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.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 3: for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do lots to
Speaker 1: get to this morning. We have updates coming out of Israel.
Speaker 1: The battles are getting bloodier, and we also have a
Speaker 1: new look at exactly how Palestinians in Gaza felt about
Speaker 1: Hamas prior to October seventh, and some indications of how
Speaker 1: support has only grown because of what happened on October
Speaker 1: seventh and the Israeli reponse. We also have Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: looks like he's going to be held in contempt, refusing
Speaker 1: to testify privately, although he does say he is willing
Speaker 1: to testify publicly, So we'll break all of that.
Speaker 4: Down for you.
Speaker 1: Also, a fascinating report on how a bunch of tech
Speaker 1: giants are building housing new sort of like modern day
Speaker 1: company towns. What could possibly go wrong? What could possibly
Speaker 1: go wrong there? We'll look at that. Sacer's had a
Speaker 1: special report for you on the latest some very sketchy
Speaker 1: doings with regard to UFO transparency. We also have a
Speaker 1: clip that went viral coming out of Harvard yet another
Speaker 1: former Obama official, this time their wife stalking a student
Speaker 1: who's wearing FIA, tracing her of wearing a terrorist scarf. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you got to see it to believe it. And Sagara
Speaker 1: also has a report on the war in Ukraine. Before
Speaker 1: we get to any of that, though, we're really excited.
Speaker 1: Later today we're going to be filming another interview with
Speaker 1: RFP Junior. Let's go ahead and put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen scager. What is the release schedule for this one?
Speaker 2: Yes, so our premium members will be able to watch
Speaker 2: it first, as promised for all of our big interviews
Speaker 2: that will drop tonight. For the public, it will drop
Speaker 2: some time tomorrow, so you guys stay tuned. You can
Speaker 2: become a Breaking Points if you remember right now breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot Com, and you can take advantage of our discount
Speaker 2: if you want to go ahead and sign up to
Speaker 2: watch it early and or support all of our work
Speaker 2: going into the election. We plan on covering RFK Junior
Speaker 2: extensively because we have seen effectively like a media blackout
Speaker 2: cover up where they will.
Speaker 3: Include him in the polls, but they just like pretend
Speaker 3: he doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: Is probably going to be the most consequential independent candidates
Speaker 2: since Ross Parrow, and yet nobody seems to be discussing that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, a'sk him about it.
Speaker 1: A bunch of stuff we want to get into with him.
Speaker 1: Really excited to talk to him again, you know state
Speaker 1: of his campaign.
Speaker 4: There was just a.
Speaker 1: Report about all the difficulties of getting on the ballot,
Speaker 1: so talking some of the nitty gritty of that, how
Speaker 1: he's thinking about potentially staffing an administration VP picks. Of course,
Speaker 1: I got a lot of questions for him about Israel
Speaker 1: and other issues of the day. So really looking forward
Speaker 1: to that conversation. And we should have a good hour
Speaker 1: with him to get into a bunch of different stuff,
Speaker 1: So cond be great.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for that.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go on and jump into the news.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. So the Israeli government
Speaker 1: and the IDF have been trying to portray an image
Speaker 1: of victory as they have you know, basically already completely
Speaker 1: destroyed northern Gaza, massive death toll, massive civilian death toll. Well,
Speaker 1: we're now starting to get these little glimpses into how
Speaker 1: the ground operation is actually going for IDF soldiers, and
Speaker 1: we have this report from Wynut Apparently one fifth of
Speaker 1: the IDF troop fatalities suffered in Gaza have actually been
Speaker 1: due to friendly fire or accidents. This again according to
Speaker 1: the IDF. According to data, at least twenty of one
Speaker 1: hundred and five deaths since the launch of ground operations
Speaker 1: not caused by enemy fire. Military says they are working
Speaker 1: to ensure troops safety. Now a couple of notes here.
Speaker 1: We covered previously how Harats did investigation and uncovered that
Speaker 1: the number of injured IDF soldiers had been dramatically understated.
Speaker 1: They went to the hospitals and said, okay, how many
Speaker 1: have you taken in? How many IDAF soldiers have you treated?
Speaker 1: Those numbers were far greater than what the IDEA had
Speaker 1: admitted to. So when you're getting official IDA statistics, I
Speaker 1: think you have to take them with a grain of
Speaker 1: salt at this point. But nevertheless, Occer, I mean, this
Speaker 1: shows extraordinary development if you have this higher proportion of
Speaker 1: the fatalities coming from friendly fire.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well this is the acknowledged friendly fire, and like
Speaker 2: you said, I think that's really what we have to
Speaker 2: focus in on. And one of the things I think
Speaker 2: that we wanted to try and highlight for everybody here
Speaker 2: is that the next phase of this is looking unfortunately
Speaker 2: as predicted, as chaotic and as bloody, and could actually
Speaker 2: be far more costly to the IDF as this continues.
Speaker 2: Because the initial military operation was a lot of use
Speaker 2: of air power. Now the initial ground operation too, we
Speaker 2: saw the IDEF take some casualties. It does definitely appear
Speaker 2: that they are covering some things up. But the reason
Speaker 2: why this friendly fire number is so important is it
Speaker 2: demonstrates how chaotic the situation is on the ground. I mean,
Speaker 2: for twenty percent of acknowledged casualties and debts to be
Speaker 2: friendly fire incidents, that's an extraordinary number, not really on
Speaker 2: par with many Western military and any modern style campaign.
Speaker 2: It just highlights the chaotic nature of urban combat. Also
Speaker 2: just about you know, frankly, troops who probably haven't seen
Speaker 2: a lot of combat in the past, and now they're
Speaker 2: doing this. In the first place, you've got a lot
Speaker 2: of reservists who are there. US military dealt with a
Speaker 2: lot of that, and it's one of the reasons that
Speaker 2: I wanted to highlight this. As well as a battle
Speaker 2: wear about to get into. These two things militarily demonstrate
Speaker 2: the ongoing difficulty of what continuing to operate in this
Speaker 2: environment is going to look like friendly fire and as
Speaker 2: well as unfortunately, the ongoing nature of occupying Gaza for
Speaker 2: the IDF. Whenever you've got a battle which we're about
Speaker 2: to show everyone, which took place in North Gaza, in
Speaker 2: an occupied area which was declared safe already, in which
Speaker 2: had very little airpower, it ends up being crystaled the
Speaker 2: deadliest incident so far for the IDF in the entire war.
Speaker 1: And before I show you that, there is one other
Speaker 1: note that I want to make about this report on
Speaker 1: friendly fire, all of the friendly fire incidents that the
Speaker 1: IDF is claiming post October seventh, they have a note
Speaker 1: in here in that report from why Not. And I
Speaker 1: believe this is like you know, Google translated. The English
Speaker 1: is a little bit clunky, but bear with me. They
Speaker 1: say casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on
Speaker 1: October seventh, But the IDF believes that beyond the operational
Speaker 1: investigations of the events, it would not be morally sound
Speaker 1: to investigate these incidents due to the immense and complex
Speaker 1: quantity of them that took place in the Kibbutzam and
Speaker 1: southern Israeli communities, due to the challenging situations the soldiers
Speaker 1: were in at the time. So we've already had some
Speaker 1: indications that some most of the killing was certainly.
Speaker 4: Done by Hamas. We're not downplaying that.
Speaker 1: Keep that in mind with all of this, but that
Speaker 1: some of the deaths on October seventh on the Israeli
Speaker 1: side were because of friendly fire, and they acknowledged this
Speaker 1: in this report, but they also say we have no
Speaker 1: interest in looking into it.
Speaker 4: We're not going to do an investigation.
Speaker 1: We don't think it would be morally what do they
Speaker 1: say morally sound to investigate what the hell unfolded on that.
Speaker 2: I think they're going to say that now. I think
Speaker 2: a lot of Israelis are going to want more answers
Speaker 2: on that. In the quote unquote post war period. Another
Speaker 2: reason why nets On Yahu is trying his best to
Speaker 2: get as far away from that as possible. But we've
Speaker 2: teased the battle, so why don't we go ahead and
Speaker 2: play some of it now, just to give people an
Speaker 2: idea of what this looked like. This was a battle
Speaker 2: in which ten IDF soldiers lost their lives, not only
Speaker 2: just ten, but eight out of the ten of them
Speaker 2: actually were officers. And it happened after Hamas actually ambushed
Speaker 2: an IDF small team. It was only four guys who
Speaker 2: ended up having to be rescued in an hour's long firefight.
Speaker 2: And again this is in an area of Gaza which
Speaker 2: was declared safe, where they did not think that it
Speaker 2: was ongoing. It ends up again being the deadliest battle
Speaker 2: actually that's happened on the ground so far.
Speaker 3: Let's go out and play some of it.
Speaker 5: Okay, we know.
Speaker 1: This is footage released by the way, by the idea.
Speaker 1: You know we've played you Hamas's propaganda battle footage.
Speaker 4: This is the IDF propaganda battle footage.
Speaker 1: But again it gives you some uh, some sense of
Speaker 1: how difficult, how brutal things are on the ground. Let's
Speaker 1: put up the details of what happened in what may
Speaker 1: have been the deadliest incident so far. On the Israeli side.
Speaker 1: This is part of the times of Israel. Ten soldiers,
Speaker 1: including two quite senior officers, killed in Gaza fighting and
Speaker 1: what they describe as a deadly ambush. From what I
Speaker 1: could tell from the description here, you basically had four
Speaker 1: soldiers who went into this cluster of three buildings. Again,
Speaker 1: as Soccer mentioned, this was near Gaza City, not in
Speaker 1: Gaza City, but in that part of northern Gaza that
Speaker 1: they have claimed they've basically, you know, eliminated all the
Speaker 1: terrors and pushed everybody out into southern Gaza.
Speaker 4: Will not so.
Speaker 1: In this instance, they thought that these buildings had been abandoned,
Speaker 1: surrounding a courtyard to carry out searches and found the
Speaker 1: entrance of a tunnel. As the troops entered one of
Speaker 1: the buildings, Hamas Terris ambushed them, hurling grenades, detonating an
Speaker 1: explosive device and opening fire on them. Then you know
Speaker 1: they're calling for help. Their superiors come in and try
Speaker 1: to rescue them. All four of those original soldiers lost
Speaker 1: their lives, along with a number of the other soldiers
Speaker 1: who came in to try to rescue the situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it again, just to highlight it, it
Speaker 2: took place in an area that you thought was peaceful.
Speaker 2: Then you go into a building, it turns out there's
Speaker 2: an ID in there. I and d E their injuris
Speaker 2: or kills everybody. Then everybody's terrified. And so what really
Speaker 2: highlighted to me is you had everybody up from a
Speaker 2: battalion commander on downward, colonels, lieutenant colonels who somehow became
Speaker 2: involved in this operation, grabbed their rifles and decided to
Speaker 2: storm in there, and then multiple of them were actually killed.
Speaker 2: The search and rescue operation, the commanders of the operation
Speaker 2: and obviously Hamas got the drop on them in terms
Speaker 2: of the ambush what that looked like.
Speaker 3: It ended up being an hours long.
Speaker 2: Firefight just to secure the entire area. And this highlights
Speaker 2: the nightmare of what actual military occupation is going to be.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's an accident that the deadliest incident
Speaker 2: so far took place in a so called safe area.
Speaker 2: And this is what it is rolling going to look
Speaker 2: like when you're trying to occupy this city in the
Speaker 2: long run. And I think certainly, just like we found
Speaker 2: out in Iraq, you know, it turned out that the
Speaker 2: initial three weeks mission accomplished phase was probably the easiest
Speaker 2: part of the entire Iraq war, and it was the
Speaker 2: follow on the holding the population, securing the area, and
Speaker 2: all of that ended up being some of the deadliest
Speaker 2: and most brutal fighting.
Speaker 3: And you can't bomb your way out of that one.
Speaker 2: And this is really what the reality of this type
Speaker 2: of military operation will look like and probably will continue
Speaker 2: to look like for months, if not years to come,
Speaker 2: if they're going to a remain engaged like this.
Speaker 1: So that's sort of like the zoomed in view of
Speaker 1: what this looks like on the ground, and one of
Speaker 1: the deadliest incidents on the Israeli side that we know
Speaker 1: about thus far.
Speaker 4: Let zoom mount.
Speaker 1: Economists had a good report about sort of where they
Speaker 1: are in terms of their alleged goal of eradicating Hamas.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's not that they've made no progress
Speaker 1: or done nothing, but they're nowhere near that goal, which
Speaker 1: I've always thought was a fantasy, the idea that you
Speaker 1: could completely eliminate Hamas.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They write in this piece, the IDF may have destroyed
Speaker 1: as much as half of Hamas's force, although even that
Speaker 1: the numbers don't really add up the overall death numbers
Speaker 1: that we know of in Gaza roughly eighteen thousand, and
Speaker 1: at least sixty percent of those are women and children.
Speaker 4: So if you're saying.
Speaker 1: Maybe they've destroyed half of Hamas's force of perhaps thirty
Speaker 1: thousand fighters, I'm just not sure where you're getting that
Speaker 1: math from.
Speaker 4: May have come directly from the IDF.
Speaker 1: But even if you take those numbers, which are probably
Speaker 1: way overstated of how well they've done in eliminating Hamas members,
Speaker 1: Hamas still has thousands who merge from tunnels to carry
Speaker 1: out ambush's on Israeli soldiers, like the incident that we
Speaker 1: just told you about. In addition, you have about one
Speaker 1: hundred Israeli soldiers according to the IDF, who have been killed. Again,
Speaker 1: I would take those numbers with a grain of salt.
Speaker 1: Hamas still holding, of course, more than one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty hostages who were not released when the two sides
Speaker 1: called that truce and exchanged captives in November. Those hostages,
Speaker 1: of course, continue to be at grave risk, and Hamas
Speaker 1: has indicated that more than a dozen of them have
Speaker 1: actually been killed. Now they're saying it's because of the
Speaker 1: Israeli assault certainly possible, but we don't really know the
Speaker 1: circumstances surrounding that. They say here that they are in
Speaker 1: danger from constant bombing. Of course, on December eighth, Israeli
Speaker 1: soldiers were wounded in a failed attempt to rescue a hostage.
Speaker 1: Hamas later showed grewsome footage of a dead hostage, a
Speaker 1: twenty five year old Israeli civilian, and claims that the
Speaker 1: Israelis killed him in their rescue attempt. Israel that Hamas
Speaker 1: murdered the man shown in the video, so competing claims
Speaker 1: around what happened there. They go on to talk about though, okay,
Speaker 1: outside of the rank and file.
Speaker 4: Fighters, that's where we are.
Speaker 1: They're at best have killed half, probably a lot fewer
Speaker 1: than that, and there are still thousands more to run
Speaker 1: out of tunnels, not to mention the new recruits that
Speaker 1: you are creating with your mass terror campaign on the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip. Nor has Israel managed to obliterate Hamas's leadership
Speaker 1: or destroy its infrastructure. The IDF has killed a number
Speaker 1: of senior field commanders, but ya Ya Sinoir, the group's
Speaker 1: overall boss, and two of their commanders of their fighting
Speaker 1: force have so far survived. That is thanks in part
Speaker 1: to Hamas's network one hundreds of miles of tunnel, which
Speaker 1: Israel's failed to destroy despite its firepower and its drone
Speaker 1: born surveillance capabilities. So even at the best case sub scenario,
Speaker 1: Israel's nowhere near eradicating even the existing Hamas fighting force.
Speaker 1: And that's before we talk about, you know, the longer
Speaker 1: term impacts and the way that this has spiked support
Speaker 1: for Hamas both in Gaza and in the West Bank.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's what the economist piece really highlights.
Speaker 2: The military reality. Even if you accept the most rosy,
Speaker 2: you know, kind of body count like figures that we
Speaker 2: would release during Vietnam, even within that you've still got
Speaker 2: fifty percent of the fighters that remain active. Another thing
Speaker 2: they point out is that the political sustainability of the campaign,
Speaker 2: you know, Romay is basically winding up in terms of
Speaker 2: US support. President Biden and Secretary Blincoln both apparently telling
Speaker 2: that to now, you've got to wrap things up by
Speaker 2: the end of the year. That's only sixteen days away.
Speaker 2: And so then what's the next day going to look like?
Speaker 2: What are exactly are you going to do? What is
Speaker 2: the plan for the Gaza strip. We counterpoints brought everybody
Speaker 2: the news, the net, and Yahu outright rejected any idea
Speaker 2: of not only a two state solution, but of a
Speaker 2: Palestinian authority governing US. It's like, well what now, Well,
Speaker 2: in a break it you buy it scenario, especially hopefully
Speaker 2: that America is not dumb enough to go in there
Speaker 2: and to clean up Israel's masks for them. They're the
Speaker 2: ones who are going to be responsible for it, and
Speaker 2: in a way they morally should be. It's like you
Speaker 2: went in, you destroyed most of the city. You're doing
Speaker 2: this under the guys who are killing all of these people.
Speaker 2: Now you're responsible for security, You're responsible for the civilian population.
Speaker 2: You're responsible providing water, food, security, and even, let's say,
Speaker 2: even if they don't care about any of that, continue
Speaker 2: their military operations against them US. You have to have
Speaker 2: staging areas like in Gaza, North Gaza. That's what all
Speaker 2: those guys were doing there in the first place. So
Speaker 2: I'm really starting to see a lot of signs and
Speaker 2: a lot of military analysts I spoke to as well,
Speaker 2: that this is going to be a brutal and bloody
Speaker 2: campaign where once you moved past things that you can
Speaker 2: bomb and you have to actually come in there clear
Speaker 2: out areas. It's a painful, step by step type process,
Speaker 2: and you're actually responsible for holding this ground. More and
Speaker 2: more of these types of incidence, the one where ten
Speaker 2: IDs soldiers lost their lives just in a single battle,
Speaker 2: and now you have the chaotic nature of it revealed
Speaker 2: in the friendly fire incidents. It just shows people and
Speaker 2: I think Israeli's two that is their future. That's what
Speaker 2: the future is going to look like for as long
Speaker 2: as that they remain active inside of it.
Speaker 1: Based on the comments from NATANYAHUO, you know, asking his
Speaker 1: senior aid to develop plans to quote unquote fin out
Speaker 1: the population of Gaza. Based on the report that came
Speaker 1: out from that. Yes, I know sort of side ministry
Speaker 1: that everyone's saying is not that all that important, but
Speaker 1: weigh the different options for what happens after the war
Speaker 1: in Gaza, where they said, listen, ideally we're going to
Speaker 1: push all.
Speaker 4: These people into Egypt.
Speaker 1: Based on the fact that they are floating legislation and
Speaker 1: plans here in the US that apparently has some bipartisan
Speaker 1: support about hey, we're going to push the regional countries
Speaker 1: to take in this number of refugees in Egypt and
Speaker 1: this many in Jordan, et cetera, et cetera. To me,
Speaker 1: it seems very clear what their ideal situation is. What
Speaker 1: they want to do is to make Gaza uninhabitable and
Speaker 1: then use the humanitarian crisis to say, well, the only
Speaker 1: humanitarian thing to do is to resettle these people in Egypt,
Speaker 1: to resettle them in Jordan, to resettle perhaps some of
Speaker 1: them in the United States, and that's, you know, and
Speaker 1: frame this total ethnic cleansing as some sort of humanitarian solution. Now,
Speaker 1: Egypt has publicly been very against this threatened war. The
Speaker 1: US has publicly been very against this. But if we
Speaker 1: get to that place where I mean, already you know
Speaker 1: they're now flooding the tunnels with seawater to destroy the infrastructure. Okay,
Speaker 1: you can say understandable. On the other hand, this is
Speaker 1: going to destroy the groundwater for generations to come. Northern
Speaker 1: Gaza is already completely destroyed and unlivable. Now the INDSTRM
Speaker 1: discriminate bombing campaign has moved to the south, rendering.
Speaker 4: Those areas unlivable.
Speaker 1: They've raised farmland, they've destroyed greenhouses, et cetera. So to me,
Speaker 1: that seems very clear that that's the path that they
Speaker 1: want to pursue. That in their minds, net Yahoo and
Speaker 1: his government want to move towards. The only question is
Speaker 1: whether or not the US is going to enable that
Speaker 1: or accept it, if they're going to do more than
Speaker 1: sort of weekly protest and let the thing unfold. So
Speaker 1: I think to me, it seems very clear that that's
Speaker 1: the goal, whether or not they're able to ultimately.
Speaker 2: Whether it's I'm a broken record, whether it's a goal
Speaker 2: or not, we're actually not. The check is the Arab States.
Speaker 2: I think the Arab States would threaten literal war if
Speaker 2: that were to happen. Egypt has already said that they'll
Speaker 2: sacrifice millions of life, and here's the thing, it is
Speaker 2: actually a matter of national survival. And also they don't
Speaker 2: want them, I mean the Egyptians. Cec for example. Apparently
Speaker 2: by the way, CEC is very popular. Then ever, you
Speaker 2: know why he doesn't want these Palestinians because a bunch
Speaker 2: of these Hamas guys are Islamus, and CEC hates Islmas.
Speaker 2: He became to power by overthrowing the Muslim brotherhood. The
Speaker 2: King of Jordan goes to sleep every night and praise
Speaker 2: for his life to make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 2: and all these Palestinians are now living in his country
Speaker 2: aren't going to uprise against him because there's nothing that
Speaker 2: he could do about it. If you think he's gonna
Speaker 2: let in a bunch of Gosms, no way, I mean
Speaker 2: all of these people. And then I guess the next
Speaker 2: question is America. Now, I think that some people are
Speaker 2: dumb enough to have, you know, millions of people come
Speaker 2: and resettle here. But I would say hell no to
Speaker 2: that one. I think it's all Israel's fault. So they're
Speaker 2: boxed in. They can want, they can want many things
Speaker 2: for what's realistically going to happen.
Speaker 3: They're responsible for this.
Speaker 2: They can come to the scenario now, or they could
Speaker 2: come to scenario six months from now. But in my opinion,
Speaker 2: this whole ethnic cleansing plan of Theirs, it it's just
Speaker 2: not gonna work.
Speaker 3: There's just no political sustainability for it.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll say about that before we move
Speaker 1: on to the next piece is obviously ethnic cleansing is
Speaker 1: wrong and bad and incredibly immoral. It also seems to
Speaker 1: me incredibly foolish to think that if you just displace
Speaker 1: Palestinians to other countries that they're going to give up
Speaker 1: the fight. You know, if you push them out of
Speaker 1: Gaza into Egypt, let's say, or into other surrounding countries,
Speaker 1: you think they're just going to like lay down and
Speaker 1: die and accept that they've lost.
Speaker 4: No, they're not. They're not.
Speaker 1: I think as long as there is breath in their
Speaker 1: body and any scrap of hope that they could reclaim
Speaker 1: some semblance of their lost land, they're going to continue
Speaker 1: to fight. So the idea that that plan would be
Speaker 1: any sort of security improvement for Israel, I think is
Speaker 1: also a fantasy.
Speaker 4: All right. So to the point of.
Speaker 1: How Israel's brutality is actually playing into Hamasa's hands in
Speaker 1: terms of swelling support for their ranks and for their approach,
Speaker 1: there was a horrific report eyewitnessed testimony followed by some
Speaker 1: visual on the ground confirmation of execution style shootings by
Speaker 1: IDF soldiers of women and children inside of the school.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up. This is from a
Speaker 1: report by Al Jazeera. I'm just going to narrate here
Speaker 1: what we're seeing. These are distressing images as they are
Speaker 1: warning here. You can see the camera is going into
Speaker 1: a school. They're showing the what they describe as horrific
Speaker 1: aftermath of an assault on this school.
Speaker 4: This is in northern Gaza.
Speaker 1: What you can see are appears desks, chairs that have
Speaker 1: been burnt up, completely destroyed. You can see they're walking
Speaker 1: here into one of the classrooms where they claim bodies
Speaker 1: were piled up after eyewitnesses say they were killed execution style.
Speaker 1: This man was one of the eyewitnesses. He says, we
Speaker 1: found the bodies in the classrooms. He says there's no
Speaker 1: sign of any missiles or shells. In other words, they
Speaker 1: were execution style, just gun to the head executions. All
Speaker 1: those who were in the building were executed from point blank.
Speaker 1: The Israeli sold open fire on them. He goes on
Speaker 1: to say many families came searching for their children. They
Speaker 1: found them all killed. They were all killed, executed at gunpoint.
Speaker 1: There was another woman who they spoke with as well,
Speaker 1: who had a similar story about the way that these
Speaker 1: women and children were killed. She says the Israeli soldiers
Speaker 1: came in and opened fire on them. They took all men,
Speaker 1: then entered classrooms, open fire on a woman and all
Speaker 1: the children with her. The when said there were new
Speaker 1: born children among them. The Israeli soldiers executed those innocent
Speaker 1: families at point blank. So you have the combination of
Speaker 1: eyewitness testimony along with the bodies that were recovered and
Speaker 1: the evidence that they had been killed by bullets versus missiles,
Speaker 1: adding up to you know, a really horrific situation. It's
Speaker 1: not also the first time that there have been accusations
Speaker 1: that Israelis have murdered people execution style, murdered civilians in
Speaker 1: Gaza execution style.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately.
Speaker 2: You know, this is something that's a very dark period
Speaker 2: of Israeli history in terms of the Kibia massacre involving
Speaker 2: Israeli Sharon. This is very well known amongst a lot
Speaker 2: of Palestinians, and I think it also just highlights the
Speaker 2: need for independent reporting and you know, un organizations others,
Speaker 2: you know, just like we allowed actually during the invasion
Speaker 2: of Iraq, in order to make sure that incidents like
Speaker 2: this don't happen or they're investigated properly. The IDF actually,
Speaker 2: as far as I understand, Crystal has not addressed what's
Speaker 2: happened here, so.
Speaker 3: Obviously they need to give an explanation.
Speaker 2: I'm and look at you know, it's possible somebody else did,
Speaker 2: I guess, But if they're going to be responsible for it,
Speaker 2: then they need to actually come forward with some sort
Speaker 2: of explanation as to what this was. And I just
Speaker 2: think it's an independent reviews types of scenario. Desperate for
Speaker 2: what we need one thing to highlight, just for everybody
Speaker 2: to watch out for. Is Apparently CNN was able to
Speaker 2: get a camera insteade of Gaza. They're they're gonna air
Speaker 2: Crystal some of their footage later today. I'm actually very
Speaker 2: anxious to see it. It's the first Western footage that
Speaker 2: will come out of Gaza which has not been censored
Speaker 2: by the IDF because she went in this Clarista Award
Speaker 2: who was there at the fall of Kabble and Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: She went in actually with an Amarati medical team and
Speaker 2: there was no censorship. She was also on the ground
Speaker 2: in some of the areas for She was also on
Speaker 2: the ground in some of the areas for hospitals, etc.
Speaker 2: So this is exactly why we need people on the
Speaker 2: ground to be able to investigate scenarios like this.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Okay, so let's ask the question, then, what is
Speaker 1: all of this brutality actually gaining Israel and how do
Speaker 1: Palestinians in.
Speaker 4: Gaza at least, how did they feel.
Speaker 1: About Hamas Because we've also had you know, numerous Israeli pundits,
Speaker 1: officials American politicians claiming there are no innocent Palestinians in
Speaker 1: Gaza because they all support Hamas well, that is really
Speaker 1: not the case. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This polling is fascinating to me. So this survey was
Speaker 1: in the field right up until October seventh. It just
Speaker 1: happened that you had this air Barometer poll where they
Speaker 1: do in person surveys, in the field right up until
Speaker 1: October seventh. Okay, So, first of all, how much trust
Speaker 1: do you have in the Hamas led government? The top
Speaker 1: response by far among all age groups. More, you know,
Speaker 1: overwhelming plurality of roughly forty five percent say none at all,
Speaker 1: no trust whatsoever in the Hamas led government. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go to the next one. How responsive do you
Speaker 1: feel like the Hamas led government is to what people want? Again,
Speaker 1: overwhelming plurality say, not very responsive at all, so not
Speaker 1: exactly glowing reviews there. And the second highest response was
Speaker 1: not responsive at all. So not very and not at
Speaker 1: all were the two highest responses all right, let's go
Speaker 1: ahead to the next one. What do you think is
Speaker 1: the most effective way to have a say here to
Speaker 1: be able to influence a mas led government decision. The
Speaker 1: number one answer nothing is effective nothing. The second highest
Speaker 1: answer is working through personal connections, so basically corruption direction. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's really interesting, very dim views of Hamas. There
Speaker 1: was a huge sense seventy eight percent had said that
Speaker 1: the availability of food was a moderate or severe problem
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Now you might think that perhaps that's, you know,
Speaker 1: they would blame the Israeli government and their blockade, which
Speaker 1: certainly takes you know, deserves quite a bit of the
Speaker 1: blame for that state of affairs. But actually the largest
Speaker 1: number said that they blamed the Hamas led government for
Speaker 1: the fact that, you know, just on a basic like
Speaker 1: how am I doing, how's my family doing? Am I
Speaker 1: able to get enough to eat? The Hamas took most
Speaker 1: of the blame in terms of who they were pointing
Speaker 1: a finger at. I thought this was interesting too. So Hamas,
Speaker 1: of course they say their goal is to destroy the
Speaker 1: Israeli state. Majority of survey respondents the favor of two
Speaker 1: state solutions, so there are at odds even with political
Speaker 1: goals and here what you say, what you see is
Speaker 1: which party of any do you feel closest to Fatah,
Speaker 1: which dominates the Palestinian Authority, which quote unquote runs the
Speaker 1: West Bank, or Hamas, and Hamas actually wins out. They
Speaker 1: also asked in a theoretical presidential election where you had
Speaker 1: the head of Hamas versus the head of the Palestinian
Speaker 1: Authority versus Marwan Barghuti, who's an imprisoned member of the
Speaker 1: Central Committee of Fatah, actually only twenty four percent, so
Speaker 1: that they would vote for the Hamas leader. Barguti received
Speaker 1: the largest share at thirty two percent. He's again that
Speaker 1: imprisoned activist, and Mahmudabas, the head of the PA, received
Speaker 1: twelve percent, So they were not too impressed with Hamas
Speaker 1: as a governing authority. But Sager, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of signs. You know, at this point, you can't pull
Speaker 1: Gaza because there's not on going war and no one
Speaker 1: can get in there. But there are a lot of
Speaker 1: signs that support for Hamas has actually dramatically increased because
Speaker 1: of the brutality of the Israeli crackdown, and that is
Speaker 1: consistent with history. You know, if you look at the
Speaker 1: polling and that's one of the things that they talk
Speaker 1: about in this piece. If you look at polling over time,
Speaker 1: it's almost a one to one relationship. The harsher the
Speaker 1: conditions imposed by the Israelis or the more brutal attacks
Speaker 1: that are being waged, the higher the support for the
Speaker 1: more militant terrorist organizations when there seems like there's some
Speaker 1: actual path to peace and prosperity through nonviolent means. Lo
Speaker 1: and behold support for militant groups like Hamasti creases. It
Speaker 1: doesn't take rocket scientists.
Speaker 3: No, it's not.
Speaker 2: And we have a lot of historical precedent we can
Speaker 2: talk about here. You know, I'll turn to Vietnam. We've
Speaker 2: been talking about it a lot here. You know, the
Speaker 2: Communists were not popular. There were a million, a lot
Speaker 2: of people who fled the north to the South because
Speaker 2: they didn't want to live under communism. But after the
Speaker 2: sustained bombing campaigns and the corruption of the South Vietnamese
Speaker 2: government and all that became to be more evident. Even
Speaker 2: though people didn't necessarily want to live under communism, you
Speaker 2: were able to basically mesh together like a communist and
Speaker 2: nationalist philosophy for why you should support the VC and
Speaker 2: the NBA against the American invader and the foreign puppets.
Speaker 2: So even though they inherently prior to foreign intervention actually
Speaker 2: very likely it looked like they could have been defeated,
Speaker 2: it was actually American intervention itself, and the strength of
Speaker 2: it made it such that it actually ballooned their ranks
Speaker 2: and made them even more popular.
Speaker 3: There was also a line in here that really struck
Speaker 3: out to me.
Speaker 2: Quote Hamas led government may be uninterested in peace, but
Speaker 2: it is empirically wrong for Israeli political leaders to accuse
Speaker 2: all Gosins of the same. In fact, most Gosins are
Speaker 2: open to a permanent and a peaceful solution to the
Speaker 2: Israeli Palestinian conflict. Yet the views of the people who
Speaker 2: live in Gaza are often misrepresented in public discourse, even
Speaker 2: as surveys such as Arab Barometer consistently show how different
Speaker 2: these narratives are from reality. I would also say this
Speaker 2: is exactly why from a strategic perspective, this made a
Speaker 2: lot of sense for Hamas, where you've only got fifty
Speaker 2: percent of the population are spoiled, so that support you
Speaker 2: between you and Palestinian and Islamic jihad. So what do
Speaker 2: you do you launch a war to not only legitimize
Speaker 2: yourself as the only fighting actor against the Israelis, but
Speaker 2: then you use the response to say, we're the only
Speaker 2: ones for standing up, and that's why you've got to
Speaker 2: support me. Again, very very similar to the way that
Speaker 2: the Vietcong and others operated in the Vietnam War. So
Speaker 2: and this ultimately there were the victors got to study
Speaker 2: what exactly made them effective. And I think on the
Speaker 2: way that this fight now continues and how that all
Speaker 2: looks for the center of gravity of that population, who
Speaker 2: they support, what they support, what they look like as legitimate.
Speaker 2: I really see this polling as a tragedy to just
Speaker 2: say that so many of the people who lived under
Speaker 2: their rule, and this is so obvious. As usual, most
Speaker 2: human beings are human beings. They just want to live
Speaker 2: in peace, They want enough food to eat, and they
Speaker 2: don't want to live in a corrupt government where they
Speaker 2: have to pay somebody so that they can send their
Speaker 2: kid to college. That sucks no matter where you are
Speaker 2: and no matter what religion you are. So obviously they
Speaker 2: didn't like it. Now that doesn't mean that they're pro Israel,
Speaker 2: let's be clear about that. But they're pro something a
Speaker 2: little bit different. And this is another reason too, why
Speaker 2: the Israeli strategy of propping up Hamas was very important
Speaker 2: to them, because I actually think they knew that this
Speaker 2: was real, and that one of the reasons why they
Speaker 2: want to continue those Katari cash injections is we got
Speaker 2: to keep Hamas up there because actually there's a whole
Speaker 2: lot of palest Indians who would accept something very different,
Speaker 2: but that would be very inconvenient for the right right
Speaker 2: wing government and coalition inside. Now, obviously it's way past
Speaker 2: October seventh. Who the hell knows for this poll, you
Speaker 2: know stands right now. A lot of these people could
Speaker 2: be dead, that's another question. A lot of the moderates
Speaker 2: and all those other folks who definitely did not support
Speaker 2: a Moss from day one, they could be gone. And
Speaker 2: now what you have more of a literate population, people
Speaker 2: who've lived through war, and we know how that looks
Speaker 2: like throughout history too.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and there are legitimate questions over whether israel Is
Speaker 1: is intentionally targeting that potential nonviolent, more moderate leadership class
Speaker 1: that the intellectuals, the doctors, you know. I did a
Speaker 1: whole monologue on this earlier in the week with that
Speaker 1: poet Rafat, who was assassinated. There's really no doubt that
Speaker 1: there's an investigation that was conducted by a human rights
Speaker 1: organization that found, you know, they directly targeted specifically the
Speaker 1: apartment that he was in with his sister, killing him
Speaker 1: and other family members. He had received death threats from
Speaker 1: the Israeli government multiple times, so he was very definitely
Speaker 1: directly targeted, this poet. And there's been a massive loss
Speaker 1: of intellectuals and thought leaders within the Gaza population from
Speaker 1: this war. So I think is a very open question
Speaker 1: whether Israel is directly intentionally targeting them for exactly this reason.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this next piece up on the
Speaker 1: strands of fascinating and report from the BBC. They interviewed
Speaker 1: a number of political scientists in the West Bank and
Speaker 1: they also have some numbers to back up what we've
Speaker 1: discussed before, which is that support for Hamas in the
Speaker 1: West Bank. We don't know in Gaza, but in the
Speaker 1: West Bank has been skyrocketing. One political scientist described the
Speaker 1: October seventh attacks as a turning point for Palestinians just
Speaker 1: as they were a shocking turning point for Israelis that
Speaker 1: political scientist said, the people, especially in the new generation,
Speaker 1: are backing Hamas now more than at any other moment.
Speaker 1: He told me, in the previous thirty years, there were
Speaker 1: no models, no idols for.
Speaker 4: The new generation.
Speaker 1: Now they see there is something different, a different story
Speaker 1: is being created.
Speaker 4: And this was really pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 1: As well, because obviously Fetad and Hamas have been bitter
Speaker 1: enemy for years as well. But this political scientist theorizes
Speaker 1: that both Fatah and Hamas are well aware they're complementary
Speaker 1: to each other, and I think we'll see real integration
Speaker 1: between the two movements. This is the greatest fear of
Speaker 1: you know, BB Netanyahu and others who are like minded.
Speaker 1: They don't want to see any sort of Palestinian unified front.
Speaker 1: It's a divide and conquer strategy, and it's also elevating
Speaker 1: the extremists, so you can say, hey, I've got no
Speaker 1: partner for peace, even as a majority Palestinians in Gaza
Speaker 1: say we want a two state solution, and even as
Speaker 1: he and his government are very clear about how they
Speaker 1: do not want a peaceful two state solution. We'll get
Speaker 1: to that in just a moment. One of these political
Speaker 1: scientists goes on to say, the Palestinian authority realize targeting
Speaker 1: Hamas would not eradicate it because it's an ideological movement
Speaker 1: rooted within the Palestinian people. In Hamas is fully aware
Speaker 1: it cannot establish an independent Palestinian state without the help
Speaker 1: of Fatas, So that's why he's arguing that they realize
Speaker 1: that they need each other.
Speaker 4: But you know they track here. How there has.
Speaker 1: Been a real change in viewpoint among the Palestinian population. Again,
Speaker 1: this is in the West Bank, not Gaza. Could be
Speaker 1: totally different, but I think there are probably some similarities here.
Speaker 4: And remember in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: The brutality of what's unfolding there is nothing like, of
Speaker 1: course what's unfolding in Gaza. But there has also been
Speaker 1: a lot of violence there. More than two hundred Palestinians
Speaker 1: have been killed since October seventh in the West Bank
Speaker 1: as well, you know, partly at the hands of the IDF,
Speaker 1: partly at the hands of these extremist settlers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we don't know. You know, it's interesting.
Speaker 2: Actually something just came across my radar because you had
Speaker 2: a top Hamas official actually who just did an interview
Speaker 2: with all monitor and which he suggested that the group
Speaker 2: would quote adhere to the PLO organization stance on Israel
Speaker 2: aka floating Israeli recognition. You can read that two ways.
Speaker 2: One is that their quote unquote suing for peace. I
Speaker 2: would rate it very much like you are, Crystal, is
Speaker 2: that they're trying to become the legitimate successor for whatever
Speaker 2: this post movement is going to look like, both for
Speaker 2: the West Bank and for Gaza. Yeah, and when you
Speaker 2: read comments like that, I would put it very much
Speaker 2: as they are recognizing their political hold here on power
Speaker 2: and what the next step for them may look like
Speaker 2: for but not only to survive, but also to become
Speaker 2: the genuine governing authorities. So actually, you know, I think
Speaker 2: you can really look at that polling in some of
Speaker 2: the now increase for support Hamas in the West Bank
Speaker 2: really is a tragedy to say that while the Palestinian
Speaker 2: authority itself was corrupt, the ideas which they were built upon,
Speaker 2: which was palestine an identity, not nonviolent resistance, I guess
Speaker 2: per se, but at least post OSLO some sort of
Speaker 2: cooperation to state scenario that was a relative majoritarian position
Speaker 2: amongst a lot of Palestinians. But it was the extremists
Speaker 2: really who tried to overthrow it, and they may actually
Speaker 2: set it back by I mean, who knows, not even decades.
Speaker 3: I would say, you know, maybe a century something like that.
Speaker 1: Extremists in the on the Palestinian side and extremists on
Speaker 1: the Israeli side basically teamed up, not directly, but in
Speaker 1: a manner of speaking to derail any sort of a
Speaker 1: peace process.
Speaker 4: And it worked.
Speaker 3: It did work.
Speaker 1: They worked, they won, you know, and now here we
Speaker 1: are where we are today. To go back to you
Speaker 1: while let's talk about some of those extremists now they
Speaker 1: run the Israeli government.
Speaker 4: This is an interview with the Israelian with an.
Speaker 1: Israeli ambassador on Sky News where she's being pressed over okay,
Speaker 1: you know, you all say there's no partner for peace
Speaker 1: on the Palestine.
Speaker 4: He's like, do you all want a two state solution?
Speaker 4: Take a listen to.
Speaker 3: Us state solution. There's still a chance for a two
Speaker 3: state solutions.
Speaker 6: I think it's about time for the world to realize
Speaker 6: the old's look power that I'm failed on the seventh
Speaker 6: of October, and we need to build a new one.
Speaker 6: And in order to build the.
Speaker 3: News that new one, include the Palestinians living in a
Speaker 3: state of their own.
Speaker 6: The biggest question is what type of Palestinians are. The
Speaker 6: other side is what Israeli state? The answer is absolutely
Speaker 6: no one. I'll tell you why. Well, then the moment,
Speaker 6: the reason there is no is because the Palestine.
Speaker 3: Without offering mark state to Palestine.
Speaker 6: How can the Israel knows today and the world should
Speaker 6: know now. The reason the Oslo courts failed is because
Speaker 6: the Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel.
Speaker 6: They want to have a state from the river to
Speaker 6: the sea. So why are you obsessed with a formula
Speaker 6: that never worked, that created this radical people in the
Speaker 6: other side? Why are you obsessed with that?
Speaker 1: So she says to a two state solution, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: This is not surprising. I mean, this has been the
Speaker 1: position of Natanyahu, the Luquid Party, certainly his extremists coalition
Speaker 1: partners for years. These are people who've been opposed to
Speaker 1: OSLO from the beginning of OSLO, for literally decades. But
Speaker 1: to have it so out there, brazenly stated no hedging
Speaker 1: in the open is extraordinary for a number of reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, it blows up one of the central myths
Speaker 1: in American politics about what's unfolding in Israel, where it's
Speaker 1: all the problems are on the Palestinian side. There's no
Speaker 1: partner for peace there, Joe Bidena said, his stated his
Speaker 1: key stated objective with regard to Israel Palestine is ultimately
Speaker 1: to get to a two state solution. And here you
Speaker 1: have the government that you're supporting unconditionally and shipping arms
Speaker 1: to and whatever, and pretending like this is on the table,
Speaker 1: saying absolutely not. Your key foreign policy priority is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent off the table.
Speaker 4: We have zero interest in it. We will do whatever
Speaker 4: we can to block it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would know too. It's not just the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: This has been US policy basically since nineteen sixty seven
Speaker 2: or since the Oslo courts especially, but also has always
Speaker 2: been the legitimate, at least political aim of the US
Speaker 2: State Department. Even under the Trump administration, they never abandoned this,
Speaker 2: even though they might have done it in practice. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's extraordinary crystal because we don't
Speaker 2: hear it in English. We can hear it in Hebrew.
Speaker 2: And I don't know why it's different, but it is
Speaker 2: just different. Whenever you have to hit Google Translate versus
Speaker 2: when you see somebody on Sky News. Who's a representative
Speaker 2: of that government? But I think it's it. Look, the
Speaker 2: Biden administration too has to grapple with this of you
Speaker 2: keep saying you want X, they say they don't actually
Speaker 2: want that. So what are we doing here? What is
Speaker 2: the actual political end? And how exactly do you come
Speaker 2: to that? Part of the reason why I think they
Speaker 2: want the Israelis to wrap up their campaign.
Speaker 3: But I mean that's not going to do anything.
Speaker 2: You could stop the military campaign tomorrow, you could even
Speaker 2: have a quote unquote cease fire. The political end is
Speaker 2: the one that we've all been working towards, supposedly for
Speaker 2: fifty years. It's like, well, now, what are we going
Speaker 2: to do?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 1: The other thing is, even if you take the governments
Speaker 1: out of it, take Amas out of it, take the
Speaker 1: net Yahoo government out of it, and look at the
Speaker 1: polling of the populations, you actually have far more support
Speaker 1: for two state solution among Palestinians than you do among Israelis.
Speaker 4: At this point. We talked to that pollster Dahlia Shindlin.
Speaker 1: Yes, earlier in the week. I really recommend people go
Speaker 1: and listen to that. She was really really insightful in
Speaker 1: terms of Israeli public opinion. She's a writer for Howard,
Speaker 1: she's a political scientist and a polster. And it's been
Speaker 1: a long time since two state solution has been a
Speaker 1: majority position in Israeli politics. And she said, you know,
Speaker 1: it hasn't dropped off of that much during this current war,
Speaker 1: but it's nowhere near majority.
Speaker 4: I believe.
Speaker 1: She said, support was somewhere around thirty percent for a
Speaker 1: two state solution, so you actually have more sentiment and
Speaker 1: that you know, that's why these politicians, that's why they
Speaker 1: get elected. The net Yahoo government doesn't just come out
Speaker 1: of nowhere, right, That's why they get elected because there's
Speaker 1: some public support for the positions that they're taking, and
Speaker 1: you know, the idea of okay, we can just maintain
Speaker 1: the status quo forever. This was fairly popular, not just
Speaker 1: on the right but sort of throughout Israeli politics for
Speaker 1: probably since the second Into fought. I would say, if
Speaker 1: I had to pinpoint at a time, but you know,
Speaker 1: look at people who would do this research and don't
Speaker 1: take my word for it on that one. But it's
Speaker 1: been a long time since the two state solutions really
Speaker 1: been a majority position in the Israeli public.
Speaker 4: It's certainly not now.
Speaker 1: So that's the other that's the other puncture to the
Speaker 1: fantasy that the Biden administration and every other American presidential
Speaker 1: administration has been peddling that there's some ongoing.
Speaker 4: Peace process that you've got.
Speaker 1: You know, the Israelis really invested in how can we
Speaker 1: get peace and the Palestinians that are standing in the way.
Speaker 4: At best, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Speaker 2: At the same time, there's a lot of stuff going
Speaker 2: on with Hunter Biden. So yesterday, the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: officially has passed an impeachment inquiry into President Biden relating
Speaker 2: to Hunter Biden's business dealings.
Speaker 3: Here is the moment that that happened. On this vote,
Speaker 3: the a's are two twenty one, and then a's are
Speaker 3: two twelve. The resolution is adopted, that objection, the motion
Speaker 3: to reconsider is laid on the table.
Speaker 2: That is an official impeachment inquiry. For those who covered
Speaker 2: the two impeachments, which we did, certainly, the impeachment inquiry
Speaker 2: is the predecessor to a formal impeachment. It basically authorizes
Speaker 2: Congress gives them subpoena power to look into and to
Speaker 2: investigate whatever they deem necessary as opposed to what's put
Speaker 2: forward to them in the resolution, and also though came
Speaker 2: at the exact same time that Hunter Biden actually appeared
Speaker 2: publicly on Capitol Hill answering questions of where's Hunter with
Speaker 2: I am right here? He is offering to testify to
Speaker 2: Congress publicly about his business dealings, but refusing to comply
Speaker 2: with a subpoena to investigator to be answer to investigators
Speaker 2: in private.
Speaker 3: Here's what Hunter had to say.
Speaker 8: But I'm also here today to correct how the Maga
Speaker 8: wright has portrayed me for their political purposes. For six years,
Speaker 8: I have been the target of the unrelenting Trump attack
Speaker 8: machine shouting Where's Hunter? Well, here's my answer. I am here.
Speaker 8: Let me state as clearly as I can. My father
Speaker 8: was not financially involved in my business, not as a
Speaker 8: practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Barisma, not
Speaker 8: in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in
Speaker 8: my investments at home nor abroad, and certainly not as
Speaker 8: an artist by cherry picking lines from a bank statement,
Speaker 8: manipulating texts I sent, editing the testimony of my friends
Speaker 8: and former business partners, and misstating personal information that was
Speaker 8: stolen from me. There is no fairness or decency in
Speaker 8: what these Republicans are doing. I am here to testify
Speaker 8: at a public hearing today to answer any of the
Speaker 8: committee's legitimate questions.
Speaker 2: So Christal, there's a lot actually going on there. First
Speaker 2: of all, I believe that's the first time he's ever
Speaker 2: acknowledged that the Biden laptop is real, because it said
Speaker 2: he said it was stolen from me. Now, first of all,
Speaker 2: it wasn't stolen. He was so high on drugs they
Speaker 2: forgot that he left laptop.
Speaker 4: I thought it bore all the question disinformation.
Speaker 3: That's whatever. Now there's a lot going on.
Speaker 2: I do love how he used to list all of
Speaker 2: his shady things, like in my Chinese private equity, in my.
Speaker 3: Board membership of Brisma.
Speaker 2: Also on the art piece, it just so happened that
Speaker 2: what Democratic donors happened to pay top dollar for brand
Speaker 2: new artists.
Speaker 3: Okay, there's a lot to be said, I think about that.
Speaker 2: It does, though, come at the same time that the
Speaker 2: House Republicans are now likely to hold Biden in contempt
Speaker 2: the way that the Democrats did for Steve Bannon when
Speaker 2: he refused to comply with a subpoena. Here is James
Speaker 2: Comer and Jim Jordan immediately responding to Hunter's statements. Here's
Speaker 2: what they had to say on Capitol Hill immediately after to.
Speaker 7: Vena and to the President's son, that we expect him
Speaker 7: to come.
Speaker 3: In and be depotentcided. This is a normal.
Speaker 7: Process and an investigation. This has been a serious, credible,
Speaker 7: transparent investigation from day one. We've published four bank memorandums,
Speaker 7: We've had countless press conferences. This is an investigation about
Speaker 7: public corruption at the highest level. We accumulated mountains of
Speaker 7: evidence that's concerning to an overwhelming majority of Americans. We
Speaker 7: have specific questions in there, and I think we're going
Speaker 7: to allow you in there to see the piles and
Speaker 7: piles of documents, of bank statements, of emails, of text
Speaker 7: messages that we've worked very hard on in this committee
Speaker 7: over the last eight or nine months.
Speaker 9: Finally, I would say this, mister Biden's counsel and the
Speaker 9: White House of both argued that the reason he couldn't
Speaker 9: come for a deposition was because there wasn't a formal vote.
Speaker 3: For an impeachment inquiry.
Speaker 9: Well, that's going to happen in a few hours.
Speaker 3: We think it's going to pass.
Speaker 9: We think the House of Representatives will go on record
Speaker 9: with the power that solely resides in the House to
Speaker 9: say we are in an official impeachment inquiry phase of
Speaker 9: our oversight, and when that happens, we'll see what their
Speaker 9: excuse is.
Speaker 3: Then they should have been here today. But once we
Speaker 3: take that vote.
Speaker 9: We expect him to come in a for his interview,
Speaker 9: for his deposition, and frankly, we'll also, I think, look
Speaker 9: at contempt proceedings as we move forward.
Speaker 2: So Crystal, so the beef around public versus private, I
Speaker 2: know it sounds nebulous, but yeah, from what I understand
Speaker 2: and what I've looked into, the public proceeding will not
Speaker 2: be able to last as long in the way that
Speaker 2: the private ones go. So the private ones, as we
Speaker 2: saw with Devin Archer and others, not only are you
Speaker 2: testifying under oath, but you're not just testifying to members
Speaker 2: of Congress.
Speaker 3: You're testifying as well.
Speaker 2: To investigators, people who are deputized lawyers who work for
Speaker 2: the House of Representatives for the committee, so that it's
Speaker 2: more of like a police proceeding than you would think
Speaker 2: of like a public hearing, and in that they would
Speaker 2: go probably nine ten hours in some cases, and they'd
Speaker 2: be like, what about this payment? What about this payment?
Speaker 2: All just under oath and if you lie, of course
Speaker 2: you're going to be violating it and you be held
Speaker 2: in contempt and charged with that. That is the beef
Speaker 2: over that now, in terms of what Comer and Jordan
Speaker 2: are looking into and what they're going with, the latest
Speaker 2: report that I've seen that looks like the most direct
Speaker 2: thing that should be looked at was this from just
Speaker 2: last week, Hunter Biden's company made direct payments to Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: These involved the earnings on Hunter Biden's company that were
Speaker 2: then made directly to President Biden. Now this is being
Speaker 2: billed by the Biden team as Hunter having paid him
Speaker 2: back for I think it's cars, personal loans, et cetera.
Speaker 2: That's not necessarily illegal, but I'm not sure yet If
Speaker 2: the paperwork involves there, then it does, though of course raised.
Speaker 3: A question of like, well, what are you doing it for?
Speaker 2: I actually think the sketchiest thing and that you weren't
Speaker 2: there whenever I covered this was the main thing that
Speaker 2: the big red flag from Hunter's spending over twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty whenever he was on drugs and all
Speaker 2: that was not all of the payments to hookers and
Speaker 2: all that, because I was actually itemized.
Speaker 3: It was the one.
Speaker 2: Point seven Yeah, I also want to say, what is
Speaker 2: it difference between hooker's and adult entertainment. I'm still trying
Speaker 2: to figure that out, because that's like six hundred grand
Speaker 2: whenever you combine that.
Speaker 3: But that's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 2: Is the one point seven million dollars in ATM withdrawals
Speaker 2: of cash cash, and so that's actually the one where
Speaker 2: there's most area for inquiry of corruption and who are
Speaker 2: you paying to? As I said at the time, presumably
Speaker 2: a large chunk of that went to drug dealers. I
Speaker 2: do find it difficult to believe that he was able
Speaker 2: to even consume and still be alive one point silvern million.
Speaker 3: Dollars worth of drugs, because.
Speaker 4: That's an exceptional guy.
Speaker 2: Maybe, I mean, he is exceptional in a lot of ways. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I'm curious why you think about all this.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's such a mess because listen, obviously, I
Speaker 1: want public officials to be investigated for corruption. I want
Speaker 1: them to be held accountable for corruption. I want there
Speaker 1: to be a much more stringent standard of corruption than
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court, you know, even counts as corruption.
Speaker 1: At this point, I don't think there's any doubt that
Speaker 1: Hunter was trading on the Biden name and his dad's
Speaker 1: access to power and insinuating to these various shady characters
Speaker 1: he's doing business with that he could get him extra
Speaker 1: y or z. I mean, why else do you put
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden on boards and pay him, you know, invest
Speaker 1: in his funds, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Why else do you buy his artwork?
Speaker 1: I don't think there's like to me, there's no question
Speaker 1: that there's a very high level of shadiness.
Speaker 4: But Republicans have been investigating in this for a year
Speaker 4: now and they really haven't come up with much.
Speaker 1: So the other piece of this, you know, on the
Speaker 1: public versus private testament, I understand their perspective that you
Speaker 1: lay down of like, no, we want to go through
Speaker 1: this other process that's behind closed doors, so it's not
Speaker 1: like a circus in the theater, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But if you're Hunter Biden, you're also thinking number one,
Speaker 1: there was you know, Steve Bannon, other Trump Trump related
Speaker 1: people who refuse to testify when they were subpoena, so
Speaker 1: the precedent has been set. And number two, if you
Speaker 1: do it behind closed doors, then they can And we've
Speaker 1: seen this before, including with Devin Archer, selectively leak the
Speaker 1: parts that may be out of context, may be misleading,
Speaker 1: that they feel are the most damning. Whereas he apparently
Speaker 1: feels some level of confidence that he's able to testify
Speaker 1: publicly that it would come out at least okay for him,
Speaker 1: and it's not a good look for Republicans that they're
Speaker 1: afraid of that It's like, all right, this guy's here,
Speaker 1: he wants to testify, Like what are you afraid of?
Speaker 1: If you won't do it behind closed doors, why not
Speaker 1: take the next best thing with regard to the impeachment investigation,
Speaker 1: You know, I sort of feel similarly, like, first of all,
Speaker 1: unfortunately I feel like no one really even cares about
Speaker 1: these impeachment inquiries anymore. This is more a stop to
Speaker 1: the base than any sort of a legitimate fact finding mission.
Speaker 1: This is impeachment inquiries are now just sort of like
Speaker 1: a standard issue part of politics. And some of the
Speaker 1: haziness of what this impeachment inquiry is even really about
Speaker 1: was laid out when one Republican was asking another like,
Speaker 1: what are actually the high crimes and misdemeanors that we're
Speaker 1: looking into? And they couldn't just succinctly.
Speaker 4: Define it, So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I to me, at this point, this is like the
Speaker 1: least of Joe Biden's worries. And I think Republicans are
Speaker 1: more performing for their base to show like, no, we're
Speaker 1: not a mess, No we're not a train wreck, we're
Speaker 1: actually getting things done here. Then they are making any
Speaker 1: you know, real like attempts at fighting corruption or even
Speaker 1: appealing to a broader political base than their constituents.
Speaker 2: It's definitely an introduce pe issue. It's also a thing
Speaker 2: of retribution. They did it twice to Trump. You know,
Speaker 2: they did it. They had multiple you know, they leaked
Speaker 2: all the how many times Adam Shift leaked you know,
Speaker 2: Mueller investigation testimony and all that. So they're like, screw them,
Speaker 2: We're going to do the exact same thing back.
Speaker 3: I do agree. I think it's going to be normalized.
Speaker 2: I think it is now basically every president is going
Speaker 2: to have some sort of impeachment degree against them. I
Speaker 2: am not necessarily against it for corruption purposes especially, I'm
Speaker 2: really enjoying getting all the visibility into the first family's finances.
Speaker 3: You're like, oh, that's very interesting.
Speaker 2: We have this going on, the president's brothers being called
Speaker 2: to testify. The more that we normalize like shame against
Speaker 2: trading and openness, I actually think it's a net benefit
Speaker 2: to all of that. So I would like to see
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden testify in some sort, either publicly or privately.
Speaker 2: I absolutely, I mean the tax investigation was incredibly eye opening.
Speaker 2: I'm really glad that the judge stepped in and was like,
Speaker 2: this is too sweetheart of a deal, because the public
Speaker 2: actually does deserve to know about all this cash that
Speaker 2: is being here, About the fact that Beisma changed his
Speaker 2: payroll and cut it in half after Trump was elected
Speaker 2: and Biden no longer had a control of the Ukraine portfolio.
Speaker 2: It's like the most naked thing that you can see
Speaker 2: in all of his financial records. So I think all
Speaker 2: of that should be normalized in terms of this investigation
Speaker 2: all that. Obviously, they don't have a quote smoking gun
Speaker 2: yet the payments that they directly have been able to
Speaker 2: prove so far are either not papered over properly, they
Speaker 2: haven't been able to show. But you know, I don't
Speaker 2: think it's necessarily a bad thing to continue to investigate
Speaker 2: it now, per se.
Speaker 3: I don't think politically politically it depends.
Speaker 2: There is some polling to indicate that if people had
Speaker 2: been able to get more information about the quote unquote
Speaker 2: hunter Biden laptop, that then they would have been able
Speaker 2: to have they would have made a different choice. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure how true that actually is, but you never know.
Speaker 2: If they do stumble across something or any of that,
Speaker 2: it becomes a political scandal for the White House. You
Speaker 2: could see a scenario where they would have some impact
Speaker 2: on the election. I don't think it'll be number one,
Speaker 2: especially because Trump is the number two person that other
Speaker 2: people are gonna be weighing up against.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't know, I'm sure, and it's certainly possible
Speaker 1: that they come up with, you know, that they're able
Speaker 1: to find, now that they have these other tools at
Speaker 1: their disposal, something that's more of a direct link. But
Speaker 1: you know, I also think the other piece of this
Speaker 1: is because it's been very one sided and because there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of overreaching and overstatements about what it
Speaker 1: is that they've identified thus far, any anybody outside of
Speaker 1: the Republican base is just sort of like dismissing this
Speaker 1: as a Republican witch hunt and not paying too close
Speaker 1: attention to, you know, the details here of exactly what's
Speaker 1: going on. So at this who knows what could develop
Speaker 1: in the future. You never know, But as of today,
Speaker 1: as I said, I think this is like the least
Speaker 1: of Joe Bidensbury.
Speaker 2: Well, let's move on to the next part here. This
Speaker 2: is the biggest problem for a lot of people housing.
Speaker 2: Every time we cover it, we see a tremendous response,
Speaker 2: and we want to continue.
Speaker 3: On that beat.
Speaker 2: There's a fascinating and really honestly troubling thing happening as
Speaker 2: housing becomes.
Speaker 3: More and more unaffordable.
Speaker 2: We've talked about in the past private equity giants coming
Speaker 2: and buying single family homes. But the real end state
Speaker 2: for this are company towns. So you would have large
Speaker 2: industrial employers, just like Henry Ford did, and they had
Speaker 2: what company can I forget what it's called script or
Speaker 2: something like that, that they allowed people to trade inside
Speaker 2: of the inside Ford village. You can have forward bucks
Speaker 2: that you can trade different things from. Somehow none of
Speaker 2: it ever ends up into actual money into your bank account. Well,
Speaker 2: the new development of this appears to be Google and
Speaker 2: other big tech companies that are building new housing that
Speaker 2: they would then own and make it available for their employees.
Speaker 2: So let's gohe and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from Business Inside. It says meet your new landlord, Google.
Speaker 2: And what they lay out here is a huge proposed
Speaker 2: development in Mountain View, California, one of the most expensive
Speaker 2: places in.
Speaker 3: The entire country.
Speaker 2: There are seven thousand new homes, three distinct neighborhoods, three
Speaker 2: hundred square feet of retail and community community space. None
Speaker 2: of it bears the name Google. But what they say
Speaker 2: is that these corporations are using their considerable sway and
Speaker 2: resources to build modern company towns many cities that will
Speaker 2: feature all the trappings of traditional civic life, housing, shops,
Speaker 2: and public spaces. The projects won't have corporate logos.
Speaker 3: On the buildings.
Speaker 2: Many of the units will be technically available to the
Speaker 2: general public, not just employees, but in the grand scheme
Speaker 2: of real estate, they are distinct. After running up against
Speaker 2: the housing shortages, companies like Google, Meta and Disney are
Speaker 2: now taking matters into their own hands, and they will
Speaker 2: create places that have no names, even technically attached to them,
Speaker 2: Middlefield Park, Willow Village. They could might as well be though,
Speaker 2: called Zucktown or Google Cities. So we have some of
Speaker 2: the quotes. We can put this one up the screen.
Speaker 2: For example, Google's North Bay Shore project. The new community
Speaker 2: will replace a suburban office park with the sprawling new
Speaker 2: neighborhood in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next one.
Speaker 2: They say that the plan calls, as I said, for
Speaker 2: seven thousand new homes across a mix of income levels,
Speaker 2: as well as parks, restaurant, shops, and more than three
Speaker 2: million square feet of office space on one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty three acres. Let's go to the Zuckerberg one now, please,
Speaker 2: you can see here from what they quote about Facebook.
Speaker 2: Last year, Menlo Park, which is where Facebook is headquartered,
Speaker 2: voted in favor of a plan for a Facebook fifty
Speaker 2: nine acre project, known affectionately or cynically as Zucktown. It
Speaker 2: promises seventeen hundred homes as well as office, hotel and retail.
Speaker 2: Now we have one included with Walt Disney, the Walt
Speaker 2: Disney Corporation. They say that Disney World, so this is
Speaker 2: in Florida, plans to break ground next year on fourteen
Speaker 2: hundred affordable housing units across eight many acres, a few
Speaker 2: miles from its flagship theme in Florida, the company said
Speaker 2: in the spring, and the reason that they would be
Speaker 2: doing it is specifically for its employees and temporary housing,
Speaker 2: so crystal, as you can see from what's happening here,
Speaker 2: we've got Walt Disney, we've got Zuckerberg, we've got Google.
Speaker 2: All these people that are moving in and it's actually
Speaker 2: really I think it's terrible for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 2: One is that it makes it so that the employees
Speaker 2: are totally reliant on the company. This was the problem
Speaker 2: with the original company towns. So let's say you're working
Speaker 2: at Google and you've got a new job somewhere else.
Speaker 2: Now you're not just giving up your job, you're getting
Speaker 2: up your house, you're giving up all this other stuff.
Speaker 2: It can become a little bit of a golden prison.
Speaker 2: But that's more for white collar employees. It also makes
Speaker 2: it so that even more of available commercial or sorry,
Speaker 2: available residential real estate is getting zoned to big fortune.
Speaker 2: Five hundred companies are going to use it than to
Speaker 2: their own ends and not allow people to come pick
Speaker 2: and choose as they may for what they would privately
Speaker 2: be able to either lease and or own. So if
Speaker 2: this is the available housing stock and you're going to
Speaker 2: shrink it to what they can own, it's not it's
Speaker 2: not good and it has a bad track record history wise, just.
Speaker 1: Have a bad track record, and there's a reason for that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really is like everything old is new again.
Speaker 1: My dad and his side of the family, they're from
Speaker 1: West Virginia, so I have a lot of and his
Speaker 1: dad was a coal miner, so I have a lot
Speaker 1: of familiarity with like the West Virginia mining company towns
Speaker 1: and same thing. They sort of framed it as this
Speaker 1: like humanitarian like you know, virtue signaling of oh, we're
Speaker 1: going to build all this housing and then workers can
Speaker 1: live so close to their job and you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to have great school system, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: But just think about from your perspective, you want to
Speaker 1: have your boss in charge of also like where you
Speaker 1: live and be paying rent to them. Let's say you
Speaker 1: have a problem with the house, because we're not talking
Speaker 1: about you owning your home, they own it. You're paying
Speaker 1: rent to them. Let's say you have a problem with
Speaker 1: the housing. Let's say they you know, aren't fixing the
Speaker 1: plumbing or some other issue which happens all the time
Speaker 1: in a you know, landlord renty situation. Are you going
Speaker 1: to feel confident, you know, raising a fuss about that.
Speaker 1: So the real goal here for these companies is not altruistic.
Speaker 1: They're wrapping it in, oh, there's an affordable housing crisis,
Speaker 1: and some of these units are going to be for
Speaker 1: people who's you know, below median income, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The real goal is to have more control over their
Speaker 1: working population and to get butts back in seats in
Speaker 1: the office after the remote work revolution, and to hopefully
Speaker 1: turn a buck while they're doing it as well. So
Speaker 1: it's very troubling, it's very dystopian, and it fits also
Speaker 1: with the trends of you know, we've talked about the
Speaker 1: way that permanent capital has gotten in the game of
Speaker 1: buying up all these single family homes. They're making it
Speaker 1: more and more impossible for people to be able to
Speaker 1: have their own home, own their own home, have control
Speaker 1: over their own lives, et cetera. So think about, okay,
Speaker 1: for those of you who live in neighborhoods, that have
Speaker 1: hoas and have homeowners association, like is Google going to
Speaker 1: now be involved in like the running of your homeowners association?
Speaker 1: Those things are a nightmare to begin with withoud getting
Speaker 1: your boss involved in it as well, because that's what
Speaker 1: happened in the company towns of your They would run
Speaker 1: the schools, they would stack the local political officials so
Speaker 1: that all of the policies that passed were beneficial to them,
Speaker 1: and it ended up being really a sort of catastrophe
Speaker 1: for workers and for worker autonomy in particular. The other
Speaker 1: thing that of course comes to my mind here is
Speaker 1: let's say there's a union drive, you know, and you're
Speaker 1: dependent for your housing on your boss, not just your job.
Speaker 1: It's already scary enough to engage in a union drive
Speaker 1: and to push for a union when it's quote unquote
Speaker 1: just your job at risk. Now your housing is at
Speaker 1: risk too, very very dystopian potential scenarios that are quite obvious,
Speaker 1: and the parent to see how it could fold out.
Speaker 2: It also shows you how these municipalities become weights.
Speaker 3: So actually, back in the.
Speaker 2: Day, there was a time when the governments would even
Speaker 2: pay their employees, not in dollars, their payment script because
Speaker 2: they have towns themselves. They ended up having to outlaw
Speaker 2: that during the Great Depression because governments were printing script
Speaker 2: and it didn't end up pegging it or have any
Speaker 2: monetary value. But we had to learn a lot of
Speaker 2: those lis since from the eighteen eighties all the way
Speaker 2: up till the nineteen thirties when this became really popular
Speaker 2: because of the amount of control, and that when those
Speaker 2: companies went busted, then the whole.
Speaker 3: Thing just gets totally wiped out.
Speaker 2: What they even point out here is that we have
Speaker 2: a modern day version of this where because everybody's bidding
Speaker 2: for HQ two, for Google, and all these municipalities really
Speaker 2: want this, they're giving them tremendous amount of tax breaks
Speaker 2: and including they're relying on them to fund the housing
Speaker 2: that's successible to them.
Speaker 3: But this creates all kinds.
Speaker 2: Of skewed tax incentives where you're totally reliant on the
Speaker 2: major employer to do everything for you. And then again,
Speaker 2: what if they change their decision, What if a city
Speaker 2: down the road is willing to offer them something, then
Speaker 2: things could change. There's a lot of dangers. I think, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you continue to go down this road.
Speaker 1: And are you going to give preference in terms of
Speaker 1: hiring to people who say they want to live in
Speaker 1: your neighborhoods. You know, are you going to prefer them
Speaker 1: over someone who wants to live outside known their own
Speaker 1: home or whatever. So, the fact that you have such
Speaker 1: a disastrous housing landscape, especially in a lot of California,
Speaker 1: but in all kinds of places across the country, it
Speaker 1: creates this predatory opportunity for these companies to posture like
Speaker 1: they're doing something that's altruistic for the community, altruistic for
Speaker 1: their employees, when really all they're seeking is more money
Speaker 1: and more control.
Speaker 3: Yeah, next part here. UFO has been waiting to give
Speaker 3: an update on this one.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 2: The top line is, we brought everybody the news about
Speaker 2: the UFO Transparency Amendment. It was included by the Senate
Speaker 2: specifically Senator Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds.
Speaker 3: Was a bipartisan bill.
Speaker 2: It actually passed passed the sedit with like eighty seven votes,
Speaker 2: massive support. It ended up, unfortunately being gutted in the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives, specifically by two individuals were Mike Rogers
Speaker 2: and Turner. These two individuals were very close ties to
Speaker 2: the intelligence community, basically working at the behest of the
Speaker 2: Pentagon and the CIA to kill any transparency efforts which
Speaker 2: would have required both the setting up commissions would have
Speaker 2: required mandatory disclosure. A lot of people UFO community are
Speaker 2: actually very upset about this, and they're also now highlighting
Speaker 2: a very interesting speech which was given by Senator Schumer
Speaker 2: yesterday upon the passage of the NDAA, where he protested
Speaker 2: against the House of Representatives stripping out these transparency blocks
Speaker 2: and specifically said, based upon presumably what he knows, he
Speaker 2: gets the highest level of intelligence briefing of a genuine
Speaker 2: cover up that's taking place here.
Speaker 3: Here's what Senator Schumer have to.
Speaker 10: Say, Closure Act that he and I co sponsored and
Speaker 10: portions of which we will pass in the NDAA. I
Speaker 10: say to my friend that unidentified unanimous phenomena are of
Speaker 10: immense interest and curiosity to the American people. But with
Speaker 10: that curiosity comes the risk for confusion, disinformation, and mistrust,
Speaker 10: especially if the government isn't prepared to be transparent. The
Speaker 10: United States government has gathered a great deal of information
Speaker 10: about UAPs over many decades, but has refused to share
Speaker 10: with the American people. That is wrong, and additionally, it
Speaker 10: breeds mistrust. We've also been notified by multiple credible sources
Speaker 10: that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which,
Speaker 10: if true, is a violation of the laws requiring full
Speaker 10: notification to the legislative branch.
Speaker 2: A lot of important things here talking about wild it is,
Speaker 2: and it's like these things just happen and they float
Speaker 2: into the ether and everybody thinks it's too wacky, so
Speaker 2: they don't want to cover it.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is the Senate Majority leader. Now. Look,
Speaker 3: politicians lie all the time.
Speaker 2: But one of the reasons why I thought the legislation
Speaker 2: was so important is it doesn't rely on individual testimony
Speaker 2: of a whistleblower or a legislator of I saw this,
Speaker 2: my uncle saw that, or any of that. It was
Speaker 2: straight up like, look, if you have info, you have
Speaker 2: to legally disclose it.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: It's very simple, and I think it's very telling that
Speaker 2: they ended up covering it up.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Dave Grush, the initial UFO whistleblower, kind of spark a
Speaker 2: lot of this, gave some of his reaction on News
Speaker 2: Nation immediately after.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: What we're witnessing right now is quite frankly the greatest
Speaker 5: legislative failure in American history. You know, you had a
Speaker 5: very strong amendment for government transparency on this issue. Whether
Speaker 5: you believe my allegations or not, we need to advocate
Speaker 5: for the executive branch, you know, the office of the
Speaker 5: President through executive action to in state such a body
Speaker 5: to advise him on the best course of action. Now
Speaker 5: that you know Congress has failed to legislate appropriately.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I would hope to see that. I'm not
Speaker 3: going to hold my breath.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the unfortunate part of it is
Speaker 2: that there's no statutory things that are in place. One
Speaker 2: of the reasons why the JFK Records Assassination Act was
Speaker 2: so important was.
Speaker 3: Because it let everybody see in the open.
Speaker 2: Every time they push us declassification, we all know what's
Speaker 2: happening here.
Speaker 3: But the fact was is that previously you just pretend
Speaker 3: they moved on. We already had the WARC Commission, just
Speaker 3: got ready the WARR commission.
Speaker 2: And then they opened it up and then they still
Speaker 2: have parts of it declassified. Why everybody involved is dead
Speaker 2: or you just don't want us to know truly what happened.
Speaker 2: I think the fact that now we have to rely
Speaker 2: on presidents. I mean, if you have to rely on
Speaker 2: the capricious political leanings of the executive branch.
Speaker 3: You're already screwed. You're s crewed.
Speaker 2: So I will say the only hopeful note that I've
Speaker 2: been told is that this is that there were a
Speaker 2: lot of people who are inside the government who are
Speaker 2: really reliant on this legislation.
Speaker 3: They want to do the right thing. They're like, I
Speaker 3: want to go through the official channels. This isn't this.
Speaker 2: But if Congress is going to engage in a full
Speaker 2: blown cover up, you know, at the behast, then they're
Speaker 2: going to have to come out and quote unquote unauthorized,
Speaker 2: uncontrolled type disclosure. So it's possible, actually we will see
Speaker 2: even more than we might have through a legal process.
Speaker 2: But you have to always remember a lot of these
Speaker 2: people are terrified of being prosecuted and thrown in jail
Speaker 2: for the rest of their life or worse, you know,
Speaker 2: which is that we've seen some allegations.
Speaker 3: So curious what you think, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think your analogy to the JFK Wreckers Act
Speaker 1: is really important because it's not like that solved the problem,
Speaker 1: but it gave people a tool so that you could
Speaker 1: sue and say, hey, this is what you're required to
Speaker 1: do under law, you're not meaning your obligations, and so
Speaker 1: we're going to take you to court. And also it
Speaker 1: exposed the lack of transparency because you could see the
Speaker 1: short between what they were supposed to do and what
Speaker 1: they were actually doing. So I think you know this,
Speaker 1: that's a very analogous situation here. And it also reminds
Speaker 1: me similarly of the Stock Act, which requires.
Speaker 4: Disclosure of stock trades.
Speaker 1: And it's not that that's solved corruption in government, but again,
Speaker 1: it gave good government activists and grassroots activists in the
Speaker 1: public a tool where you could see at least some
Speaker 1: of what's going on and expose it. You could also
Speaker 1: see the gaps between what people are supposed to disclose
Speaker 1: and what they are actually disclosing, and how often they're
Speaker 1: failing to disclose what they're required to under that regulation.
Speaker 1: So to me, it sort of fits in a similar
Speaker 1: category here.
Speaker 4: I want to know more.
Speaker 1: From you, Sagura about what you made of Schumer's comments,
Speaker 1: because to me, that was pretty extraordinary to have Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer like I can't imagine he would just make accusations
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 4: Willy nilly has he been a like which side of this.
Speaker 1: Has he been on has he been a real transparency
Speaker 1: advocate or has he been you know, kind of in
Speaker 1: the middle, or what's the deal, Chuck is a.
Speaker 2: Recent convert Okay, I kind of came out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: We're not really sure or why we will take it.
Speaker 2: I look, I have no ideas. Remember the Gang the
Speaker 2: Gang of Eight are the people who are supposedly the
Speaker 2: members of Congress who get the most insight to the
Speaker 2: US intelligence community. Although you know that you can't necessarily
Speaker 2: rely on that. If I had to guess, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe he had somebody who came to him. He was
Speaker 2: moved very much by Dave Grush or some other whistleblowers
Speaker 2: others who had spoken to him.
Speaker 3: This actually happens a lot. You'll have people who are
Speaker 3: in the government.
Speaker 2: They'll go to a member of Congress because members of
Speaker 2: Congress also have security clearance, so like, here's what I know,
Speaker 2: and here's what's happening inside the government, and then the
Speaker 2: Congress will come This is kind of like the Church
Speaker 2: Committee many other transparency efforts. They will come through because
Speaker 2: they have clearance, and then they will enforce a provision
Speaker 2: in the government which will require then disclosure. But I
Speaker 2: mean the exact statement from Schumer is that there is
Speaker 2: an actual cover up, right. He says, for the government
Speaker 2: to obtain and he recovered UAP material or biological remains
Speaker 2: that may have been provided to private entities in the
Speaker 2: past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people.
Speaker 2: That's a direct quote from Senator Rounds, an Idaho senator,
Speaker 2: a Republican here who is working with Senator Schumer. I
Speaker 2: mean they are alleging, I mean effectively saying that they
Speaker 2: have knowledge of something. Same too with Grush. If you
Speaker 2: look a little bit more and you dig in some
Speaker 2: of the things that he's talked about, he's now saying
Speaker 2: he's got some firsthand knowledge of things that happened.
Speaker 3: But and I get it. You know, everybody who's.
Speaker 2: Watching this is frustrated because they're like, oh, it's always
Speaker 2: a guy or from a guy.
Speaker 3: And I agree.
Speaker 2: That's why I don't want to rely on Dave Grush.
Speaker 2: I don't want to rely on Chuck Schumer. I don't
Speaker 2: want to rely on Mike Rounds or any of these
Speaker 2: other people that have come out because you can't prove
Speaker 2: any of that. I want something you can see in
Speaker 2: my hands like documents. That's why some of the all
Speaker 2: the stuff from the past, to me, all these government
Speaker 2: records about Roswell, about Blue Book, about the cover ups
Speaker 2: and the history, and I've talked about all that. That's
Speaker 2: so compelling to me because these are the people who
Speaker 2: are actually involved in the program who lied about Roswell,
Speaker 2: then came out and then wrote down, you know, classified
Speaker 2: records all that that didn't come out for decades later.
Speaker 2: And you read this and you can't even believe, you know,
Speaker 2: some of what you're saying. Most of it we've now
Speaker 2: moved past. So the Disclosure Act, unfortunately, I was even
Speaker 2: led to believe by a lot of people involved. They
Speaker 2: said they thought they really were going to get past it.
Speaker 2: But it really does seem that the two individuals here,
Speaker 2: Turner and Rogers just just it was a absolute non starter.
Speaker 2: They were like, this is going this was Tier one,
Speaker 2: top priority. And then you got to ask yourself, why
Speaker 2: imagine the JFK thing. If a member of Congress who
Speaker 2: had such big ties to CIA and Pentagon just blocked
Speaker 2: the JFK, or somebody like Arlen Spector, if anybody remembers
Speaker 2: that was he was a senator from Pennsylvania. He was
Speaker 2: on the Warrant Commission, and he came up with the
Speaker 2: magic bullet theory. Imagine if at the time that he
Speaker 2: was lobbying hard openly in the public against jfk assassination.
Speaker 2: We all know what's happening there, we know why, and
Speaker 2: yet for somehow with this the press, everybody just moves
Speaker 2: past it. It's like me and a bunch of other
Speaker 2: guys on Twitter, I don't understand it. I think everybody
Speaker 2: just thinks it's wacky and they think it's you know,
Speaker 2: they don't want to be tainted by looking like a kook.
Speaker 3: But this is the Senate majority leader.
Speaker 2: This is not you know, this isn't just daily mail
Speaker 2: articles and things like that are happening well.
Speaker 1: And the other dynamic that could be playing out here is,
Speaker 1: you know, members of Congress can really get in their
Speaker 1: feelings when they when there's like a turf four and
Speaker 1: an ego battle too, Like if they feel like they're
Speaker 1: being lied to and like you know, members of the
Speaker 1: executive branch are not being upfront with them. That can
Speaker 1: create a certain dynamic there. But also so it's Turner
Speaker 1: and Rogers who are the So isn't Turner, the guy
Speaker 1: who like worked in the defense industry and tastes like
Speaker 1: tons of like aerospace.
Speaker 2: Offense, aerospace defense contractor, dont like in terms of donations,
Speaker 2: is out in the open.
Speaker 4: And wasn't it Rogers, wasn't he like FBI exactly?
Speaker 3: This is what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: It's just checking that I had to write people in
Speaker 4: my head.
Speaker 3: Look, Brush did an interview with Tucker Carlson yesterday.
Speaker 2: I recommend you look at it. You know, he continues
Speaker 2: to speak out, and it props to the guy. I'm
Speaker 2: trying to get him here.
Speaker 3: On the show as well. I'd like to talk to
Speaker 3: him a little bit.
Speaker 2: But in general, what you continue is it's everything you
Speaker 2: have now is out in the old open, So it's
Speaker 2: up to you.
Speaker 3: And also it's up to a lot of us.
Speaker 2: Like we got close this time around, maybe we can
Speaker 2: do it next time. But it's going to do it's
Speaker 2: going to take a long time. I think this is
Speaker 2: evidence of just how big of an uphill battle the
Speaker 2: people face just again to get official transparency. I don't
Speaker 2: know why it should be so difficult, but maybe it
Speaker 2: tells us something.
Speaker 1: So we've got a little viral clip we wanted to
Speaker 1: share with you guys, amidst all the concern nationwide about
Speaker 1: harassment and anti Semitism and hate speech on campus. This
Speaker 1: video went viral of a woman we don't see her
Speaker 1: on camera and she decides to remain anonymous, apparently wearing.
Speaker 4: The Kafia scarf, which is associated.
Speaker 1: With Palestinian cause, walking around Cambridge near Harvard and getting
Speaker 1: harassed and stalked by this woman. I'll go ahead and
Speaker 1: play it for you, and on the other side, I'll
Speaker 1: reveal who this woman turns out to be.
Speaker 4: Take a look.
Speaker 3: Between you and people who wanted to murder you.
Speaker 5: Hi, camera, thank you for walking through the neighborhoods and
Speaker 5: making him families feel unsafe.
Speaker 8: With your with your tourist spurtant.
Speaker 7: Palestinians felt pretty unsafe when it's really occupied their country.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm glad you're sad oftaughter of civilians.
Speaker 1: I'm not so she's alleging she's making people feel unsafe
Speaker 1: by wearing a scarf. Okay, turns out this woman's name
Speaker 1: is Eve Gerber and she is the wife of former
Speaker 1: Obama administration official and still very prominent economist who works
Speaker 1: at at Harvard, Jason Furman. He's a professor at Harvard's
Speaker 1: Kennedy School. Very much reminiscent of our friend Stuart.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jason Furman literally might be, aside from Thomas Friedman,
Speaker 2: the most preeminent economist in this country.
Speaker 3: I'm not kidding.
Speaker 1: Also well fly because he gets in these like Twitter
Speaker 1: battles and goes on podcasts, very visible, very known and
Speaker 1: very visible, and obviously was an Obama official. And now
Speaker 1: his wife is out there. The woman who is wearing
Speaker 1: the scarf. According to her, Eve Gerbert stopped her car over,
Speaker 1: pulled over to get out and harass her and accuse
Speaker 1: her of wearing a quote unquote terrorist scarf and making
Speaker 1: people feel unsafe. I mean, it's insane on a lot
Speaker 1: of levels. I also have to comment on the fact
Speaker 1: that they're like wild turkeys or something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're wonder I don't know what's going on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, anyway, we'll put that part to the side.
Speaker 1: But you know, it really shines a light on some
Speaker 1: of the claims of people feeling unsafe and the crackdowns
Speaker 1: on campus, on what I would describe as crackdowns on
Speaker 1: free speech based on people like her saying that a
Speaker 1: literal scarf is making her feel unsafe. This is insane
Speaker 1: and it's like outrageous harassment that she's stalking this girl
Speaker 1: and accusing her of supporting terrorism because of a scarf
Speaker 1: that she's wearing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's like the biggest Karen Energy I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: It's just ridiculous obviously. And yeah, I mean the double
Speaker 2: standard here in terms of who imagine if the person
Speaker 2: was wearing a yamaga and walking through Dearborn, Michigan's you
Speaker 2: think you think that I was gonna.
Speaker 1: Go virus someone's stalking them and accusing them where, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it would be totally I mean that would be front
Speaker 1: page news. Every politician in America would be getting asked
Speaker 1: about it. And who was really being made unsafe here?
Speaker 1: The person who stops her car and like follows this
Speaker 1: woman because she doesn't like her scarf, or the student
Speaker 1: who was being stalked by this total psycho.
Speaker 2: It's just so it's so crazy to me that somebody
Speaker 2: who is so rich and so privileged would be driving
Speaker 2: through their neighborhood and pull their car over just to
Speaker 2: engage in an altercation with their who did nothing to them,
Speaker 2: Who's walking through their neighborhood Yet like you said too,
Speaker 2: with the scarf, I assume that this lady knows what
Speaker 2: that scarf me A lot of people don't even know
Speaker 2: what the scarf is. You know, when I lived in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, everybody had that scarf.
Speaker 3: I even had one. We thought it was cool. People
Speaker 3: even wore it was part of their sob or whatever.
Speaker 2: And it was one of those where it wasn't even
Speaker 2: a statement on Palestin.
Speaker 3: It was just a scarf.
Speaker 2: It was not even a political statement. What if she
Speaker 2: had pulled over or said something to somebody who wasn't
Speaker 2: even doing it, And yet even if they were. I
Speaker 2: see people who walk around Washington anywhere. You know, in
Speaker 2: this country, you should to beople wearing Magas shirts whenever
Speaker 2: being get on a plane.
Speaker 3: What are you going to say something to them?
Speaker 2: Or is somebody who's wearing like a BLM shirt whenever
Speaker 2: I'm walking my dog.
Speaker 3: Same thing. Let people live. Why do you care?
Speaker 2: Makes no It literally has zero impact on your life.
Speaker 2: And that look, if you are actively threatening one of
Speaker 2: your neighbors, this is what that's a very different conversation.
Speaker 2: But you're just walking down the street and somebody yells
Speaker 2: at you. Yeah, that reminds The only time I've ever
Speaker 2: experienced something like that is when I wasn't wearing a
Speaker 2: mask in the middle of the outside, by the way,
Speaker 2: and I was on the phone and somebody across the
Speaker 2: street yelled at me.
Speaker 4: By the way, listen.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear, like this conversation about anti
Speaker 1: Semitism rising, like I have seen genuine incidents of anti Summitism,
Speaker 1: you know, here and around the world. I do not
Speaker 1: doubt for a second that there is an increase in
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, for a variety of reasons. One of them
Speaker 1: is that groups like the ADL in so down in
Speaker 1: quitting every Jewish person in the entire world with a
Speaker 1: state that is at best pushing for an ethnic cleansing
Speaker 1: and it worst on its way to a genocide that
Speaker 1: could make juice unsafe and spike anti Semitism. Of course,
Speaker 1: it's on the bigots themselves for their actions and for
Speaker 1: their the hatred that they hold. But when you see
Speaker 1: things like this, it also calls into question, to say
Speaker 1: the very least, you know, the ADL puts ount some
Speaker 1: report that's like, oh, anti Semitic incidents have increased by
Speaker 1: three hundred percent. Well, is this the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that you would classify as a quote unquote anti semitic incident.
Speaker 1: Someone wearing a cafia's scarf or someone protesting at a
Speaker 1: rally and saying a chant that they don't like is
Speaker 1: that classified as a quote unquote anti semitic incident? Because
Speaker 1: apparently this woman wearing the wrong scarf is making Eve
Speaker 1: Gerber feel that she and others in a neighborhood are unsafe.
Speaker 3: Well, you're scratching the service here, Chris Soll.
Speaker 2: I've been talking about this for a long time, don't
Speaker 2: I Basically, and this will be controversial, I don't care.
Speaker 2: I don't believe most quote unquote hate statistics. Anytime somebody's like,
Speaker 2: oh it was a hate crime, Like, yeah, what was it?
Speaker 2: And the reason why is because I don't trust these
Speaker 2: classification regimes the FBI.
Speaker 3: They compile these statistics, they do it based.
Speaker 2: Upon local crime stats and all these other but they
Speaker 2: don't verify the actual criteria.
Speaker 3: For the reason why.
Speaker 2: For example, I've talked about this before, mass shooting. Well,
Speaker 2: Obama dropped the mass shooting definition from four to three. Okay,
Speaker 2: so now there's more mass shootings. Well, are there really
Speaker 2: more mass shootings? And then what is so called mass shooting.
Speaker 2: It turns out a huge bulk of people where three
Speaker 2: people get shot or more are mass suicide? Tragic and
Speaker 2: gang violence? Are those mass shootings in the same way
Speaker 2: that a school shooting is. So it's you know, you
Speaker 2: look at this, it's the same with a lot of
Speaker 2: these hate speech. Well what do they say? They say
Speaker 2: the N word, Okay, that's hate speech. Did they say
Speaker 2: get out of here? It's like, well, what was the context?
Speaker 2: And I know that this can be controversial, But the
Speaker 2: reason why I'm so I reject so much of this
Speaker 2: is I watched all of this come to four in
Speaker 2: the campus regime and then eventually make its way to
Speaker 2: the government, where like we said, you know, the hate
Speaker 2: incident would be somebody like Bubba from NASCAR who says
Speaker 2: that there's a noose on a tree and ignites like
Speaker 2: a national incident, and it turns out that that didn't
Speaker 2: actually happen at all. I've watched too many of these
Speaker 2: that my now smile at rule and maybe this is callous.
Speaker 2: Is my default is.
Speaker 3: I don't believe you.
Speaker 2: I don't you have to prove evidence, because we've just
Speaker 2: seen too many of these used for disgusting ends. I
Speaker 2: would apply the same thing to anti semitism. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: what are we talking about here, Like what's real? Where
Speaker 2: I went to school, GW famous incident there was a
Speaker 2: girl who claimed that people were drawing swastikas on her
Speaker 2: dorm room or maybe around it on her whiteboard or
Speaker 2: something like that, and this everybody freaked out. GW is
Speaker 2: a very large Jewish population, so they installed cameras. Secretly,
Speaker 2: it turned out that the girl was drawing the swastikas herself.
Speaker 3: It's like sick. It's like you're sick in the head.
Speaker 3: It's like you're trying to ignite hatred. But there's a
Speaker 3: lot of that.
Speaker 2: Let's be real in terms of attention seeking, in terms
Speaker 2: of you know, being at the center of attention and
Speaker 2: trying to push political narratives. So I would have everybody
Speaker 2: to urge extra caution every time you see one of
Speaker 2: these things. Just look for the details the incidents. The
Speaker 2: SMALLT rule has never failed me, and it.
Speaker 1: Disgusts me too, because it means when you use the
Speaker 1: term for things that are not anti Semitic, like wearing
Speaker 1: a scarf, for example, then you make the term meaningless.
Speaker 1: And so when there are genuine incidents. You know, there
Speaker 1: was a Manora that was apparently a display that was smash.
Speaker 1: Now we don't know who did it and whatever, but
Speaker 1: when there are genuine incidents, then you've cheapened the language
Speaker 1: surrounding it, and you know that's bad for everyone. So
Speaker 1: the last thing that I'll say about this this video
Speaker 1: and then we'll get to you know, another one of
Speaker 1: these sort of like disputed incidents that I felt like
Speaker 1: we needed to cover because we covered the original video
Speaker 1: and so anyway, we'll get into that at a minute.
Speaker 1: But you know, this also comes after those three men
Speaker 1: of Palestinian origin were shot students, two of whom were
Speaker 1: wearing the Kafias scarf. Now we still don't know, you know,
Speaker 1: the details of why they were targeted, but they were
Speaker 1: walking down the stare read in Vermont, speaking a combination
Speaker 1: of Arabic and English, two of them wearing the scarf,
Speaker 1: and then out of nowhere, this dude comes and shoots them.
Speaker 1: So in any case, you know, there seems to be
Speaker 1: this scarf inciting a lot of passions that are insane.
Speaker 1: This is it is a political statement. I don't think
Speaker 1: that there's anything wrong with making a political statement. With
Speaker 1: your attire. People should not be stoked. They certainly shouldn't
Speaker 1: be shot for daring to express solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Speaker 1: All right, So this other piece, you know, I feel
Speaker 1: sort of complicated about covering this, but let me just
Speaker 1: we'll just get into it. Early on, right after October seventh,
Speaker 1: there were all these protests, and we covered here how
Speaker 1: there was just like this outright genocidal language that seemed
Speaker 1: to be coming from all directions.
Speaker 3: I think we covered on October ten.
Speaker 1: And one of the most prominent examples that we covered
Speaker 1: and many other news outlets covered, was this protest in
Speaker 1: Australia where, among other anti Semitic chance, some of the
Speaker 1: protesters were allegedly chanting gas the Jews. Horrific and noteworthy
Speaker 1: because in the Australian context, that could actually meet the
Speaker 1: criminal threshold for threatening or inciting violence, whereas the other
Speaker 1: antisemitic chants, which have been more confirmed than that one
Speaker 1: that we're being chanted, would not meet that threshold of
Speaker 1: inciting violence. So it becomes a huge story here, and
Speaker 1: certainly in Australia, there's a massive police investigation that was launched,
Speaker 1: and so far nothing has come out of that. Police investigation.
Speaker 1: There's an independent Australian outlet, and this is why I
Speaker 1: was not sure whether to cover this story or not,
Speaker 1: but I felt like we should since we covered the
Speaker 1: original video. I don't know anything about this outlet. I
Speaker 1: did look it up. They seem activist, but somewhat legit.
Speaker 1: They've been around from since nineteen ninety nine. Anyway, they
Speaker 1: are claiming that they have sources and we can put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, who are giving them information
Speaker 1: about that investigation go going on into this chant. There
Speaker 1: has not been any other video that has emerged with
Speaker 1: people chanting that specific thing.
Speaker 4: They say. Nobody can verify it.
Speaker 1: The original video was released from this right wing Jewish
Speaker 1: group called the Australian Jewish Association. They have refused to
Speaker 1: provide the original video. There was an analysis that was
Speaker 1: performed by verification experts that found a number of signs
Speaker 1: that suggest the audio was edited. This review that this
Speaker 1: outlet Kriiche was able to see, noted that the audio
Speaker 1: is on a sync with the video in places a
Speaker 1: section of the audio is repeated during a clip. Some
Speaker 1: audio was repeated while different clips were being shown. These
Speaker 1: suggest that additional editing was done. Beyond splicing different video
Speaker 1: clips together. So in any case, at the best you
Speaker 1: can say this video has been sort of called into question.
Speaker 1: Now the other anti Semitic, the f the Jews chants,
Speaker 1: which are also absolutely horrific, are more confirmed.
Speaker 4: So you may say, like, well, why are you parsing this?
Speaker 4: What does it matter?
Speaker 1: There were anti semitic chance, And I would just say
Speaker 1: for two reasons. Number One, we showed the video and
Speaker 1: so I feel like it's important to correct the record
Speaker 1: if it needs to be corrected. Number Two, it's another
Speaker 1: illustration of how even things to which are widely disseminated
Speaker 1: by mass media outlets can be called into question. And
Speaker 1: number three, I do think the details matter, and we've
Speaker 1: seen this in some of the alleged atrocities which have
Speaker 1: now been debugged from October seventh. October seventh was horrific
Speaker 1: enough as it was. You didn't need to add all
Speaker 1: of these things which have now been debuggd like the
Speaker 1: beheaded babies and the babies in the oven, and the
Speaker 1: children that were tied together that Ntanyahu said, we're all
Speaker 1: burned together. Those things didn't happen. Other horrific atrocities did occur.
Speaker 1: So in any case, That's why I felt like it
Speaker 1: was important to cover this clarification about this video and
Speaker 1: the questions that have been raised about its veracity.
Speaker 2: Well, the reason why it's important is because it's set
Speaker 2: off a firestorm. I think rightfully, if we thought it
Speaker 2: was real and now it turns out it may not
Speaker 2: be real, I think that's always important, especially here, for
Speaker 2: us to correct it and to look at it. And
Speaker 2: it was used as justification for our why for you know,
Speaker 2: similar rhetoric I think on a lot of the Israeli sides.
Speaker 3: So look, and by the way, if.
Speaker 2: Anybody can wants to see if any of that's faked,
Speaker 2: let me know, I'll be happy to talk about it here.
Speaker 2: But I think it's important, you know, to look and
Speaker 2: to make sure that things are real. We've had a
Speaker 2: number of incidents already, have a lot of fake news
Speaker 2: that spread everywhere, you know, with a lot of these
Speaker 2: allegations that were used specifically to hype people up, and
Speaker 2: just like Iraq, just like post nine eleven and all
Speaker 2: of that, a lot of it falls apart, but the
Speaker 2: actions at the time remain the same. Anthrax that's a
Speaker 2: whole other one. A lot of these things were used
Speaker 2: for a very specific purpose. It's why again I'm so
Speaker 2: I am so deeply dubious of almost anything that seems unbelievably,
Speaker 2: because sometimes it is unbelievable.
Speaker 4: All right, Tyler, what you're looking at it?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 2: President Selenski arrived in Washington Tuesday with a single message,
Speaker 2: give US sixty one billion in military aid or you
Speaker 2: are the friend of Putin. He was aided in this
Speaker 2: message by President Biden and Democrats, who implored Republicans to
Speaker 2: dropped their demand and for border security in exchange for
Speaker 2: the AIDS passage. He was also granted a major assist
Speaker 2: by the US intelligence community, who leaked rosy prospects for
Speaker 2: Ukraine to the American press. The press predictably lapped it
Speaker 2: up and breathlessly reported the following Russia has lost nearly
Speaker 2: ninety percent of its pre war army to death or injury,
Speaker 2: totaling some three hundred and fifteen thousand losses of the
Speaker 2: initial three hundred and sixty thousand that stood in the
Speaker 2: army before the February twenty twenty two invasion. Additionally, they
Speaker 2: assessed that Russia has lost two thirds of his existing
Speaker 2: tank force and some twenty two hundred tanks out of
Speaker 2: existing thirty five hundred. By any metric, this is humiliating. Russia,
Speaker 2: before the invasion was considered a world class military and
Speaker 2: while it was not on par with forces from the
Speaker 2: US or the UK, for example, the idea that they
Speaker 2: would have trouble conquering Ukraine entirely.
Speaker 3: Was not a question.
Speaker 2: But then, what the intelligence assessments and the media is
Speaker 2: not telling you is what does Russia look like today?
Speaker 2: First and foremost that must be understood is this basic fact.
Speaker 2: Russia is not a West country. In a normal Western country,
Speaker 2: when you lose three hundred thousand guys, you have democratic revolt.
Speaker 3: In Russia.
Speaker 2: The elite genuinely does not care, and the population also
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to care much. In fact, the most recent
Speaker 2: independent polling out of Russia tells US seventy five percent
Speaker 2: of the population supports the war in Ukraine. Bizarrely, the
Speaker 2: number of death pensions now being paid to widows has
Speaker 2: actually made the war more popular in the poorest regions.
Speaker 2: Why because the death benefits more than many of these
Speaker 2: impoverished people would ever earn in a normal economy. For many,
Speaker 2: fighting and dying in Ukraine is now a very logical
Speaker 2: economic choice. Furthermore, Russia has now turned to its eternal strength,
Speaker 2: its vast population and economic resources to plug the whole.
Speaker 2: Just days ago, Putin ordered the armed forces to expand
Speaker 2: to a total of one point three to two million
Speaker 2: active troops, four times what with the start of the invasion.
Speaker 3: For the Ukraine.
Speaker 2: There have been no widespread draft riots now in months,
Speaker 2: so that peers to have solved their manpower issues. And
Speaker 2: let's turn to the tank production again. It's genuinely embarrassing
Speaker 2: to lose that many tanks. But what they fail to
Speaker 2: tell you is that Russia went from a country that
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty produced only thirty tanks to one that
Speaker 2: this year has delivered twenty two hundred, the exact number
Speaker 2: that they lost since the beginning of the Ukraine invasion. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: they have no dedicated They've now dedicated thirty percent of
Speaker 2: their entire spending to just defense.
Speaker 3: War production has ramped up.
Speaker 2: To levels where they outpaced nearly all of NATO in
Speaker 2: artillery production, and they have achieved a three percent unemployment
Speaker 2: rate because so many are now imployed in the war effort.
Speaker 2: War spending alone is not only keeping the economy afloat.
Speaker 2: It's actually making many Russians better off on the aggregate
Speaker 2: than they were before. There's actually a good argument to
Speaker 2: be made Russia is stronger today than they were before
Speaker 2: the invasion of Ukraine. Yes, they lost three hundred thousand men.
Speaker 2: That only matters if you care about human life.
Speaker 3: They don't.
Speaker 2: They've tripled the size of their armed forces. They've tested
Speaker 2: which tactics that work and don't on the battlefield. They've
Speaker 2: hardened their supply chain to produce more arms than ever before,
Speaker 2: with nothing.
Speaker 3: The West can do at about it.
Speaker 2: As for oil, they are selling it at high prices
Speaker 2: to nations who don't agree with the Western boycott and
Speaker 2: will continue to do so.
Speaker 3: So that's Russia.
Speaker 2: Let's think about Ukraine, which is currently asking for sixty
Speaker 2: one billion. In his bid for more money, Zelenski actually
Speaker 2: was forced to admit things are far more dire than
Speaker 2: appearance's sake. In one of his meetings with senators, he
Speaker 2: said Ukraine is now considering opening the draft to all
Speaker 2: men over the age of forty. This comes after Ukraine
Speaker 2: has already confirmed the average age of its current military
Speaker 2: is forty three years old. Reminding me of the Army
Speaker 2: of northern Virginia and its last legs, or Hitler's Volkstrom policy,
Speaker 2: where teenagers and old men were drafted in the last
Speaker 2: defense of the German homeland. Ukraine is at a point
Speaker 2: where its manpower problems are far worse, probably than any
Speaker 2: military capability problems they have, especially so when it's the
Speaker 2: only answer to the question of what is your plan
Speaker 2: to win? If it's based on having fifty year old
Speaker 2: men run into a trench for another year at the
Speaker 2: chance of a few square miles of territory before peace
Speaker 2: negotiation is launched, what are we doing here? The answer
Speaker 2: is simple. Our policy towards Ukraine has been nothing short
Speaker 2: of a disaster. Russia is militarily stronger, Ukraine appears on
Speaker 2: the brink of literal societal collapse. If this continues for
Speaker 2: another year. NATO is actually weaker than it was before
Speaker 2: the invasion. Two years into the war, France now has
Speaker 2: the number of heavy artillery pieces that Russia loses every month.
Speaker 2: Germany has enough AMMO to last two days of war.
Speaker 2: The last in the UK is now considering taking out
Speaker 2: museum tanks and giving them to Ukraine because they cannot
Speaker 2: produce enough. The theory behind the US support was to
Speaker 2: strengthen NATO. In reality it has been to cover for
Speaker 2: them so they don't have to take care of their
Speaker 2: own backyard.
Speaker 3: Every single metric the policy he has failed.
Speaker 2: If the West is not wise up here, there will
Speaker 2: not be a Ukraine to seek a peace deal because
Speaker 2: Russia will just achieve outright total military victory. Billions of
Speaker 2: dollars are already been wasted. Hundreds of thousands are dead.
Speaker 2: This is what America has to show for it just
Speaker 2: the latest in a string of strategic defeats since Vietnam.
Speaker 2: It is obviously time to try something very very different.
Speaker 2: How crazy is that? The museum piece angle and also on.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for watching. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: We've got the RFK junior interview later on. It will
Speaker 2: post for our premium subscribers later today, and then it
Speaker 2: will be available widely for everybody tomorrow. Stay tuned, become
Speaker 2: a Supremium member if you can, and we will see
Speaker 2: you all later.