admits that
Speaker 8: he was I guess technically wrong. He says that Iran
Speaker 8: would not have come to the table without Donald Trump's
Speaker 8: decision to make those strikes. That's one of the ones
Speaker 8: one of the questions that I put to him. I
Speaker 8: was curious what he would make of that, as someone
Speaker 8: who was kind of cheering this apparent piece deal.
Speaker 6: We'll see, as Trump said.
Speaker 8: Like an hour ago, Israel and Iran don't know what
Speaker 8: the fuck they're doing, so who knows where this goes.
Speaker 8: But Tucker basically was saying even then, the probability of
Speaker 8: catastrophe was so high that Trump was being pushed to
Speaker 8: as he saw it being pushed, Which is interesting too,
Speaker 8: to flirt with disaster, to flirt with utter catastrophe by
Speaker 8: people like Mark Levin, whose sex life we talked about
Speaker 8: more than I expected. I expect you to talk about
Speaker 8: it a little bit, but not quite that much.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 8: And so when you so, that's I think the you
Speaker 8: can call it cope. But it's also like hey to
Speaker 8: be paranoid in the face of like thousands of people
Speaker 8: potentially dying, which is what he predicted, and by the way,
Speaker 8: I maintain, I think all of us maintained very easily
Speaker 8: could have been the outcome of those strikes. And Iran sorry,
Speaker 8: I'm apologized for being a little bit paranoid about that scenario.
Speaker 8: And that's where he seems to have landed well.
Speaker 2: I also, I mean the point about he always shields Trump,
Speaker 2: I think is an important one. You know, it's always
Speaker 2: Mark Levin's fault, it's Ted Cruz's fault. And thank god
Speaker 2: we have Trump in there, who actually cares about avoiding
Speaker 2: nuclear war. I mean that also, I think leads him
Speaker 2: to have to accept the Trump framing that this brought
Speaker 2: around to the table, when, of course we know the
Speaker 2: truth is Ron was at the table when we helped
Speaker 2: the Israelis literally blow up our own negotiations, which appear
Speaker 2: to have some prospect of success, So I think I
Speaker 2: think that's significant. Obviously, I enjoyed watching him call Mark
Speaker 2: Levin and Ted.
Speaker 4: Kruz repulsive ghouls. We have more on Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2: By the way, because he wasn't done with him and
Speaker 2: you know, had some interesting comments about him and also
Speaker 2: about Goza. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: I've got nothing against Ted Cruz personally. I feel sorry
Speaker 9: for Ted Cruz obviously a totally hollow person taking instructions.
Speaker 9: But I do think we learned this is not someone
Speaker 9: who should be influencing wars because he just doesn't know anything,
Speaker 9: he doesn't care, and he's not putting America's interests anywhere
Speaker 9: near the top of his priorities. And that's you know that,
Speaker 9: Like we saw that. It's on tape and it's kind
Speaker 9: of hard to unsee it. So this is the moment
Speaker 9: to just draw a line and say, we can have
Speaker 9: all kinds of disagreements, and I'm sure that we will
Speaker 9: over all kinds of things, including wars. But if you've
Speaker 9: shown that you just don't care what happens to the
Speaker 9: United States, if you're one of the people who said,
Speaker 9: you know, the people in Gaza are so dangerous that
Speaker 9: they have to be expelled from Gaza. And by the way,
Speaker 9: maybe we should move them to the US. People said that.
Speaker 9: I think Ben Shapiro said that if you are telling
Speaker 9: me that the people who live in Gaza are so
Speaker 9: evil that they can't live where they were born, they
Speaker 9: have to move somewhere else, and oh, by the way,
Speaker 9: they should move to my country. What are you saying.
Speaker 9: You're saying that your country is a trash can into
Speaker 9: which we can throw our refuse And that's their attitude.
Speaker 2: So totally hollow person taking instructions but nothing personal. Ted
Speaker 2: Kruz there, and he also went after Laura Lumer. I mean,
Speaker 2: he really went down the list of like, you know,
Speaker 2: people who he saw as being complete and total enemies
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 8: He made it Dave Smith joke too, And after he
Speaker 8: did that, he was like, I hadn't been there. And
Speaker 8: after he did that, I was like, what we we're
Speaker 8: playing like Tucker Enemy bingo, Like I have bingo at
Speaker 8: this point, Like we've gone through everyone.
Speaker 1: So yeah, he also.
Speaker 8: Mentioned I asked him if he'd talked to Trump in
Speaker 8: the last couple of days since their sort of back
Speaker 8: and forth last week, where Trump said something like maybe
Speaker 8: Tucker should get a cable in the show, like a
Speaker 8: great boomer insults at Tucker so that people actually know
Speaker 8: what he's saying. But they talked, and so Tucker said
Speaker 8: that he had talked to Trump in the last couple
Speaker 8: of days, and then he repeated the line that the
Speaker 8: good guy is won this time. And that's really interesting
Speaker 8: to me because it sounds like Tucker and Steve Bannon
Speaker 8: feel as though their interventions over the weekend saved Trump
Speaker 8: from going into regime change mode. And I don't know
Speaker 8: how accurate that is because it's just really hard to
Speaker 8: say what happened, but they seem to think that they
Speaker 8: were lobbying against the Lindsay Graham, Mark Levin, and Mark
Speaker 8: Levin is indeed still calling for Trump to push Iran
Speaker 8: to sign a document of unconditional surrender, whatever that actually means.
Speaker 8: And so there's still risk here that Donald Trump. It's like,
Speaker 8: as Soccer says Versailles, I mean, this is truly what
Speaker 8: we're learning. Not that we couldn't have predicted that, but
Speaker 8: that's what we're learning right now. So that means there's
Speaker 8: still I think there's still very real risk going forward.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it is interesting in terms of what
Speaker 3: you were saying about the lobbying, I do agree. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's probably overstated to a certain extent, but to say
Speaker 3: it had zero influence, it's just obviously not true. What
Speaker 3: I actually find more interesting is the war that's happening
Speaker 3: right now. Like you said, there really is just a
Speaker 3: split completely on the Israel question at this point against
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson. I mean, you know, Dave Rubin, you have
Speaker 3: multiple like Benchpiro and others, like I mean, I guess
Speaker 3: you know, it's not like Tucker's been silent on them either,
Speaker 3: and going back now probably a couple of years, but
Speaker 3: I don't think it's ever been so like outright and
Speaker 3: in the open. And it is interesting that he doesn't
Speaker 3: seem actually all that interested in making peace per se
Speaker 3: and is really just like no, like fuck you actually,
Speaker 3: what do you make of that?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 8: No, I mean I think that's this is one of
Speaker 8: the most important political consequences of all of this is
Speaker 8: Mega is over. And that sounds dramatic, But uh, if this,
Speaker 8: like this peace deal is sort of tenuous alleged piece deal,
Speaker 8: we still have to see what happens is tenuous, but
Speaker 8: Marjorie Taylor, Green, Tucker Carlson are never going to be
Speaker 8: able to like just agree to disagree with the Dave
Speaker 8: Rubins and Ben Shapiro's ever again. And does that mean
Speaker 8: MEGA is over well? From my perspective, yeah, I mean
Speaker 8: I think that actually is a permanent schism in the coalition.
Speaker 8: And the other thing that we've seen over the course
Speaker 8: of last week is that Trump violates what I call
Speaker 8: a load bearing column of MAGA, which is anti interventionism.
Speaker 8: It's not just like another thing that comes with the bundle.
Speaker 8: It's a load bearing column. As so what holds up
Speaker 8: this coalition when he violates that? People are Bannon Tucker,
Speaker 8: They're willing to go against him. Maybe Talsei wasn't, but they,
Speaker 8: like people on the outside, are willing to go against him. Now.
Speaker 8: Of course, as we've been talking about, they feel like
Speaker 8: they won. I kind of asked Tucker at one point
Speaker 8: in our conversation, you know, like it I heard the
Speaker 8: reporting that Trump was watching Fox News and was really
Speaker 8: swayed by how impressive the images of the Israelis were.
Speaker 8: And Tucker said he thinks that's true too. And this
Speaker 8: is coming from somebody who talked to Trump in the
Speaker 8: last couple of days. So there's something I think that's
Speaker 8: really was lost for MAGA in all of this. And
Speaker 8: the question is how serious that is, But it's it's there.
Speaker 8: I mean, it's a scar for sure.
Speaker 2: But you know, Emily, I hear what you're saying on
Speaker 2: that at the sort of influence level. But first of all,
Speaker 2: you already had Tucker number disputed that he called Trump
Speaker 2: to apologize Bannon before any of this was resolved. Came
Speaker 2: out and said, listen, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: we're going to follow We're going to just trust in
Speaker 2: Trump and believe that if he does something we don't
Speaker 2: want him to, he had intelligence that we didn't see,
Speaker 2: and we just know it's going to be the right decision.
Speaker 4: And I was looking at the polling from you goov.
Speaker 2: Before the bombing, fifty three percent of Republicans opposed it
Speaker 2: and only twenty three percent supported it. After Trump decides
Speaker 2: he's going to bomb completely flips, then you only have
Speaker 2: twelve percent twelve percent who oppose it in sixty nine
Speaker 2: percent who approve. So to me, that proves the point
Speaker 2: that Trump was making of like I am America first,
Speaker 2: I get to say, what is America first, because at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, he knows whatever decision he makes,
Speaker 2: his maybe not every influencer, but his base are going
Speaker 2: to go along. And you know, I guarantee you too
Speaker 2: that And we already saw it with Bannon, and you know,
Speaker 2: Tucker didn't say as much, but certainly with Bannon, God
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk. Once Trump decided we are going to bomb
Speaker 2: these nuclear sites, then the goalposts were moved again. And
Speaker 2: then it was, oh, well, you know, we'll make sure
Speaker 2: it's not a regime change, will make sure it's not
Speaker 2: boots on the ground, and a lot of efforts but
Speaker 2: justifying the decision after the fact, even as they had
Speaker 2: originally expressed skepticism and discontent with that potential direction.
Speaker 8: Yeah, And I think what they would say is they
Speaker 8: were the ones who prevented it from becoming a regime
Speaker 8: change operation. So they feel like they won in some sense,
Speaker 8: even though Trump actually like ordered the strikes, which is
Speaker 8: why I asked talker, well, would this have happened, I mean,
Speaker 8: this thing that we're holding up as a victory right now,
Speaker 8: would this have happened without the strikes in the first place?
Speaker 8: And he conceded, probably not so I think the polling
Speaker 8: is really interesting on that too, Crystal, he could nuke someone.
Speaker 8: Trump could nuke someone on Fifth Avenue and yes, still
Speaker 8: not lose any here. But yeah, I think for the
Speaker 8: sort of average voter, there's a level of trust and
Speaker 8: Trump is still the glue that holds MAGA together. But
Speaker 8: professional MAGA that's I mean, to whatever extent that's important.
Speaker 8: It's probably not electorally important, but the groups that like
Speaker 8: hold the conferences and do all of that, like professional
Speaker 8: MAGA Beltway stuff, I think this is a real schism
Speaker 8: for them, and that that could be more or less important.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 4: As a content creator. To me, it's very important.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, i'll put it. I'll put it this way.
Speaker 3: As the polling showed, these people are going to go
Speaker 3: along with Trump no matter what.
Speaker 1: So I said this earlier. This is a game of elites.
Speaker 3: This is literally a Washington game as to if they're
Speaker 3: going to go along no matter what, then we should
Speaker 3: just do what we think is right at a policy
Speaker 3: level and then let them follow. So if Trump, you know,
Speaker 3: Trump is now calling for a world peace while you
Speaker 3: and I are talking, he just is saying he's going
Speaker 3: to remove sanctions on China buying oil from Iran, but
Speaker 3: the NEOs are going to lose it over that one.
Speaker 3: That's a multi billion dollar check going into the Iranian
Speaker 3: bank accounts. I mean, now he's saying, God bless you Ron.
Speaker 3: Like my point, they will go along with it, you know,
Speaker 3: no matter what he does. So the point then is actually,
Speaker 3: these factions and all of this stuff, it does kind
Speaker 3: of matter because that's what's influencing stuff at the very
Speaker 3: highest level inside a White House, in the National Security Council,
Speaker 3: at a staff level, right, you know of what these
Speaker 3: people are all reading. But yeah, anything else you want
Speaker 3: to get into before you go. I thought it was
Speaker 3: a great interview.
Speaker 4: Yeah, great job that way, And I told you I
Speaker 4: did not envy you. Having to do that.
Speaker 2: Interview is very consequential at a time when we were
Speaker 2: all like, what the fuck is actually happening right now?
Speaker 4: So good job with that.
Speaker 8: No, it was overwhelming, and it was booked last week
Speaker 8: before all of this happened, so it turned out to
Speaker 8: be great time. But yeah, I just wanted to thank
Speaker 8: you guys for being so supportive and having me here.
Speaker 8: I appreciate you guys a ton.
Speaker 3: All right, everybody go subscribe links down in the description,
Speaker 3: et cetera.
Speaker 1: We'll see you later.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'll see you later.
Speaker 1: No, I'll see sorry last night.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you and I have a date, right.
Speaker 3: Guys in late nights at ten pm? Did you come
Speaker 3: up with that time? Where does it come from?
Speaker 8: I'm a night owl.
Speaker 4: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, we got from your producer like, oh, can
Speaker 2: you guys come on?
Speaker 4: I'm like, what the Yeah, yes, I.
Speaker 2: Will do it free tape, But you are it is
Speaker 2: a sacrifice.
Speaker 4: I'm just going to tell.
Speaker 1: You that I understand.
Speaker 4: Congratulation, all right, I see you later.
Speaker 3: Joining us now is Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University
Speaker 3: and expert and somebody we wanted to speak with for
Speaker 3: quite a long time. So Stir, thank you so much
Speaker 3: for joining us. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Great to be with you. Thank you absolutely.
Speaker 3: I mean, first, let's just start off with the insanity
Speaker 3: of the last twenty four hours. I know you've been
Speaker 3: monitoring quote the situation as all of us have, and
Speaker 3: we just want to get your reaction to the broader
Speaker 3: ramifications of this cease fire, at least for now between
Speaker 3: Israel and Iran and the role here of the United States.
Speaker 10: Well, this has been absolutely why week. In a way,
Speaker 10: it is BB's fulfillment of a thirty year mission to
Speaker 10: try to drag the United States into a war with Iran.
Speaker 10: This latest episode has been part of a long term
Speaker 10: idea of net Yahu, which is we're going to do
Speaker 10: what we want in Gaza, the West Bank. We're going
Speaker 10: to control everything, will kill, will have a genocide, and
Speaker 10: anyone that objects any other country in the region will
Speaker 10: will overthrow that government. That's been the basic strategy for
Speaker 10: thirty years. For thirty years, the United States has gone
Speaker 10: along with that strategy, whether it is in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Soudan, Libya,
Speaker 10: and Iran was always the big prize. So NETNA has
Speaker 10: been absolutely itching for a big war with Iran, trying
Speaker 10: to drag the US in. And what we saw last
Speaker 10: week probably was the great battle inside between the Deep State,
Speaker 10: which is absolutely in line with Mossad. It's basically a
Speaker 10: Masad Cia operation for thirty years, and Maga, which has stopped.
Speaker 10: We're sick of this, We're sick of these wars. The President,
Speaker 10: I don't know where he is because I haven't checked
Speaker 10: my social media for the last thirty seconds. But he's
Speaker 10: been on both sides of this, but his base has
Speaker 10: been saying do not do this, do not do this,
Speaker 10: whereas NATO has been saying next year in Tehran or
Speaker 10: his ministers have been putting that out in disgusting vulgarity.
Speaker 10: So I don't know whether this is going to stop.
Speaker 10: But this is a battle of a long term strategy
Speaker 10: of NATNYA who remake the Middle East, to give basically
Speaker 10: complete total impunity to Israel to do every murder, massacre,
Speaker 10: genocide that it wants to do. And some of us
Speaker 10: who think that's not making the world a better place, Yeah,
Speaker 10: that's not helping anything, and it's not making America more secure.
Speaker 10: Thanks God. If this cease fire holds, that's a good thing.
Speaker 10: That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2: Yeah, professor, let's pull on thread a little bit more
Speaker 2: of the Israelis. As you mentioned, this has been a
Speaker 2: multi decade project of not Yaho specifically, but it's broadly
Speaker 2: supported with the Israeli public and certainly with his entire coalition,
Speaker 2: including literal terrorists that are involved in his government. So
Speaker 2: he's not going to give up and just say Okay,
Speaker 2: sees fire and now we have peace. With a rod
Speaker 2: that is certainly not going to happen. So what do
Speaker 2: you expect to see based on previous historical actions from
Speaker 2: the Israelis, what do you expect the Israelis to do
Speaker 2: next to try to play their next card to get
Speaker 2: as draw on in yet again.
Speaker 10: Well, the Israelis will make new provocations, that's for sure.
Speaker 10: They will make arguments that now we see the perfidy
Speaker 10: of Iran or for whatever argument to keep drawing us in.
Speaker 10: I have said for years, i think decades now, that
Speaker 10: the main job of the president of the United States
Speaker 10: in modern times is to keep the foot on the
Speaker 10: break of the war machine, because it's always revving. If
Speaker 10: you went to the deep State in the last few days,
Speaker 10: I think bombing missions against Iran are just splendid. Let's
Speaker 10: try out those b two's, let's see how the bunker
Speaker 10: busters do. And going beyond that, the regime change. Well,
Speaker 10: that was in half the tweets of the last or
Speaker 10: social truth posts of the last few days. So I
Speaker 10: think that Israel will provoke, and it is the job
Speaker 10: of the United States when in rare moments, presidents do
Speaker 10: their job to keep the foot on the break. And
Speaker 10: this morning, Trump unusually chastised Israel in a post saying,
Speaker 10: do not drop that bomb. Well, actually that's his job.
Speaker 10: It's pretty interesting he did it this time. Yesterday was different.
Speaker 10: We'll see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 3: So one of the things I'm curious about, stir You're
Speaker 3: obviously always looked at the bigger picture, and there was
Speaker 3: a lot made potentially of Russia and China coming in
Speaker 3: on Iran's side that didn't materialize to a major extent,
Speaker 3: but there were at least some entanglements. We can put
Speaker 3: this one up on the screen. For example, President of
Speaker 3: former President Medyeviev of Russia at one point basically threatened,
Speaker 3: you know, basically said, the Americans have accomplished nothing in
Speaker 3: their strikes.
Speaker 1: Potentially we could transfer nukes to them.
Speaker 3: He walked it back a little bit later, saying a
Speaker 3: number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with
Speaker 3: their own nuclear warheads.
Speaker 1: But then he walked it back later.
Speaker 3: What do you make though of how the Russians and
Speaker 3: the Chinese respond to what's transpired in the last twelve days.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think, by the way, what Medvedev was saying
Speaker 10: in that point number three was not Russia transferring nuclear
Speaker 10: arms or endorsing that. But the fact that Pakistan is
Speaker 10: a country closely aligned with the Islamic cause obviously and
Speaker 10: with Iran, and absolutely able to transfer nuclear weapons North
Speaker 10: Korea is another case. And I think that's an important point,
Speaker 10: by the way, because we've been told that the be
Speaker 10: all and end all is Iran's enrichment of uranium. That
Speaker 10: is not the true issue at stake here. The true
Speaker 10: issue at steak is Israel vulnerable by its own actions
Speaker 10: to a nuclear attack on Israel. The answer is yes,
Speaker 10: does Israel create more security for itself the way that
Speaker 10: it operates, answer is no, it makes Israel more and
Speaker 10: more dangerous. Not only did we see obviously that the
Speaker 10: Iron Dome ain't so iron and that there were easily
Speaker 10: it was not hard to penetrate the air defenses in Israel,
Speaker 10: but Israel seems to think that Iran is the end
Speaker 10: of the story, and it is not the end of
Speaker 10: the story. There are fifty seven countries in the Organization
Speaker 10: of Islamic Cooperation that are absolutely dead set against what
Speaker 10: Israel is doing. The vast majority of the world is
Speaker 10: dead set against it. When you ask about Russia and China,
Speaker 10: it is their fundamental purpose not to be thrown under
Speaker 10: the bus of the United States. This is the basic point.
Speaker 10: They want a multipolar world, not a US dominated world,
Speaker 10: and they are succeeding in that because the US does
Speaker 10: not have the means, the power, in my view, the interest.
Speaker 10: But put that aside, the means or the power to
Speaker 10: make a US dominated world, despite what Washington has believed
Speaker 10: for more than thirty years. So Russia and China are careful.
Speaker 10: China is very precise. I think it is. It's a cliche,
Speaker 10: but it's also true that Russia plays chess, China plays go,
Speaker 10: and the United States plays poker, one hand at a time,
Speaker 10: very quick, not any long term strategy, just to go
Speaker 10: for the hand. And I think that China and Russia
Speaker 10: bided their time in the first days. But the point
Speaker 10: was really Iran was not decapitated and with regime change,
Speaker 10: nor was it stopped in its ability to do great
Speaker 10: damage inside Israel up until the very last moment, which
Speaker 10: really irks the Israelis that it was the last exchange
Speaker 10: of missiles in this case was Iran's, and then Israel
Speaker 10: tried to violate the timeline and launch another one so
Speaker 10: it could be last, and that's when Trump said, no, stop.
Speaker 10: We already have an understanding about the chronology. So we
Speaker 10: are watching step by step the emerging of a true
Speaker 10: multipolar world where other powers that don't love the United States,
Speaker 10: they don't hate it, by the way, they just don't
Speaker 10: want to be subservient to it. They have nuclear arms,
Speaker 10: powerful weapons, the technologies that we have so that we
Speaker 10: can't dominate. And Iran is a regional power. It's not
Speaker 10: a pushover for Israel by any means. There was no
Speaker 10: one strike and it's all over one of the things
Speaker 10: that may have happened last week. I don't know, of course,
Speaker 10: but net Yau, you know, telling Trump, we can do it,
Speaker 10: we can do we can do it. And they did
Speaker 10: their decapitation murder's Masad really is a murder machine, of course,
Speaker 10: and it did its decapitation strike, and it did not
Speaker 10: bring down the regime. And so it probably led Trump
Speaker 10: and people around him to say, come on, what you know,
Speaker 10: the Israelis have given us a bunch of bs on this.
Speaker 10: It didn't change the regime, it didn't and the threats,
Speaker 10: and I think that's when Trump heard his base calling,
Speaker 10: he heard common sense calling, and he said look, this
Speaker 10: isn't going according to plan. And I think the main
Speaker 10: point is with Russia and China they were cautious, but
Speaker 10: they weren't letting Iran fall by any means. And if
Speaker 10: Iran were to be facing a more cataclysmic set of
Speaker 10: events in the last few days, I think the reactions
Speaker 10: also would have been different.
Speaker 2: Interesting to your point about perhaps Israelis were selling and
Speaker 2: perhaps they even believed that they would be able to,
Speaker 2: you know, create a regime collapse in short time. The
Speaker 2: Washing Post got a hold of this leaked audio of
Speaker 2: Masad agents calling Israeli generals and saying, you have twelve
Speaker 2: hours or else we're going to murder you and your
Speaker 2: wife and kids. By the way, and if you want
Speaker 2: to avoid that fate, you need to record yourself surrendering.
Speaker 2: You need to film this surrender video and send it
Speaker 2: to us, which of course would have been used as
Speaker 2: propaganda by the Israelis, And as best we know, not
Speaker 2: one of them did that, which I think you know,
Speaker 2: in and of itself is an indication that they may
Speaker 2: have miscalculated the strength of this regime, especially once a
Speaker 2: country is bombed like it's very common for people to
Speaker 2: rally around the flag. But I wanted to ask you
Speaker 2: with regards to Israel. So they have bombed, you know,
Speaker 2: they're committing a genocide in Palestine in the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 2: they bomb Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ron, Iraq, and are a nuclear.
Speaker 4: Armed nation out side of the NPT.
Speaker 2: You know, did have a secret nuclear weapons program, and
Speaker 2: you know, are a rogue nation. I think by any
Speaker 2: characterization at this point, is there going to be any
Speaker 2: consequence for them, Like, is there any sort of longer
Speaker 2: term consequence for.
Speaker 4: The fact that they have behaved in this.
Speaker 2: Outrageous, barbaric fashion over years at this point and you know,
Speaker 2: really made themselves a villain in terms of the eyes
Speaker 2: of much of the world.
Speaker 10: I think Israel is in its worst insecurity in its
Speaker 10: history by far, because it is utterly isolated in the
Speaker 10: international system. I'm sitting just outside the UN. I've been
Speaker 10: attending UN Security Council meetings, you own in General Assembly sessions.
Speaker 10: You have a ninety five percent of the world population
Speaker 10: voting against Israel right now. You have an overwhelming call
Speaker 10: for the absolutely practical state of Palestine being established on
Speaker 10: the borders of the fourth of June nineteen sixty seven
Speaker 10: and Israel learning finally, after decades and decades, it's just
Speaker 10: going to have to live alongside the Palestinian people, who
Speaker 10: have the same number population as the Israeli Jews. And
Speaker 10: this is the most basic point of all. Israel has
Speaker 10: no security from all of this. It has achieved nothing
Speaker 10: except to wasteland in its neighborhood. And if it wants security,
Speaker 10: the only security is to rejoin the Family of Nations.
Speaker 10: And the way to do that is straightforward. It's according
Speaker 10: to international law, it's according to basic common sense, it's
Speaker 10: according to decency, it's according to endless resolutions of the
Speaker 10: US Security Council and the UN General Assembly, and that
Speaker 10: is that there would be a state of Palestine for
Speaker 10: the Palestinian people alongside a state of Israel. And President
Speaker 10: Trump actually can make that happen if he wants his
Speaker 10: Nobel Peace Prize. It's not by this ceasefire after this
Speaker 10: behavior of the last week. It is by a Palestinian
Speaker 10: state being established. How does that happen? One vote change
Speaker 10: in the UN Security Council. The US vetoed this last
Speaker 10: year when it came to a vote in the Security Council,
Speaker 10: which is the part of the UN system. Or the
Speaker 10: international system that establishes the statehood membership in the UN.
Speaker 10: All the United States has to do is to say
Speaker 10: we go along with all the rest of the world
Speaker 10: and tell Israel, wake up, we're saving you. We're not
Speaker 10: hurting you, we are saving you from yourself. However, it's
Speaker 10: just crazy what Israel's doing and the idea that this
Speaker 10: is any security. I think they should understand that with
Speaker 10: apartment buildings in Versheva being destroyed, with Haifa being attacked,
Speaker 10: with Tel Aviv being attacked, with the countries outside of
Speaker 10: the region like Pakistan and DPRK watching, if Israel thinks
Speaker 10: it has any security at all from its brazenness, it
Speaker 10: should think again. And by the way, what we saw
Speaker 10: in the Mosad tape, which is chilling of course to
Speaker 10: listen to, is that Mossad became a killing machine. It's
Speaker 10: very skillful at mass and murder. I would say, not
Speaker 10: mass murder in the sense that the murder of the
Speaker 10: leadership of the Iranian military last week. Yes, that's Mosad's business.
Speaker 10: But to have that as your centerpiece of statehood, to
Speaker 10: be murder incorporated is not going to get you safety
Speaker 10: or security or any sound sleep any day.
Speaker 6: In your in your life.
Speaker 10: Israel needs to rethink fundament mentally this BB strategy, which
Speaker 10: goes back to nineteen ninety six when he first became
Speaker 10: Prime Minister.
Speaker 2: And I think to your point, they're not going to
Speaker 2: rethink it because the public is broadly supportive of the
Speaker 2: BB strategy. It has to be forced upon them, and
Speaker 2: the United States of America can do that if there
Speaker 2: is any will to do it.
Speaker 10: It depends always, it has always depended on the United
Speaker 10: States going along. By the way, people should get online
Speaker 10: if they haven't done it recently. And look at Natya
Speaker 10: Who's speech to the US Congress in two thousand and
Speaker 10: two telling him how wonderful the Iraq war is going
Speaker 10: to be. Oh, it's a cakewalk. It's it's going to
Speaker 10: inspire the whole region. This man is nuts. He's a
Speaker 10: failure for thirty years. He's the biggest warmonger on the planet.
Speaker 10: If Trump wants a successful presidency, don't sign on to
Speaker 10: this idiocy. Do your job, mister president. Make peace in
Speaker 10: the region that has to be you give the State
Speaker 10: of Palestine along side of the State of Israel, stop
Speaker 10: the genocide, and go along with international law.
Speaker 6: It's pretty straightforward. It's there for the taking.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, sir, we always appreciate your analysis. It
Speaker 3: was great talking to you. Thank you very much for
Speaker 3: joining us.
Speaker 6: Thank you for pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thanks so much for watching, guys, We appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Crystal and Emily on the live stream, and then Griffin
Speaker 3: and Ryan from New York City covering the mayoral race tonight,
Speaker 3: so make sure you tune in for that and we
Speaker 3: will see you all later.