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.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody day.
Speaker 3: What do we have RSTL.
Speaker 1: Indeed we do. There was a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: happening this weekend. Your tax dollars going to foreign wars.
Speaker 1: How excited are we about the bipartisan consensus that always
Speaker 1: seems to win in Washington. We've got some big news
Speaker 1: out of Israel. A couple things to look at. So
Speaker 1: the US vetoing a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN
Speaker 1: Security Council. We'll talk about the fallout from that. Also,
Speaker 1: BB apparently worried about potential arrest warrants coming from the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court, so lots of break down. There've also
Speaker 1: got some Trump news for you man self. Ima outside
Speaker 1: of his trial last week, but also opening statements start today,
Speaker 1: so a lot to break down. There also some interesting
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories about what Trump has been up to while
Speaker 1: he's in the courtroom. Don't want to miss that one.
Speaker 3: You're going to enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, huge victory for labor and the United Auto Workers
Speaker 1: in particular, a resounding win at that Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.
Speaker 1: Will break down what happened and what it means going forward.
Speaker 1: Got a couple of highlights for you from Tucker on
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan going in on a few people and floating
Speaker 1: us through a few interesting theories.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll discuss.
Speaker 1: We've got thoughts on and we've got a great guest
Speaker 1: on today, Prump Thoker, to talk about these protests happening
Speaker 1: specifically at Columbia that have been become a big subject
Speaker 1: of national attention and debate. The President issuing a statement,
Speaker 1: Eric Adams issuing a statement. So we will tell you
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on there.
Speaker 2: Yes, of course that is the most important story in
Speaker 2: the country to our elites. But of course that makes
Speaker 2: sense especially with or We're going to begin our show today.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, we've teased in a million
Speaker 2: times and it is coming. We've got a big announcement
Speaker 2: that's coming soon from Emily and Ryan. You'll hear it
Speaker 2: first from them. But of course if you want to
Speaker 2: help us out, all of us breakingpoints dot com to
Speaker 2: be able to support some of that work. It's a
Speaker 2: big announcement that our premium subscribers are going to know
Speaker 2: about first, and they're also going to get exclusive access
Speaker 2: to whatever that future content may be.
Speaker 3: So just put that out there.
Speaker 2: So if you want to go ahead and sign up,
Speaker 2: we would welcome you to do so. But as we
Speaker 2: teased everybody on Thursday, a big vote was happening in
Speaker 2: the House of Representatives after Speaker Mike Johnson stabbed his
Speaker 2: own party in the back and decided to pass aid
Speaker 2: for Ukraine and for Israel, using an unprecedented parliamentary maneuver
Speaker 2: which basically allowed Democrats to vote for the Ukraine aid
Speaker 2: Republicans to vote for.
Speaker 3: The Israeli aid package.
Speaker 2: It all together and create the greatest uniparty war funding
Speaker 2: that Washington has ever seen. And they did not disappoint
Speaker 2: in their display of dual loyalty.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up.
Speaker 2: There on the screen as the votes passed through the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives that officially got the bill. Across the aisle,
Speaker 2: you see Ukraine flags that are all across chantings Slava Ukraine.
Speaker 2: You've got non American flag in site there by the way,
Speaker 2: on the flag of the House Representatives. And don't worry,
Speaker 2: there Israel flags on the other side too, so don't
Speaker 2: act like they didn't exist there.
Speaker 3: They're being passed out. What some representatives Crystal were.
Speaker 2: Actually facetiming Ukrainian soldiers who are on the front line,
Speaker 2: just to say you're welcome.
Speaker 3: We finally have accomplished it for you.
Speaker 2: And I guess the main takeaway that we can have
Speaker 2: from this is just the absolute level of dedication that
Speaker 2: these people have to moving heaven and earth to spend
Speaker 2: hundreds of billions for foreign nations so that they can
Speaker 2: conduct war. They've never done it once for the rest
Speaker 2: of us, but for this, of course, we can break precedent.
Speaker 2: Screw you know. There's no talk of filibuster or any
Speaker 2: of that other stuff. Yeh, whenever it comes to this,
Speaker 2: sixty some billion dollars from Ukraine, twenty six billion dollars
Speaker 2: for Israel, the vast majority of that being fed entirely
Speaker 2: to the military industrial complex and to these nations with
Speaker 2: it comple leet blank check that's given to them.
Speaker 1: Which is something they weirdly are like bragging about, like
Speaker 1: that's a selling point, Like, don't worry, this is a
Speaker 1: lot of this money is going to go to the
Speaker 1: military industrial complex. Don't you feel great about that?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 1: Listen, when it comes to you getting healthcare, you're getting
Speaker 1: higher wages. When it comes to you know, making sure
Speaker 1: seniors can live on Social Security, your people can afford childcare.
Speaker 1: You've got universal access to preschool, or people can even
Speaker 1: just take paid leave if they, you know, are having
Speaker 1: a baby. None of that. We can't get that done.
Speaker 1: We don't have the money, et cetera, et cetera. It's
Speaker 1: too difficult, it's too hard. But they will move heaven
Speaker 1: and earth to make sure that we continue funding wars,
Speaker 1: whether it is Listen, with regard to Ukraine, I'm incredibly
Speaker 1: sympathetic to the Ukrainians. I think it was wrong and illegal,
Speaker 1: the Russian invasion, But we have to be real about
Speaker 1: the fact at this point that number one, we're the
Speaker 1: ones who have dragged them to continue this war by
Speaker 1: thwarting diplomatic negotiations. Number Two, there is no end in sight.
Speaker 1: There's not even a fig leaf of hey, once we
Speaker 1: give them this money, then victories around the corner. There's
Speaker 1: none of that. And number three, their own people at
Speaker 1: this point, the military age men of their own population
Speaker 1: do not want to fight. So we know the reports
Speaker 1: about people who are disabled, who are too old, who
Speaker 1: have mental disabilities, being pulled off the street and sent
Speaker 1: to the front lines, and we're celebrating putting the guns
Speaker 1: in their hands. We're celebrating with regard to Israel. Look
Speaker 1: at what has happened here. I mean, according to Euromag,
Speaker 1: human rights min are over forty thousand Palestinian scaled. There
Speaker 1: was just we're going to cover this later. A strike
Speaker 1: on two strikes on Rafa killed twenty two people, eighteen
Speaker 1: of them children. The entire Gaza strip is annihilated, aid
Speaker 1: workers slaughtered, and we're still shipping them weapons as if
Speaker 1: none of this has happened. It's outrageous. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: really I'm not surprised by it. I knew at some
Speaker 1: point they would figure out how to get this done.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you want a glimpse into why,
Speaker 1: politicians like Mike Johnson. He's always been fervently Zionis. I mean,
Speaker 1: the first thing he did when he became speaker members
Speaker 1: call met and Yahoo and passed some anti Semitism resolution.
Speaker 1: That one's not surprising. But he did a one eighty
Speaker 1: on Ukraine and put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You wonder why, because this is the media treatment you
Speaker 1: get by passing Ukraine aid. Johnson became an unlikely church Hill.
Speaker 1: There is nothing but plaudits from the media for funding
Speaker 1: wars over and over and over again. Remember how Joe
Speaker 1: Biden one good thing Joe Biden did withdrawing from Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Relentlessly trash for that, even though it was overwhelmingly what
Speaker 1: the American people wanted. Here Johnson going against, especially on Israel.
Speaker 1: I'll show you the pulling and a little bit what
Speaker 1: the American people wanting, and suddenly all their vaunted concern
Speaker 1: for democracy evaporates when it comes to sending your hard
Speaker 1: on tax dollars into these conflicts to slaughter for children.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I will be honest, this is the blackest pill
Speaker 2: that I've had in a really long time. After all
Speaker 2: the work that we've done here on the show, that
Speaker 2: the media and others. Even they have been forced to
Speaker 2: admit the failure of the cause in Ukraine, they still
Speaker 2: decide to do sixty billion dollars. What so that and
Speaker 2: this is the worst park Crystal. This sixty billion dollars
Speaker 2: will have a single objective. It will prolong this war
Speaker 2: for about one more year. According to the funding statistics
Speaker 2: that have come out, this will buy them approximately half
Speaker 2: of their failed counter offensive. The net result of this
Speaker 2: is going to be probably a bunch of fifty to
Speaker 2: seventy year old Ukrainian men who are going to lose limbs. Now,
Speaker 2: after that period dries up, and they continue to fail
Speaker 2: on the front line and continue to have a five
Speaker 2: to one artillery disadvantage against the Russians, and the Russians
Speaker 2: continue to recoup all of the losses that they've already
Speaker 2: had in their military ravevamp their military industrial complex, have
Speaker 2: their economy grow according to the if a nonpartisan source,
Speaker 2: more than the entire European Union. After all of that
Speaker 2: is now clear, a year from now, what do you
Speaker 2: think is going to happen? Sixty billion will pale to
Speaker 2: what they are going to ask for now to rebuild Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Somebody's got to pay for all those limbs, and for
Speaker 2: all those dead guys, and for pensions and forever whatever survives,
Speaker 2: whatever rump of the Ukrainian state does eventually make it
Speaker 2: out of here, we will then be on the hook
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 3: It never ends. This has no purpose.
Speaker 2: Now, if they were using this for defensive purposes, maybe, okay,
Speaker 2: maybe it would have some sort of justification. But Zelenski
Speaker 2: does not commit to defense. Instead, he says, this will
Speaker 2: enable us for victory. How many times do we have
Speaker 2: to hear these fake cries of victory. They failed in
Speaker 2: the counter offensive. They have one of the most tactically
Speaker 2: inefficient and incompetent armies in the world. They have not
Speaker 2: able to use NATO tactics. Their weapons have made no
Speaker 2: difference whenever they were flushed. Their lead general, the head
Speaker 2: that they replaced, their military commander with.
Speaker 3: His nickname is the Butcher.
Speaker 2: Not by the Russians, the people you would want him nickname,
Speaker 2: the Butcher, by his own people. That's what they call
Speaker 2: him the Butcher, because his entire strategy is to just
Speaker 2: throw as many people into this as possible on Israel
Speaker 2: as well, I mean even zoom out.
Speaker 3: Just from Israel's own actions.
Speaker 2: What have they done to make America more safe, nothing
Speaker 2: invite more attacks on American service members World War III.
Speaker 2: Multiple are dead now as a result of our posture
Speaker 2: in the Middle East in retaliation for Israel's actions, tens
Speaker 2: of billions of dollars that has been spent deploying US
Speaker 2: military and naval assets. The defense against the Iranian attack
Speaker 2: alone costs the United States one point three billion dollars
Speaker 2: in missile interceptors and including missiles that cost some twenty
Speaker 2: four million dollars each deployed by the US to shoot
Speaker 2: down Iranian ballistic missiles, only to then invite in Israeli
Speaker 2: strike out on Iran with God knows what the hell
Speaker 2: is going to happen in retaliation.
Speaker 3: So now what you know, where.
Speaker 2: Are we Why are we all paying for this to
Speaker 2: continue whenever we clearly could put an end to it
Speaker 2: if we wanted. So in both cases, you have wars
Speaker 2: that are making America less safe, that are bad for
Speaker 2: the populations I would.
Speaker 3: Say, both of Israel and for the population of Gaza. Yeah,
Speaker 3: which I could easily make that case.
Speaker 2: The only people who are benefiting are the war manufacturers
Speaker 2: and the religion of the dual loyalty leadership class in
Speaker 2: this country, and I'm going to continue to use.
Speaker 1: That really triple loyalty a vice.
Speaker 3: What I would say is this is that this is
Speaker 3: you know Trump. I always go back.
Speaker 2: I went back to read about seven years ago. He
Speaker 2: gave a speech which clearly didn't believe, but it was
Speaker 2: a good speech done the last It was his first
Speaker 2: foreign policy speech, and he has a line in there
Speaker 2: which has always stuck with me is that we will
Speaker 2: not worship no longer at the false song of globalism.
Speaker 2: And that's when I see Ukrainian and Israeli flags being
Speaker 2: waived on the floor of the United States House of Representatives,
Speaker 2: When I see our Speaker of the House with two
Speaker 2: flags on his lapel, hell not a lapel, neither of
Speaker 2: which are the United States flag, but are two nations
Speaker 2: which he just broke parliamentary procedure to spend hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars to. I can say nothing else than
Speaker 2: these people are loyal to a foreign government and not
Speaker 2: to our own. Now, Speaker Johnson actually loyal to even
Speaker 2: higher authority than any nation. Gave a justification in particular
Speaker 2: for some of this, Israel aid on Newsmax.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 5: Israel is a critical ally of ours, and I think
Speaker 5: most people understand the necessity of this funding. They're fighting
Speaker 5: for their very existence. They're the only stable democracy in
Speaker 5: the Middle East. I mean, of course, for those of
Speaker 5: us who are believers, it's a biblical admonition to stand
Speaker 5: with Israel. We will and they will prevail as long
Speaker 5: as they're there with them. And this is an important,
Speaker 5: very important symbolic gesture and a very important replenishment of
Speaker 5: their stockpiles, for example of the Iron Dome. The reason
Speaker 5: they shot down all those drones and missiles in the
Speaker 5: last attack by Iran is because we assisted with that.
Speaker 5: I think the American people understand the importance of that.
Speaker 3: Did you guys hear that line?
Speaker 2: For those of us who are believers, it is a
Speaker 2: biblical admonition to stand with Israel. It's like, well, if
Speaker 2: it's in the Bible, I guess there ain't getting around that.
Speaker 6: This is this is literally out of his mouth the
Speaker 6: speaker of the House of Representatives, the third in line
Speaker 6: for the American presidency, who believes that he is like
Speaker 6: what some hand of God?
Speaker 3: And don't let's not let this go either.
Speaker 2: John Hagey, who is the pastor who leads the ten
Speaker 2: million Christian group you know for Israel, was here in
Speaker 2: Washington just two days before and met with Speaker Johnson,
Speaker 2: probably to give him the language that he needs. And
Speaker 2: all of the reporting that we've gotten since Crystal is
Speaker 2: that the way that Johnson arrived at this is that
Speaker 2: he prayed on him. And listen, you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to put down people who are religious and who pray.
Speaker 2: I think that's fine, But I would just simply ask
Speaker 2: that in the United States of America, a country with
Speaker 2: a separation of church and state, that we arrive at
Speaker 2: policy decisions through reason, intellect, and you know, possible debate,
Speaker 2: rather than from biblical admonition.
Speaker 1: My simple request, Well, what this means is that it
Speaker 1: actually does not matter to Speaker Johnson what Israel does
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Doesn't matter whether it is truly a genocide,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, whether there are war crimes, doesn't matter, whether
Speaker 1: it's good for America's interest or not. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: because for him it's a quote biblical admonition. You can't argue.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no debate with that. That's just like no,
Speaker 1: my fervent, ideological, unshakable belief is that God requires me
Speaker 1: to support Israel, no matter the cost or consequence for Palestinians,
Speaker 1: no matter the cost or consequence for Americans. And this
Speaker 1: is one of the most powerful people in the country,
Speaker 1: if not the world, who is making policy decisions this way, Like,
Speaker 1: what can you even say about that? And you see
Speaker 1: how motivating this is among a certain segment of the
Speaker 1: Republican base as why I keep talking about this, but
Speaker 1: I think it's so extraordinarily revealing. When there was polling
Speaker 1: asking by religious demographic group, how do you feel about
Speaker 1: the net Nyahu government? Not even about Israel or you
Speaker 1: know what's happening in Gaza, but just the net Nyahu government.
Speaker 1: The religious group that gave him the highest approval ratings
Speaker 1: was not Jewish people. It was by a mile white
Speaker 1: Evangelical Christians. So that's, you know, that's what's motivating him
Speaker 1: with regard to Israel. I think that's an important part
Speaker 1: of how he ended up flipping on a dime with
Speaker 1: regard to Ukraine as well, because he realized, in order
Speaker 1: to fulfill his biblical admonition to support Israel no matter what,
Speaker 1: he was also going to have to play ball with
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Ukraine Bill. Let's not forget the way
Speaker 1: he also flipped on a dime with regard to making
Speaker 1: sure Americans can continue to be surveilled. And you know
Speaker 1: the other piece of this saga is that he talks about,
Speaker 1: in addition to his religious faith, he also talks about
Speaker 1: how the Intel Committee, how the Intelligence Agency, how they
Speaker 1: really you know, they really got to him, what they
Speaker 1: had to say to him. And we've seen this a
Speaker 1: lot of times. You saw this with Trump as well.
Speaker 1: It's so easy to roll these people. It's so easy
Speaker 1: to scare them and manipulate them, saying we saw the
Speaker 1: same thing with Obama too, by the way, when he
Speaker 1: was Prisident of the United States. Especially when you have
Speaker 1: someone who was inexperienced, who hasn't been around the block,
Speaker 1: who hasn't seen these tactics which are rolled out by yes,
Speaker 1: the deep state over and over and over again, they
Speaker 1: get rolled so easily, especially when his religious belief also
Speaker 1: leads him in the direction of wanting to pass both
Speaker 1: the Israel Aid and the Ukrainian AID in order to
Speaker 1: make sure that Israel is getting their dollars to keep
Speaker 1: bombing babies.
Speaker 2: If you guys want an inside of you into this.
Speaker 2: There's a book called Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward. It
Speaker 2: was written back in twenty ten. It's specifically about the
Speaker 2: decision that Obama was forced into to do the surge
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan, the way that David Petraeus, Stan McCrystal, Mike mullen,
Speaker 2: and the Joint chiefs of Staff, the US Intelligence Community
Speaker 2: of the CIA basically set Obama up for complete failure.
Speaker 2: If he didn't then I promise to a surge, and
Speaker 2: we had a chance at that time to actually pull
Speaker 2: out of the country, and instead we escalated for that.
Speaker 2: I highly recommend people read that because that is mechanically
Speaker 2: the exact way that you, even as the president, can
Speaker 2: get set up by these people. And tuckers some thoughts
Speaker 2: on that too, by the way, which we'll get a
Speaker 2: little bit in the show, but we would be remiss
Speaker 2: if we didn't highlight a little bit of how again,
Speaker 2: we came to this decision. Let's put this police up
Speaker 2: there on the screen from CNN. They confirm it. Quote
Speaker 2: he was torn between having to save his job and
Speaker 2: do the right thing. Congressman Mike McCall said, quote, he
Speaker 2: prayed over it. Prayer apparently the way that Speaker Johnson
Speaker 2: arrived at this. Now, let's take a look at the poll,
Speaker 2: shall we, you know, in the ostensible way that we
Speaker 2: live in a democracy. Let's go and put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. Here's what we've got on Israel.
Speaker 2: This is April twelfth, twenty twenty four. Should more weapons
Speaker 2: and supplies to Israel? Should we send more? Should or
Speaker 2: should not? All should?
Speaker 3: Forty sixty should not?
Speaker 2: Democrats thirty two percent should, Sixty eight percent say should not.
Speaker 2: Independence thirty eight percent say should, sixty four percent say not.
Speaker 3: Republicans No, not that much difference at all.
Speaker 2: Republicans fifty five percent say should, forty five percent say
Speaker 2: they should not. And what's also important to keep in
Speaker 2: mind for that plus ten is that even nearly half
Speaker 2: of the Republicans are saying there we shouldn't send more
Speaker 2: weapons to Israel. Now, in terms of the look at
Speaker 2: the vote, where we actually have the amount of military
Speaker 2: that's being sent to Israel, you have some plus sixty
Speaker 2: four members who actually end up voting then four the
Speaker 2: actual military eight to Israel in no way representative of
Speaker 2: their base. And the exact same thing holds true for Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: and what do we find. This is just from the
Speaker 2: latest poll that happened on Ukraine, where we see, amongst
Speaker 2: US adults, only twenty seven percent say that we are
Speaker 2: doing too little for Ukraine. Thirty three percent say, quote
Speaker 2: about the right amount, and that was prior to the package,
Speaker 2: and too much is now the majoritarian position at thirty
Speaker 2: seven Only Democrats forty four percent say we're doing too little.
Speaker 2: Amongst Republicans, fourteen percent say we're doing too little, twenty
Speaker 2: nine percent say about the right right about right, and
Speaker 2: fifty five percent say that we are doing too much. So,
Speaker 2: as we can all see very clearly, the Republicans were
Speaker 2: a majority of the Republicans in the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: voted against Ukraine aid, were rolled by their speaker to
Speaker 2: work with Democrats, and basically here Democrats just are much
Speaker 2: more willing I guess to ignore some of their base
Speaker 2: on that question, but then work also with Republicans who
Speaker 2: overwhelmingly voted for the Israeli. So you have two parties
Speaker 2: basically behold into two foreign nations. Loyalty, try loyalty, I
Speaker 2: guess across all of this and work in tandem to
Speaker 2: make this push to the United States Senate, where tomorrow
Speaker 2: on Tuesday, it's almost certainly going to become the law
Speaker 2: of the land. And they're already salivating at the Pentagon
Speaker 2: over shipping long range weapons to Ukraine, long range weapons
Speaker 2: in US stockpiles, long range weapons which will be used
Speaker 2: to strike inside of Russian territory or the crimean grid bridge.
Speaker 3: And who do you think is going to bear the
Speaker 3: cost of that?
Speaker 2: It's the United States of America if Ukraine gets itself
Speaker 2: in a bigger conflagration.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you a question, Sager, because I
Speaker 1: am a little conflicted about how to think about this. So,
Speaker 1: as you just pointed out, you know, the Democratic base
Speaker 1: is first of all, they've been overwhelmingly in favor of
Speaker 1: a ceasefire. A majority of Joe Biden voters say yes,
Speaker 1: this is a genocide, and they are overwhelmingly opposed to
Speaker 1: shipping more military aid to Israel. Certainly, the numbers of
Speaker 1: Democrats in the House that voted against this Israel aid
Speaker 1: package do not reflect the sentiment of the base. So
Speaker 1: that's on the one hand. On the other hand, compared
Speaker 1: to previous aid military aid to Israel, thirty seven voting.
Speaker 1: Thirty seven Democrats specifically voting against it is a significantly
Speaker 1: higher number than previously. I think the last time there
Speaker 1: was a question about like replenishing Iron Dome, sending a
Speaker 1: billion dollars for that, I was like nine Democrats who
Speaker 1: voted against it. So how do you look at that?
Speaker 1: And especially when there were you know, it wasn't just
Speaker 1: like AOC and ilhan Omar. You had a number of
Speaker 1: longtime members who are in leadership positions who even voted
Speaker 1: against that. So how do you think about that?
Speaker 3: I think exactly what I do in Ukraine doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: The majority of Republicans, the party in power in House
Speaker 2: of Representatives voted against A to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Didn't matter. The speaker wanted it, so do the Democrats.
Speaker 3: It doesn't like our We could have a.
Speaker 2: Majority Democrats who are going to oppose Israel and they
Speaker 2: would still find a way to make it pass. That's
Speaker 2: what you should take away from this is like party
Speaker 2: politics does not matter when the uniparty actually wants something.
Speaker 2: It only matters whenever we're talking about mortgage rates or
Speaker 2: housing assistants or basically anything that would actually help any
Speaker 2: of us. If they wanted to get it done. They
Speaker 2: will get it done. The majority of the American public
Speaker 2: thinks we're doing too much for Ukraine, and that was
Speaker 2: before the sixty billion dollars that we just shipped over there.
Speaker 2: The vast majority of Republicans say and oppose this military
Speaker 2: aid for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, you know. Trump can bamboozle them. Danglo
Speaker 3: will stop the steal in.
Speaker 2: Front of their eyes, and they'll forget whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to election day. Aside for some young people, most people
Speaker 2: are going to vote on abortion, and most people are
Speaker 2: not going to are going to remember that, are not
Speaker 2: going to remember this whenever it comes time to the
Speaker 2: ballot box. I already saw a clip of AOC I
Speaker 2: think with Mehdi Hassen and he was like, what do
Speaker 2: you say to somebody who is not going to vote
Speaker 2: for Biden? Yeah, And she's like, well, I am on
Speaker 2: the side of democracy, you know, not only here but
Speaker 2: across the world. I'm like, okay, all right, cool, I mean,
Speaker 2: there's just nothing that will ever happen where you're not
Speaker 2: going to vote against the Republicans. Most Republicans vote exactly
Speaker 2: the same way on the margins. There may be some
Speaker 2: but at the end of the day, they can stablish.
Speaker 2: They don't even stablish in the back, they stablish in
Speaker 2: the front, and they twist the knife and then they
Speaker 2: they give the you know, the knife over to us,
Speaker 2: and then they accuse you of being the one who's
Speaker 2: in the wrong, and they're like, why are you committing
Speaker 2: violence when all this is happening, Yeah, which is why
Speaker 2: you have to go and vote in order to bandit
Speaker 2: yourself up.
Speaker 1: I do think there's a bit of a warning sign
Speaker 1: here though, for Israel on the other hand, because you know,
Speaker 1: there used to be this total lockstep uniformity that no
Speaker 1: one broke from, and that you know, anyone who did
Speaker 1: knew that was going to be the end of their
Speaker 1: political career. And even with a pack that Israel lobby
Speaker 1: threatening to spend one hundred million dollars in primaries against
Speaker 1: anyone who even thinks of dissenting, even with that kind
Speaker 1: of firepower trained at now you know, all thirty seven
Speaker 1: of these individuals who voted against this funding, they still
Speaker 1: were willing to do it and still feel like they'll
Speaker 1: be able to hold onto their seats and that you
Speaker 1: know that it was worth paying that price, or that
Speaker 1: there's enough energy on the other side to make up
Speaker 1: for the fact that they could have that money spent
Speaker 1: against them. So I do think as disheartening and depressing
Speaker 1: as this is, there is a bit of a warning
Speaker 1: sign here for Israel and that they just don't have
Speaker 1: quite the lockstep control that they once did.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: I think twenty five thirty years from now, you're right.
Speaker 2: Yeah again, I just point to Ukraine. You can lose
Speaker 2: the public and they'll still get it done for you.
Speaker 2: So in the near term, folks, sign up, because if
Speaker 2: it's up to these people, we would die for foreign
Speaker 2: countries before we would ever die, you know, for any
Speaker 2: of our own interests. And that is the clearest takeaway
Speaker 2: that we have. I would be remiss if I didn't
Speaker 2: leave out President Donald Trump's role in making sure that
Speaker 2: this Ukraine aid actually happened. There's been a lot of
Speaker 2: you know, papering over by the magabase as to how
Speaker 2: exactly Trump went from a guy who spoke again a
Speaker 2: four Ukrainian peace, remember in the famous CNN moment on
Speaker 2: the town hall when he said, I'm for you know,
Speaker 2: stopping the dying.
Speaker 3: I want to find peace.
Speaker 2: I would have peace there in a second, the democratic
Speaker 2: liberal media is like, oh, well he would pull money
Speaker 2: away from Ukraine on day one. Well, you know, he
Speaker 2: also was the one who shipped a lot of lethle
Speaker 2: aid to Ukraine back in twenty fifteen. But Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: and others and Lindsey Graham basically convinced Trump to endorse
Speaker 2: some bs lend lease loan program to the most corrupt
Speaker 2: and poor nation.
Speaker 3: In all of Europe.
Speaker 2: And let's not forget Lindsey Graham here now saying that
Speaker 2: it was Trump. Trump himself is the one responsible for
Speaker 2: getting this through the House. Let's take a lisson.
Speaker 7: So, with all due respect to Senator Events, he's wrong.
Speaker 7: We were told within four days Key would fall.
Speaker 1: But is he wrong about the math? Yea. Is he
Speaker 1: wrong about the production?
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's wrong the whole concept that we can't deal
Speaker 7: with multiple problems. In World War Two, we fought the
Speaker 7: Germans and the Japanese. We have an industrial base that
Speaker 7: needs to be retooled. But the Ukrainian military, with our help,
Speaker 7: has killed about fifty percent of the combat power of
Speaker 7: the Russians. If you pull the plug on Ukraine, Coach,
Speaker 7: you don't have enough capability. There goes Taiwan. Ukrainians are
Speaker 7: fighting like tigers. This aid package has a loan component
Speaker 7: to it. This would not have passed without Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: I want to thank the House Speaker and the King
Speaker 7: Jeffrey's working together in a bipartisan fashion to give weapons
Speaker 7: to Ukraine to buy to fight that matters to us
Speaker 7: and prosident Trump has created a loan component to this package.
Speaker 7: It gives us leverage down the road. So this idea
Speaker 7: that we can't help U Traine, Israel and Taiwan at
Speaker 7: the same time, I reject that.
Speaker 2: I want to thank President Trump for making this to
Speaker 2: go through it now. Listen, According to MAGA Defenders, Crystal,
Speaker 2: Trump has been bamboos.
Speaker 3: Trump can Trump cannot fail. It can only be failing.
Speaker 2: And so if Lindsey Graham went down and look, Trump
Speaker 2: is an idiot, like, let's be honest on policy, just
Speaker 2: doesn't care, it doesn't care about He cares about basically
Speaker 2: one thing, trade and I may be immigration on depending
Speaker 2: on the day. And so when Lindsay Graham goes down
Speaker 2: there and he's.
Speaker 3: Like it be alone, it wouldn't be giving it to them.
Speaker 2: Trump's like, wow, alone, Well, that's great as a businessman,
Speaker 2: and so what do they do. They write in some
Speaker 2: bullshit loan into the text, and then they don't tell
Speaker 2: you that Biden is the president after he signs it.
Speaker 3: Oh, and he can just forgive the entire loan.
Speaker 2: Oh and by the way, the loan is interest free
Speaker 2: and it has an indefinite period on when you supposedly
Speaker 2: get paid back. And so is it alone if there's
Speaker 2: no enforcement terms and there's no interest, or is it
Speaker 2: a gift. It's a gift, that's what's happening here. And
Speaker 2: so it's a complete fake out. And so Trump is
Speaker 2: there's two options. Trump is either too dumb to know
Speaker 2: the difference between a fake loan and a real loan
Speaker 2: and then allow himself to get bamboozled, or he supports
Speaker 2: shipping weapons to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Either has the same net effect to me. So I
Speaker 3: don't care. So it's Trump's fault that this is all
Speaker 3: went through.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And of course Republican voters they're like freaking sheep,
Speaker 2: you know, they're just gonna sit there and eat the
Speaker 2: grab bo, like, oh, it's so terrible with the liberal
Speaker 2: media is saying about mister Trump here, It's like, no,
Speaker 2: this is on Trump. Lindsey Graham ate the rhino. Trump
Speaker 2: is the one who decided to let it pass. So
Speaker 2: let's all just be real clear why it's gonna happen.
Speaker 2: If Trump gets reelected, who does he actually listen to
Speaker 2: And is he still you know, so dumb to be
Speaker 2: able to allow himself to be fooled. And if you
Speaker 2: are fine with that, cool, but just be real honest
Speaker 2: about what your voting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the hope. Consistently, whenever Trump goes against what, you know,
Speaker 1: what he promised the base, it's always, oh, it's not
Speaker 1: his fault and the versisioner's fault. It's this person that's
Speaker 1: a deep state, it says, it's that like, this is
Speaker 1: an adult man who was president of the United States
Speaker 1: at some point he has to be responsible for his
Speaker 1: own actions. And you know, so Marjorie Taylor Green, she
Speaker 1: was against all of this, and she's been very you know, unspoken,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, and on this I'm actually, you know,
Speaker 1: on the same side of her, But she never points
Speaker 1: the finger at Donald Trump and his culpability here. That's
Speaker 1: somehow left out of her analysis. When yeah, you got
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham there on TV saying listen, I want to
Speaker 1: thank Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jefferies, and Donald Trump. Wouldn't happened
Speaker 1: without Trump, And somehow that gets left out of the
Speaker 1: critique hear from those on the Republican side who are making.
Speaker 3: A critiqus genius.
Speaker 2: And again we have the evidence that Trump endorsed it,
Speaker 2: because he literally went to Mike Johnson, went down to Marlago,
Speaker 2: did a joint press conference with Donald Trump where Trump
Speaker 2: endorses on tape the so called loan idea.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 8: They're talking about it, and we're thinking about making it
Speaker 8: in the form of a loan instead of just a gift.
Speaker 8: We keep handing out gifts of billions and billions of dollars,
Speaker 8: and we'll take a look at it. But much more
Speaker 8: importantly to me is the fact that Europe has to
Speaker 8: step up and they have to give money. They have
Speaker 8: to equalize. If they don't equalize, I'm very upset about
Speaker 8: it because they're affected much more than we are. The
Speaker 8: Ukraine situation would have never happened if ice president would
Speaker 8: have never ever happened. And everybody says that, including Democrats,
Speaker 8: that it happened to such an outrage people, millions of
Speaker 8: people are dead right now, both sides. Millions of people
Speaker 8: are dead.
Speaker 2: People keep pointing to that as if it's some evidence
Speaker 2: for why he's changed his position. No, okay, I agree
Speaker 2: with him on Europe. It doesn't matter. That's not what
Speaker 2: you said. What matters is that you endorse the loan. Now,
Speaker 2: for example, Matt Gates and others were trying to claim
Speaker 2: that what we're about to show you was a Trump
Speaker 2: saying he was against the bill. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. He says, why is in Europe
Speaker 2: giving more money to help Ukraine? Why is it the
Speaker 2: United States is over one hundred million dollars into the
Speaker 2: war and we have an ocean between us in a separation.
Speaker 2: Why can't Europe equalize? Blah blah blah blah blah. As
Speaker 2: everyone agrees, Ukrainian survival and strength should be much more
Speaker 2: important to Europe than us, but it is also important
Speaker 2: to us.
Speaker 3: Oh, it is also important to us. Now.
Speaker 2: The only thing that he's even slightly critical of is
Speaker 2: when he says, I am the only one who speaks
Speaker 2: for me, and while it's a total mess caused by
Speaker 2: crooked Joe Biden, blah blah blah, if I were president
Speaker 2: of this war would have never started. That was because
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson was going all over Washington saying, hey, if
Speaker 2: you don't support this bill, then you're against President Trump.
Speaker 3: But he didn't come out against the bill. So look,
Speaker 3: let's be very clear.
Speaker 2: Trump came out very clear, very very clearly against the
Speaker 2: Border aid the border deal previously, and he killed it, right,
Speaker 2: So he also came out against Faiza, and he killed that.
Speaker 3: Whenever you killed the vote. He had the.
Speaker 2: Full capacity to kill this bill if he wanted to,
Speaker 2: and he didn't, which means he's responsible for letting this pass.
Speaker 2: He endorsed it, and now he should bear the consequences,
Speaker 2: just like Joe Biden does whenever and whenever he's president
Speaker 2: to we should not expect anything else from him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and please spare me the whole Like Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is the anti war candidate, bullshit, There is no anti
Speaker 1: war candidate in terms of Biden and Trump or in
Speaker 1: terms of RFK Junior. You could look at Jill Stein
Speaker 1: Cornell West, but you know, likelihood is that they're going
Speaker 1: to have a relatively minimal impact, you know, with regards
Speaker 1: to the comments about Europe. Also Michael Tracy, who shout
Speaker 1: out to him, He's always does a great job actually
Speaker 1: reading through these bills and pulling out the important pieces
Speaker 1: and you know, outlining some of these key bipartisan dynamics.
Speaker 1: But you know, calling for Europe to spend more on
Speaker 1: NATO or calling for Europe to spend more on Ukraine
Speaker 1: isn't a position in favor of, you know, stepping away
Speaker 1: from NATO or step away from Ukraine and trying to
Speaker 1: bring that war to a close. It's a position in
Speaker 1: favor of more funding. So he's not saying we don't
Speaker 1: we shouldn't fund it, we should move forward. He's saying,
Speaker 1: we obviously we're going to continue funding it. We just
Speaker 1: want the Europeans to also fund it additional amounts. So,
Speaker 1: you know, being hard on Europe is actually not consistent
Speaker 1: with a position in favor of we need to be
Speaker 1: looking for an offer, if we need to be looking
Speaker 1: for some sort of a diplomatic conclusion to this. And
Speaker 1: you know, I will with regard to Ukraine, I'll just
Speaker 1: I'll never be over the fact that we undercut those
Speaker 1: original diplomatic negotiations because now it is in nowheresville. You know,
Speaker 1: now the deal that they would get would be far inferior.
Speaker 1: You know, now there is no real negotiating leverage for
Speaker 1: Putin and the Russia. At that point, they were on
Speaker 1: the back foot. Things hadn't gone the way that they planned.
Speaker 1: It didn't look good, so it would have been a
Speaker 1: much stronger negotiating position. Now it's just an endless mess.
Speaker 1: And that's the approach they're taking to it is, let's
Speaker 1: just continue to fund this. We don't need a plan
Speaker 1: to conclude it. We're just going to continue sending an
Speaker 1: entire you know, multiple generations of Ukrainian men to the slaughter.
Speaker 1: And then obviously, you know, with regard to Israel, it's
Speaker 1: just a horror. It's just a horror. It's an indefensible horror.
Speaker 1: The last thing I want to make sure to mention,
Speaker 1: which it's incredible, This isn't even really in the show today,
Speaker 1: but you know, this whole escalation with a run, which
Speaker 1: I think was very intentionally timed as well, is part
Speaker 1: of how the Israel Aid was able to sail through
Speaker 1: as well, because guess what, you know, suddenly, because Israel
Speaker 1: starts this provocation by assassinating top Iranian commanders at their
Speaker 1: consulate building, which is you know, a dramatic contravention of
Speaker 1: the Vienna Convention, international law, et cetera. They do that
Speaker 1: Irat and response Israel's responding. Nothing gets the bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: going more quickly than one of the official bad guys nations,
Speaker 1: you know, going after our big ally in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: So when we're talking about that, we're not talking about
Speaker 1: the suffering and gods, we're not talking about the World
Speaker 1: Central Kitchen Aid workers who were just massacred. We're not
Speaker 1: talking about the apparently imminent ground invasion of Rafa, which
Speaker 1: we'll get to in just a bit. And so that's
Speaker 1: also part of the cover that was provided that allows
Speaker 1: this aid to sail through as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, very well said.
Speaker 1: So let's move on to some updates out of Israel.
Speaker 1: So the US has claimed, especially under Joe Biden, that
Speaker 1: we support a two state solution ultimately to the Israel
Speaker 1: Palestine conflict. So you might think that they would be
Speaker 1: in favor of a UN Security Council vote for Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 3: You would be wrong.
Speaker 1: The US vetoed Palestinian statehood recognition in the Security Council.
Speaker 1: Let's seek a listen to how the State Department spins
Speaker 1: these two very contradictory, apparently positions.
Speaker 9: How are you guys going to vote so, Matt. Since
Speaker 9: October seventh, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace
Speaker 9: in the region can only be achieved through a two
Speaker 9: state solution with Israel's security guaranteed, and it remains our
Speaker 9: view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the
Speaker 9: Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the
Speaker 9: Palestinian authority, with the support of the United States and
Speaker 9: other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach
Speaker 9: cantangibly advanced Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.
Speaker 9: We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions
Speaker 9: in New York, even with the best intentions, will not
Speaker 9: achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in
Speaker 9: the report of the Admission Committee, there was not unimidity
Speaker 9: among the committee members as to whether the applicant met
Speaker 9: the criteria of membership set forth in Article four of
Speaker 9: the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to
Speaker 9: whether the applicants can meet criteria to be considered as
Speaker 9: a state, and Matt, as you also know, We've long
Speaker 9: called on the Palestine authority to undertake necessary reforms to
Speaker 9: establish the attributes of readiness for statehood. And note that Hamas,
Speaker 9: which is, as you all know, a terrorist organization, is
Speaker 9: currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be
Speaker 9: an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution,
Speaker 9: and for that reason, the United States is voting no
Speaker 9: on this proposed Security Council revolution. As an expert of
Speaker 9: the UN, I will also I will also just so
Speaker 9: note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of
Speaker 9: statehood would also require the United States to cease its
Speaker 9: funding to the United Nations.
Speaker 1: So you gotta love that mon who says I just
Speaker 1: googled expeditions how many years since Oslow. It's just such
Speaker 1: a farce at this point and the way this went down,
Speaker 1: so we vetoed this resolution. There were twelve who voted
Speaker 1: in favor. The US was opposed alone by the way,
Speaker 1: and there were two abstentions, UK and Switzerland. Notably US allies, France, Japan,
Speaker 1: and South Korea all supported the resolution. Ken Klippenstein and
Speaker 1: Daniel bogoslaw Over at the Intercept had some good reporting
Speaker 1: about some of the diplomatic pressure that was being applied
Speaker 1: in advance of this vote. Can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. By the way, though it doesn't appear that
Speaker 1: this diplomatic pressure was very successful, since there were no
Speaker 1: other votes against, only two abstentions and a number of
Speaker 1: US allies that actually voted in favor of Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 1: The headline here leaked cables show White House opposes Palestinian
Speaker 1: statehood despite Button's pledges supported two state solution. Cables argued
Speaker 1: that Palestine should not be granted UN member status. They
Speaker 1: put pressure in particular on Ecuador, which is the rotating
Speaker 1: member on the UN Security Council, and they said in
Speaker 1: language very similar to what you heard there from the
Speaker 1: State Department.
Speaker 3: Goal.
Speaker 1: It remains the US view that the most expeditious path
Speaker 1: toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in
Speaker 1: the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors.
Speaker 1: We believe this approach can tangibly advanced Palestining goals in
Speaker 1: a meaningful and enduring way. So expeditious approach, in spite
Speaker 1: of the fact that this quote unquote expeditious approach has
Speaker 1: been attempted for decades at this point with no conclusion.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, very interesting, and this is part of
Speaker 2: why the entire thing is ridiculous and why Matt Lee
Speaker 2: really just underscored it. Where what is our policy for
Speaker 2: this war and for this goverment. We keep saying that
Speaker 2: the end result of this war has to be a
Speaker 2: two state solution. It's like, well, okay, which one West
Speaker 2: Bank is going to have a like the Palestinian authority,
Speaker 2: which barely has any authority, They're going to be the
Speaker 2: one who have representation in the United Nations. These people
Speaker 2: if we are to give them a nation or to
Speaker 2: recognize a nation, to recognize a false nation with a
Speaker 2: false government that has no actual public support, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: would be ten times worse. Like, if we're going to
Speaker 2: do this, then we actually have to do it, and
Speaker 2: it's obviously going to have to include Gaza as well,
Speaker 2: and we will have to ensure actual security conditions and
Speaker 2: some sort of public expression.
Speaker 3: Otherwise this entire.
Speaker 2: Thing is completely meaningless and it will fall apart and
Speaker 2: we will have somewhat one Guido situation. Yeah, in Venezuela,
Speaker 2: with nonsense that the United Nations.
Speaker 1: Always puts the burden and the problems on the Palestinian
Speaker 1: side when you have BB out there on the regular like,
Speaker 1: I will make sure that we thwart ever having a
Speaker 1: two state solution that somehow never gets mentioned in any
Speaker 1: of this as the obstacles to peace in the situation.
Speaker 1: We got some more news on the State Department. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. The US is going
Speaker 1: to sanction one specific IDF unit for human rights violations
Speaker 1: in the West Bank. This is pursuant to that we
Speaker 1: covered this last week, this pro public report that Tony
Speaker 1: Blincoln had been sitting with a report from the State
Speaker 1: Department panel that is meant to look into human rights
Speaker 1: abuses that found a number of IDF units and Israeli
Speaker 1: police units that had engaged in horrific human rights violations torture, rape,
Speaker 1: other abuses. And so I guess, under pressure, they've decided
Speaker 1: to do this sort of really truly symbolic sanctioning of
Speaker 1: this one unit. I'll read this to you. It says
Speaker 1: US Secretary of State Tony Blincoln expected to within days
Speaker 1: announce sanctions against the IDF's Netsa Yehuda battalion for human
Speaker 1: rights violations in the occupied West Bank. Why it matters,
Speaker 1: it would be the first time the US imposed sanctions
Speaker 1: on Israeli military unit. They will ban the battalion's members
Speaker 1: from receiving any kind of US military assistance or training.
Speaker 1: And this particular battalion, they say, was formed as a
Speaker 1: special unit for ultra orthodox soldiers. All of its members
Speaker 1: are men, and it's kind of known for having a
Speaker 1: lot of radicals involved. You've had a lot of the
Speaker 1: quote unquote hilltop youth. These are these young, radical, right wing,
Speaker 1: often violent settlers who weren't accepted into any other combat
Speaker 1: unit in the IDF. They're in this battalion. One specific
Speaker 1: incident that's been documented was the death of an eighty
Speaker 1: year old Palestinian American Omar Asad, in January twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: He was arrested by Netsa Yehudah soldiers at a checkpoint
Speaker 1: in his village in the West Bank late at night.
Speaker 1: He refused to be checked, so soldiers handcuffed and gagged him,
Speaker 1: an eighty year old, and left him on the ground
Speaker 1: in the cold, and predictably he died. So, you know,
Speaker 1: my read is that these sanctions are totally meaningless. It's
Speaker 1: similar to the you know four Israeli settlers who were
Speaker 1: sanctioned previously by the Biden Administration's attempt to sort of
Speaker 1: like pretend like they're serious about violence against Palestinians. But
Speaker 1: what kind of checks are in places? We're shipping billions
Speaker 1: of dollars to Israel to make sure this battalion doesn't
Speaker 1: benefit from any of it. Nevertheless, there's an all of
Speaker 1: government freak out on the Israeli side about this tiniest
Speaker 1: of sanctions for documented human rights abuses. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from Phoebe, he says, And this
Speaker 1: is the Google Translate version, by the way, So if
Speaker 1: there's any like slate mistranslations, that's why sanctions must not
Speaker 1: be imposed on the IDF. In recent weeks, I've been
Speaker 1: working against the imposition of sanctions on Israeli citizens, including
Speaker 1: in my conversations with senior American government officials. At a
Speaker 1: time when our soldiers are fighting the monsters of terror,
Speaker 1: the intention to impose a sanction on a unit in
Speaker 1: the IDF is the height of absurdity and a moral low.
Speaker 1: The government, headed by me will act by all means
Speaker 1: against these moves. There was also a statement from Benny Gantz.
Speaker 1: Lest you think that they're not on the same page
Speaker 1: on many things, they mostly are. So what do you
Speaker 1: make of all that? Sager?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I just think the entire thing is
Speaker 2: ridiculous because we're trying to single out some unit in
Speaker 2: the IDF based on or in the West Bank, which
Speaker 2: is right, this is all.
Speaker 3: The other problem is that we try and split apart.
Speaker 2: GE's what I was talking about West Bank from Gaza
Speaker 2: as if it's not the same military that's involved in
Speaker 2: all this, and it's not all part of the same policy,
Speaker 2: So what is the question, what are we going to do?
Speaker 2: Do we actually And at the same time, I would
Speaker 2: almost rather not do something like this because then it
Speaker 2: just heightens the contradiction of sending billions of dollars to
Speaker 2: the IDEF and through the Israeli military. If they're going
Speaker 2: to only continue to fund said IDF unit and there's
Speaker 2: no enforcement mechanism, then what is the point of this
Speaker 2: entire thing?
Speaker 3: It just views it. It makes it even more impotent
Speaker 3: than previously.
Speaker 2: If you give somebody money when you acknowledge that they're
Speaker 2: a criminal, it's almost worse than just lying to everybody.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it's a perfect way to pretend like the
Speaker 1: problem is in a whole of government policy, that it's
Speaker 1: a few bad apples, it's a few violent settlers, it's
Speaker 1: this one particular battalion that has a lot of hilltop use,
Speaker 1: rather than I mean, we saw the first of all,
Speaker 1: you see the utter annihilation in Gaza. You see the
Speaker 1: Where's Daddy software program looking to target families, children, women,
Speaker 1: waiting for militants to go home before you target them.
Speaker 1: We see the AI algorithmic generation. Overall, we see the
Speaker 1: announcement of a complete siege, starving a population of millions,
Speaker 1: in some cases to death. Okay, And then we pretend like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's these few bad apples and we're very concerned about it,
Speaker 1: and we're going to sanction them. So it serves the
Speaker 1: Biden administration's interest. Frankly, I think it also serves Bebe's interests.
Speaker 1: I just we didn't just didn't make it in the
Speaker 1: poll because there's so much other stuff to cover. But
Speaker 1: apparently Bibe's political standing in Israel in the context of
Speaker 1: post October seventh was number was stronger. Poll numbers are
Speaker 1: coming up. You know, he's basically neck and neck now
Speaker 1: with his primary opponent as previously he was losing in
Speaker 1: a landslide, and I think that these little, you know,
Speaker 1: pretend fights between him, just theatrical fights between him and Biden,
Speaker 1: where he gets to stand tough and effectively humiliate Joe
Speaker 1: Biden by the way, over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: I think those have served his domestic political standing. So
Speaker 1: congratulations everyone, Your little Kaboki theater here is working out
Speaker 1: perfectly for the nt YAHOO government.
Speaker 2: I think that bb and Zelenski are similar. Their only
Speaker 2: authority to the eyes of the public is their ability
Speaker 2: to builk the United States for billions. So as long
Speaker 2: as they are able to continue to have the US
Speaker 2: security establishment at fund your war, then your position as
Speaker 2: like the grifter in charge is cemented. Now, if he
Speaker 2: genuinely was failing in that regard, then yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: people would be able to come against him. But he's
Speaker 2: able very masterfully to play against America and also keep
Speaker 2: the handout and take the dollars.
Speaker 3: That's a very difficult balancing.
Speaker 2: Act, one which he is on tape admitting he's very
Speaker 2: good at saying what America is very easy I know
Speaker 2: to who.
Speaker 1: Can deny it?
Speaker 3: He says it?
Speaker 1: Who can deny it? Yeah? No, that's right.
Speaker 3: He can.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, you know, act all outraged on
Speaker 1: Twitter about this like totally meaningless sanction reportedly being issued
Speaker 1: by the State Department on the They're going to do
Speaker 1: whatever the hell he wants, bomb American and American aid worker,
Speaker 1: bomb is bomb Iran when we begged him reportedly not
Speaker 1: to hospitals. Whatever. He can do whatever he wants, and
Speaker 1: there's still you know, a whole of government effort here
Speaker 1: to make sure that he gets his billions in whatever
Speaker 1: he wants moving forward. Yes, so yeah, he's playing his
Speaker 1: hand masterfully. And the Biden policy bear of bear hugging BBNT,
Speaker 1: Yahoo has been such an object failure it is hard
Speaker 1: to wrap your head around on every level. Every time
Speaker 1: they set out like well, we don't want Israel to
Speaker 1: do this, Israel does it, and then there's no accountability
Speaker 1: and American lives are put more at risk and more
Speaker 1: Gazan's house, that means of Gaza are completely slaughtered. So
Speaker 1: just an utter and complete failure from the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: It all just plays right into Bibi's hands. There was
Speaker 1: an interesting report though that I wanted to share with
Speaker 1: you guys. Make of it what you will, So put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This is a report from
Speaker 1: Times of Israel that the Prime Minister's Office PMO had
Speaker 1: held an emergency debate amid fears that the ICC that's
Speaker 1: the International Criminal Court at the Hague, could issue arrest
Speaker 1: warrants for the Prime Minister and others over alleged crimes
Speaker 1: in Gaza. This is based on a report on Israeli
Speaker 1: Channel twelve, so it says they're increasingly worried about this.
Speaker 1: Three ministers and several government legal experts heard this emergency
Speaker 1: discussion on how they could potentially fend off the feared
Speaker 1: imminent issuing of such arrest warrants. They are pointing to
Speaker 1: some of the countries that have been very critical of
Speaker 1: Israeli atrocities in Gaza's strip are sort of leading the
Speaker 1: push here. Jerusalem is also try to apply pressure, whatever
Speaker 1: diplomatic pressure they can, you know, under the radar, to
Speaker 1: try to avoid this eventuality. And not only did they
Speaker 1: and this was no worthy to meet again, according to
Speaker 1: this Israeli TV report, Make of it what you will. Apparently,
Speaker 1: he also raised this concern in his meetings last week
Speaker 1: with Britain's Foreign Secretary David Cameron in Germany's foreign minister
Speaker 1: and Aleeda bare Baka. Is that how you say that
Speaker 1: we'll go let's go with it. Yeah, we'll go with that.
Speaker 1: So it was a significant enough concern reportedly that he's
Speaker 1: raising it with them. Now what does this mean. Listen,
Speaker 1: It's not like the ICC can come to Israel and
Speaker 1: arrest him, throw them and you know it and being
Speaker 1: a dock in the Hague. But you know, it's another
Speaker 1: step on the global parias status. It could be very
Speaker 1: influential in terms of global opinion, makes them more difficult
Speaker 1: for you know, the US enablers to support the things
Speaker 1: that he's doing. And also it really constrains your freedom
Speaker 1: because now you can't go to one of the countries
Speaker 1: in the world where they, you know, do support the
Speaker 1: ICC actions because you could actually get arrested if you
Speaker 1: set foot in one of those countries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean no, that's the actually the biggest I mean,
Speaker 2: there's there's a couple of ways, and look at this
Speaker 2: is one is like, do I think he's actually gonna
Speaker 2: get arrested.
Speaker 3: No, but does it at least put pressure on the government. Yes.
Speaker 2: The other option is that we will just see the ICC,
Speaker 2: you know, signatory fall apart because you would travel to
Speaker 2: a party nation and they won't comply with it.
Speaker 3: We'll see, you know exactly how that all plays out.
Speaker 2: But regardless, again, this is just a core theme of
Speaker 2: like all of our discussion, is that in the interim,
Speaker 2: things are going in Israel's way, but in the long term,
Speaker 2: twenty thirty years from now, there certainly are not.
Speaker 3: And this is another example. Don't even take my word
Speaker 3: for it.
Speaker 2: You've all knowah Harari, who I've got some issues with,
Speaker 2: but he wrote the famous book Sapiens. He's the Israeli
Speaker 2: not really a scientist. Whatever we can it's a separate conversation.
Speaker 2: He wrote an excellent piece. I recommend everybody go and
Speaker 2: read in Heartz where he makes this exact same point,
Speaker 2: because he himself is kind of a chief arch globalist.
Speaker 3: And he's like, we have a real problem.
Speaker 2: We have delegitimized ourselves in the eyes of the entire world,
Speaker 2: and for decades now we will have problems both diplomatically
Speaker 2: for our citizens as they continue and think about living abroad.
Speaker 2: And you know, any idea of legitimacy in the eyes
Speaker 2: of the world has significantly gone down.
Speaker 3: And that's just not something that you really move away from.
Speaker 2: And I think this is just like tip of the
Speaker 2: iceberg on that broader problem. Regardless of whether it's enforcement
Speaker 2: or not, it almost doesn't matter, you know, for the
Speaker 2: future of what future treat future free trade agreements look like,
Speaker 2: reciprocal tourism, willingness to do business, willingness to receive a
Speaker 2: prime minister, and popularly those things honestly matter even more
Speaker 2: to a certain extent for the future of Israel and
Speaker 2: for the nation.
Speaker 1: Look at the way young generations of America.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, I've changed everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going to it's not going back, right, Millennials,
Speaker 1: gen z, they're not going to view this the same
Speaker 1: way that boomers and silent gen did. It's done. I
Speaker 1: mean that's we're covering the freak out over these Columbia
Speaker 1: protests and what the hell's going on there. The real
Speaker 1: story on those protests is just how overwhelming the sentiment
Speaker 1: among young people is against arming Israel, against you know,
Speaker 1: their their view and mind. And the ICJ finds it
Speaker 1: plausible that they're committing genocide with our tax dollars, by
Speaker 1: the way, helping to fund the weapons that are, you know,
Speaker 1: two thousand pound bombs being dropped on refugee camps, etc.
Speaker 1: People don't forget this is a formative political experience for
Speaker 1: really millions of young Americans. So in terms of future generations,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any put in that toothpaste back
Speaker 1: in the tube. But unfortunately that takes a long time
Speaker 1: to come to fruition. In the meantime, you can see
Speaker 1: from the numbers in the house how slowly things actually change.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we really have our eyes on Rafa,
Speaker 1: the threatened ground invasion there. It seems like there are
Speaker 1: some indications this may be more imminent, including a strike
Speaker 1: multiple strikes there. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: That happened just a day or so ago. Israeli strikes
Speaker 1: on southern Gaza city of Rafa killed twenty two, mostly children.
Speaker 1: As they add US advances AID package. I think that's
Speaker 1: noteworthy that they include that in the headline and important
Speaker 1: they include that in the headline. So out of these
Speaker 1: twenty two people who were killed by the IDF in Rava,
Speaker 1: eighteen children, three women, one man. Eighteen children, three women
Speaker 1: and one man. One of the women who was killed
Speaker 1: was pregnant. She was killed. They were able to open
Speaker 1: her up and save the baby, thank god, who is
Speaker 1: now orphaned at birth. Horrifying situation. And Bibi has been
Speaker 1: sort of promising that this Rapha invasion is imminent. He said, cryptically,
Speaker 1: quote in the coming days, we will increase the political
Speaker 1: and military pressure on Hamas because this is the only
Speaker 1: way to bring back our hostages and a chief victory.
Speaker 1: Of course, the only way they've actually brought back hostages
Speaker 1: was through ceasefire agreement. But never you mind that. He
Speaker 1: goes on to say we will land more and painful
Speaker 1: blows on Hamas soon, but did not give further details
Speaker 1: about what that meant. And that's noteworthy, of course, saw
Speaker 1: because he's been saying, oh, in order to finish the
Speaker 1: job with Hamas, they're all down in Rafa now, so
Speaker 1: we have to we have to do this ground invasion
Speaker 1: of raf Warri of over a million Palestinian sheltering right now,
Speaker 1: including obviously many women and children, because that's where Hamas is.
Speaker 1: So when he says we will land more and painful
Speaker 1: blows on Hamas soon, it seems to be a reference
Speaker 1: to an imminent ground invasion in Rafa.
Speaker 2: It's very possible, and something that you brought up, but
Speaker 2: I want to spend a lot of time on here
Speaker 2: is this corrupt bargain being reported by the Israeli press.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen, please,
Speaker 2: where the Times of Israel reports very out in the
Speaker 2: open that the US has agreed to Israel's plan for
Speaker 2: Rafa in return for not carrying out a large Iran strike.
Speaker 3: So what they basically have bargained with US.
Speaker 2: Is, hey, we won't have a huge retalia historic retaliatory
Speaker 2: strike on Iran which would draw you in if you
Speaker 2: green light at least tacitly our Israeli invasion of Rossa. Now,
Speaker 2: the way that we know this is from Egyptian officials
Speaker 2: who are telling news outlets to the quote the US
Speaker 2: has accepted that plan for an operation in southern Gaza
Speaker 2: in return for not carrying out that larger strike. Now,
Speaker 2: the reason why this is so important is we are
Speaker 2: watching the weaponization here again of the US political system
Speaker 2: and it's rapid desire to go to war for Israel,
Speaker 2: where they are like, hey, we won't drag us into
Speaker 2: a broader war over here if you let us do
Speaker 2: whatever we want over here. And I don't think that
Speaker 2: these air strikes are an accident, and it actually very
Speaker 2: elegantly solves a problem for beeB to be able to
Speaker 2: get around that. But think again about what the blackmail
Speaker 2: is is that what they have on their side is always,
Speaker 2: at any moment, at any time of our choosing, we
Speaker 2: can glow blow up an embassy wherever we want, ratchet
Speaker 2: things up over here, which will require you to defend
Speaker 2: us as long as we continue to get to do
Speaker 2: whatever we want over here in Gaza. And that belies
Speaker 2: the fact that whatever happens here in Gaza has bleed
Speaker 2: on effects over here, as we have already watched the
Speaker 2: resumption of Iranian proxy strikes on US military basis that
Speaker 2: have happened now after that.
Speaker 3: So again American troops.
Speaker 2: Are the ones who pay the cost, as well as
Speaker 2: of course Palestinian civilians.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I mean, this was Palestinian civilians being
Speaker 1: held hostage and being sacrificed in the end to reportedly
Speaker 1: keep Israel from doing a larger strike on Iran. And again,
Speaker 1: according to reports, the Biden people begged bebe not to
Speaker 1: do any response to Iran. You know, they were saying, listen,
Speaker 1: take the win. We shut down all their stuff nothing
Speaker 1: really happened with regard to their retaliatory attacks here, so
Speaker 1: just take that win and let's move on. So they
Speaker 1: weren't able to succeed with that, they're obviously not willing
Speaker 1: to use actual leverage to change Israeli behavior, So according
Speaker 1: to this report, they've decided to sacrifice the Palestinians in
Speaker 1: Rafa in spite of the fact that this has been
Speaker 1: a long time. You know, Biden even used at one
Speaker 1: point the red line with regard to Rafa, but doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be a red line any longer. And I
Speaker 1: don't think any of us should be surprised if we
Speaker 1: see this attack move forward relatively swiftly. Just to give
Speaker 1: you another sense of how untenable the US position here
Speaker 1: is and all of the Biden administration's supposed concerns for
Speaker 1: human rights. Pretty remarkable exchange here where a State Department
Speaker 1: spokesperson really doesn't want to answer a question about whether
Speaker 1: the Geneva Conventions apply to Israel, does his darnedest to
Speaker 1: try to avoid giving a direct answer to what should
Speaker 1: be a very simple question that he was asked with seamlessness.
Speaker 4: You're a med monitor. Human Rights monitor reports that Israel
Speaker 4: is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them.
Speaker 4: They explain the sounds of women screaming in babies crying
Speaker 4: were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday.
Speaker 4: When some of the residents went out to investigate and
Speaker 4: tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli quadruple
Speaker 4: quad copter drones. The sounds that they heard were in
Speaker 4: fact recordings played by the Israeli drones with the intent
Speaker 4: of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where
Speaker 4: they could be easily targeted by snipers.
Speaker 9: I've not seen that report, Sam, so I'm not gonna
Speaker 9: comment on it, but broadly not relating to this particular
Speaker 9: circumstance at all, because again I haven't seen the report
Speaker 9: and I'm not sure if it's accurate or verifiable. At
Speaker 9: every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel,
Speaker 9: we continue to stress the moral and strategic comparative that
Speaker 9: they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure
Speaker 9: that civilian harm is minimized in every which way possible,
Speaker 9: and we'll continue to stress that every way we can.
Speaker 4: Will you look at this report, I'm.
Speaker 9: Sure we'll look at this report, Sam, I don't have
Speaker 9: any comment for it on it?
Speaker 10: Right now?
Speaker 4: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as apply.
Speaker 3: I've answer your questions.
Speaker 11: Now you have evaded it and your colleague deceitfully responded
Speaker 11: to it. Could go to Geneva Conventions. It's a simple question.
Speaker 11: Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions of applying to Gaza?
Speaker 9: When you interrupt me, that's not it's not no matter
Speaker 9: of you. I'm not going to simple take additional questions
Speaker 9: a simple question.
Speaker 10: Show ahead.
Speaker 9: You got two questions.
Speaker 4: I totally contra No, I didn't get to.
Speaker 3: You, did you?
Speaker 10: You?
Speaker 9: You asked a question about your report and you asked
Speaker 9: to follow up.
Speaker 3: Please go ahead, and you're refusing to answer it.
Speaker 11: Go ahead to do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza
Speaker 11: or not everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians.
Speaker 10: Isn't that right? Me?
Speaker 9: I continue to stress everywhere and everywhere that international and
Speaker 9: humanitarian law needs to be abided by and respected going.
Speaker 11: The Geneva Conventions apply.
Speaker 9: You are now interrupting your colleague.
Speaker 12: Go ahead.
Speaker 11: I'm interrupting you. I'm not interrupting you. I'm insisting on
Speaker 11: an answer to a critical question.
Speaker 1: Go ahead doesn't want to answer the question. It's very
Speaker 1: very testy there in reply. And yeah, and also with
Speaker 1: regard to the original report, which is disgusting if you
Speaker 1: think about it, like playing sounds of crying babies and
Speaker 1: and when people rush out to try to help this,
Speaker 1: you know what they think is a struggling child or infant.
Speaker 1: Then you know, using that to lure them out and
Speaker 1: kill them is like, that's horrifying. The last thing we
Speaker 1: wanted to share with you is that some of the
Speaker 1: tenor of the discourse in our in the Gray, our
Speaker 1: great Israeli allies, the way that the their assault on
Speaker 1: Gaza is being discussed. I don't know if you guys
Speaker 1: saw this. There was a picture of Palestinians on the
Speaker 1: beach in Gaza that created this whole freak out on
Speaker 1: the Israeli right. There was a discussion about this on
Speaker 1: Israeli television and quite a reaction to it. Let's take
Speaker 1: a look at this, and I'll read over the subtitles
Speaker 1: here since this is in Hebrew, gut and put it
Speaker 1: up on the screen, and I say, these people there
Speaker 1: deserve death, a hard death and agonizing death, and instead
Speaker 1: we see them enjoying on the beach, having fun. He
Speaker 1: goes on these people. There are no innocent people there
Speaker 1: in the gaza strip none. They voted for hamas, they
Speaker 1: want Hamas, they celebrated, They hand it out candies, some
Speaker 1: of them spat at the body, some of them took
Speaker 1: selfies with our abductees. There are no innocence there. And
Speaker 1: the fact they're now enjoying the beach instead of starving,
Speaker 1: instead of being jerked around, instead of being severely tormented,
Speaker 1: instead of hiding from shelling, they are enjoying the beach.
Speaker 1: We should have seen a lot more revenge, a lot
Speaker 1: more rivers of Gossen's blood. That is the commentary on
Speaker 1: Israeli television, right, but please, let's let's talk more about
Speaker 1: a student protester. What a nineteen year old might have
Speaker 1: or might not have said at a college protest.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: At the same time, Trump's trial kicks off today, and
Speaker 2: there were some very dramatic occurrings. I guess that happened
Speaker 2: on Friday when a man actually self immolated outside of
Speaker 2: the courthouse.
Speaker 3: It was actually caught live.
Speaker 2: We're not going to show you images of the self
Speaker 2: immolation itself, but there are were some reporters on the scene,
Speaker 2: and this is what it was described like by them.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: What do you say. We also are seeing active shooter
Speaker 12: and active shooters in the park outside of the court.
Speaker 12: We have seen an arm that has been visible that
Speaker 12: has been engulfed in total flames.
Speaker 1: There is chaos that is happening.
Speaker 12: People are wondering right now if people are in danger.
Speaker 1: I'm looking across the court.
Speaker 12: Across the courtyard there is a man racing to his aid.
Speaker 12: There's codes coming off to try to put out the fire.
Speaker 12: We have members of security details. NYPD is rushing to
Speaker 12: the scene. They are trying to come now. Officers are
Speaker 12: on the scene. A fire extinguisher is right now present
Speaker 12: being put on this man to try to put out.
Speaker 12: People are climbing over barricade to try to separate the
Speaker 12: public to put out the flame on this man.
Speaker 1: He had let himself out in fire.
Speaker 2: That was the initial reaction. Obviously it was not an
Speaker 2: active shooter. It was a protester. Appears he's put out
Speaker 2: a manifesto, et cetera. It appears to be a sad
Speaker 2: and horrible case of mental illness. And it's often people
Speaker 2: you know schizophrenia and others attracted to certain scenarios like this,
Speaker 2: he wanted to start quote unquote a revolution and decided
Speaker 2: to self emilate himself outside of the trial. But anything
Speaker 2: you want to say on that, Crystal before we move.
Speaker 1: On, Yeah, I mean, I just he did ultimately succumb
Speaker 1: to his wounds from self emilation. That reporting on him
Speaker 1: is that he had been prone to some sort of
Speaker 1: fringe or conspiratorial beliefs, and then his mother passed, and
Speaker 1: according to the people who are around him, that was
Speaker 1: really sort of a breaking point. So there was, you know,
Speaker 1: immediate speculation always this about he's protesting Trump's you know,
Speaker 1: legal issues or whatever. It appears to have had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Trump, Peter Thiel, Crypto, Jeffrey Epstein, a
Speaker 1: lot of things were mentioned in the sub stack, but
Speaker 1: Trump was not central to it. So it appears to
Speaker 1: have been an incredibly tragic instance of mental illness.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's tragic, trying to get attention, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But of course that does not obscure the fact that
Speaker 2: there is that trial that is happening today significant and
Speaker 2: let's actually go through some of it. We now, the
Speaker 2: entire jury has been seated for the trial. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. New York
Speaker 2: Times says, will a mountain of evidence be enough to
Speaker 2: convict Trump? We're going to have the opening statements today
Speaker 2: in the people of the State of New York versus
Speaker 2: Donald J. Trump, and the case quote seems strong, but
Speaker 2: a conviction is far from assured. Some of the witnesses
Speaker 2: are actually very important here. One of them is David Pecker,
Speaker 2: who some of you might remember from the Stormy Daniels days.
Speaker 2: David Pecker was the quote tabloid publisher who had buried
Speaker 2: the damaging stories about Trump, the so called pay for
Speaker 2: play scheme where catch and kill, where they would buy
Speaker 2: incriminating stories on behalf of Trump and then keep them
Speaker 2: in the vault under an NBA before then reporting it.
Speaker 2: Other witnesses in the case will include Hope Hicks, the
Speaker 2: spokesperson who tried to spin around this, a witness again
Speaker 2: for the prosecution, and then of course Michael Cohen, who
Speaker 2: has already pled guilty and actually served time in prison
Speaker 2: specifically around this charge, but on the federal charge which
Speaker 2: Trump was never indicted for. So three of those witnesses
Speaker 2: very likely to back up the state's case in terms
Speaker 2: of will it be enough to convict him. Conviction is
Speaker 2: going to go on whether they agree with this novel
Speaker 2: interpretation of the case and in terms of the law,
Speaker 2: in terms of statute of limitations, but also in terms
Speaker 2: of how they view the central charge around whether it's
Speaker 2: campaign finance fraud or whether it was a personal one
Speaker 2: or not. And this is, of course, Crystal been the
Speaker 2: very beginning from the beginning around this case. Why eventually
Speaker 2: the FEDS decided not to charge Trump, which said charge
Speaker 2: around this because they thought they could plausibly not argue,
Speaker 2: at least in a jury to convict Trump on the
Speaker 2: campaign finance fees in particular, which amounts to accounting fraud
Speaker 2: in terms of why the state is involved.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So just as a reminder, there won't be cameras
Speaker 1: in the courtroom, so this all be you know, after
Speaker 1: the day's events are concluded, we'll kind of get a
Speaker 1: synopsis of whatever was said, who testified, what happened, what
Speaker 1: was that in the opening arguments, etc. It is noteworthy
Speaker 1: that you got David Pecker and Hope Hicks who are testifying,
Speaker 1: so they won't have to wholly rely on the testimony
Speaker 1: of Michael Cohen, who was you know, convicted liars. He
Speaker 1: is not the most reliable witness, and that is one
Speaker 1: of the things that the Trump team are certainly going
Speaker 1: to you know, pursue and talk about. Is there's this
Speaker 1: one key moment where Cohen claims that he and Trump
Speaker 1: were in dialogue in the White House and Trump was
Speaker 1: talking about these payments. Because this is one of the
Speaker 1: things that they'll try to claim is like basically he
Speaker 1: had no idea that any of this was going on.
Speaker 1: So it'll be interesting not only to see how that
Speaker 1: you know, that direct like he said, he said, peace
Speaker 1: plays now, but what additional information picks who was you know,
Speaker 1: for those of you who don't recall, who was omnipresent,
Speaker 1: who was in a lot of key meetings, who had
Speaker 1: a lot of time with Trump and also a long
Speaker 1: history with him even pre dating you know, her time
Speaker 1: in the White House. And David Packard now Packer who
Speaker 1: was the tabloid publisher National Choir and also had a
Speaker 1: long history with Trump. He is able to testify not
Speaker 1: just to this Stormy Daniel's hush money situation, but to
Speaker 1: a couple other stories that he helped Trump to quote
Speaker 1: unquote catch and kill, so the idea being there was
Speaker 1: another this playboy model Susan McDougall, who claims she had
Speaker 1: an affair with Trump. He purchased her story and then
Speaker 1: didn't run it. The other one was this doorman at
Speaker 1: the Trump Tower building who claimed this is apparently not true,
Speaker 1: but who had claimed that Trump had a mistress and
Speaker 1: had the mistress that had an abortion. Pecker had also
Speaker 1: purchased and buried that story as well. Now with Doormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: he didn't do that because she was asking for too
Speaker 1: much money. But then he works this is all the
Speaker 1: allegations right, and the Trump's team, they'll have their say.
Speaker 1: But he works with Michael Cohen to figure out this
Speaker 1: workaround to get this story hushed up, even though the
Speaker 1: price was too steep for him to be able to
Speaker 1: do with the national enquir So that's sort of like
Speaker 1: the heart of this, you know. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: in terms of the jury, it's Manhattan. Not a lot
Speaker 1: of Trump love in Manhattan. On the other hand, you
Speaker 1: had a couple of these jurors who were ultimately selected,
Speaker 1: who said at least a few sort of like more
Speaker 1: or less favorable things about Trump, who weren't just out
Speaker 1: and out Trump Peters, and you know he only has
Speaker 1: to get one person one right on his side to
Speaker 1: prevail here in what would be a very very significant win.
Speaker 1: So those are kind of the contoences.
Speaker 3: In the case. I can say, or can you imagine
Speaker 3: if it's a hung jury or if you win.
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's very possible.
Speaker 3: I think too.
Speaker 2: But the media freak out on that is going to
Speaker 2: be unbelievable. Let's go and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. Because there was some discussion previously about the jurors.
Speaker 2: Two jurors were actually dismissed in a trial before they
Speaker 2: eventually all twelve were seated. It appears that some of
Speaker 2: the jurors were dismissed prospective jurors because of critical social
Speaker 2: media posts about Trump. But the eighteen people who have
Speaker 2: selected have decided and have said that they will decide
Speaker 2: the case based quote, purely.
Speaker 3: On the facts.
Speaker 2: Some of them two of them actually expressed positive feelings
Speaker 2: about the former press that are on the jury. Two
Speaker 2: of those who were dismissed one There was a lot
Speaker 2: of attention around this which we previously had where a
Speaker 2: juror with profile was described by Fox News and by
Speaker 2: other media outlets, and she was approached and she was like,
Speaker 2: people were asking whether it was her who was on
Speaker 2: the jury, and she asked to be taken off. And
Speaker 2: other jurors as well had expressed some feelings around that.
Speaker 2: It was just funny, though, Crystal, because Fox and Jesse
Speaker 2: Waters in particular was getting to blame. But if you
Speaker 2: went and you looked like you could basically if you
Speaker 2: know these people, you could guess it. Because ABC, the
Speaker 2: New York Times and others had written similar write ups.
Speaker 3: Of all of the jurors who were involved.
Speaker 2: I will say I don't know how I feel about
Speaker 2: that in terms of recording another because I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 2: well if the entire if we're not going to release
Speaker 2: their names.
Speaker 3: But just like for me, it's like, well, an Indian
Speaker 3: guy who wears glasses, who those are? YouTube? Oh, I
Speaker 3: wonder who it is? Former White House correspondent.
Speaker 2: You know, It's it's like either keep it secret or don't,
Speaker 2: but don't try and play this weird mid gram middle
Speaker 2: ground where we are right now.
Speaker 1: That's true. Yeah, I think you could have lease like
Speaker 1: they had in there what their news preferences were, which
Speaker 1: I thought was interesting the comments they made about Trump
Speaker 1: and how they felt about him. That was interesting. But yeah,
Speaker 1: you probably didn't need like the they're a nurse, How
Speaker 1: is that really? I don't blame maybe even like the
Speaker 1: toplight like okay it's a female, fine, but drilling down
Speaker 1: into a lot of those details.
Speaker 3: I will say this, I don't blame the media.
Speaker 2: I think that if the law is going to allow
Speaker 2: all of this to be published, then fine.
Speaker 3: I don't actually blame them at all.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, it's up to the
Speaker 2: court to keep whatever it's people safe or not. But
Speaker 2: if the court is going to have rules like secrecy
Speaker 2: and all that, then they should at least write them
Speaker 2: in a way that makes sense. I will never blame
Speaker 2: reporters or journalists from putting out fullsome amount of information
Speaker 2: because I figure that I think that's what they should do.
Speaker 1: I will say, in the instance of Jesse Waters and
Speaker 1: there was a whole right wing conspiracy that these were
Speaker 1: like intentional, like lib activists were sneaking onto the jury,
Speaker 1: which I think there is no evidence to support that
Speaker 1: in particular, but I I feel bad for these jurors,
Speaker 1: like whether they're public now or not, Like it's very
Speaker 1: likely to come out who these individuals are. They're going
Speaker 1: to be the center of a firestorm the likes of
Speaker 1: which they probably can't even imagine. That few people really
Speaker 1: could imagine. It's going to be an absolute circus. And yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll see how, we'll see how it all unfolds. Uh.
Speaker 1: With one more piece that I'll let you coo up.
Speaker 1: But I just do want to say on the political note, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know we're so used to thinking that nothing matters
Speaker 1: for Trump. These are old allocations. As you say, it's
Speaker 1: all baked in, and I think those are all like
Speaker 1: totally fair and legitimate points. But you do see his
Speaker 1: poll numbers right now slipping a bit. You see Biden
Speaker 1: now and a lot of national averages has claimed like
Speaker 1: a one point leads. Approval ratings stick up a little
Speaker 1: tiny bit. How people are saying they feel about him
Speaker 1: on the issues versus Trump, He's doing a little bit better.
Speaker 1: And I do think part of what is dragging Trump
Speaker 1: down right now is just him being in the media
Speaker 1: now and it being in the context of legal tr
Speaker 1: such as this case. And we also should remember when
Speaker 1: the first details of this emerged, like people really found
Speaker 1: it pretty gross even ones who said it may not
Speaker 1: be illegal, but it's certainly wrong. So having those details
Speaker 1: day after day in the news, I think that there's
Speaker 1: some cope on the Trump right of saying, like, oh,
Speaker 1: this persecution is going to guarantee him the elections. I
Speaker 1: think that's crazy. Like bost of the country does not
Speaker 1: view these things the way that the Republican base does.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any doubt that the criminal prosecutions
Speaker 1: helped him in the context of a Republican primary. In
Speaker 1: the context of a general election, it's a whole different ballgame.
Speaker 1: So maybe it's a net neutral, maybe it doesn't change anything.
Speaker 1: But I do not think that this is going to
Speaker 1: be a net win for Donald Trump the way that
Speaker 1: some of his supporters claim that it will be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think it will be. Oh, I think
Speaker 2: it would be a win for him amongst his base.
Speaker 2: I think any prosecution on terms of the public I
Speaker 2: think this one basically out and I think the others
Speaker 2: could be a lot more significant.
Speaker 3: Nonetheless, you know.
Speaker 2: Why it's most important is because the judglar is threatening
Speaker 2: the throne in jail if he's not there, you know,
Speaker 2: in person. But we'll see whether any of that even materializes.
Speaker 2: We would be remiss if we didn't play some liberal
Speaker 2: fan fiction which has been making the rounds about what
Speaker 2: is it diaper don?
Speaker 3: Is that the conspiracy right?
Speaker 2: That's what they're claiming, so me might as touch, which
Speaker 2: was that it's that liberal organization that put out all
Speaker 2: those clips of Joe Rogan. They have reporters, sources, according
Speaker 2: to them, who are inside the courtroom who claim that
Speaker 2: Trump's flatulence is out of control inside the court according
Speaker 2: to their well placed individuals.
Speaker 13: Let's take a listen, and I'm hearing from credible sources
Speaker 13: who know what's going on in the courtroom. And what
Speaker 13: I'm hearing is is that take it for what it's worth,
Speaker 13: but that Donald Trump is actually farting in the courtroom,
Speaker 13: and that it's very stinky around him, it's future and
Speaker 13: odor in the courtroom, and that Trump's lawyers are like
Speaker 13: repulsed by the scent and the smell. And I'm not
Speaker 13: I'm not just saying that to be like, oh funny, funny.
Speaker 13: I'm actually, you know, we have good sources there and
Speaker 13: I'm hearing it from actual credible people that as he's
Speaker 13: kind of falling asleep, he is actually passing gas and
Speaker 13: that his lawyers are really struggling with the smell.
Speaker 2: His lawyers are really struggling with the smell he's got.
Speaker 2: These are credible, credible reports.
Speaker 1: I love the sources personally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is the This is also and look
Speaker 2: we're not chair picking that clip when I saw had
Speaker 2: somewhere around nine million views on Twitter and had been
Speaker 2: retweeted some eleven to twelve thousand times, and of course
Speaker 2: like made the rounds across what does these like occupy
Speaker 2: Republicans or you know, all these things like Facebook boomer pages.
Speaker 2: So the boomers are eating this one up. They are
Speaker 2: really enjoying the idea of flat or diaper god.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I support this resistance lib conspiracy personally.
Speaker 3: I mean, it is relatively harmless. It is amusing, I'll
Speaker 3: tell you that.
Speaker 2: But yeah, this is what is capturing the minds, and
Speaker 2: there will only be even more of this type of
Speaker 2: fan fiction that make the rounds some more that he finds.
Speaker 1: We don't know, it's not true.
Speaker 3: That's true, it's not true. It's got in credible.
Speaker 1: Sources, and we might just that. Let's turn to some
Speaker 1: slightly more significant news here. We had a huge victory
Speaker 1: for the United Auto Workers specifically, but the labor movement
Speaker 1: in general. Coming out of this Volkswagon plant in Tennessee.
Speaker 1: So this was the third time that workers at this
Speaker 1: plant had attempted to unionize, this time with the landscape
Speaker 1: quite a bit different and quite a bit more pro union,
Speaker 1: the workers prevailed in historic fashion. Let's start off by
Speaker 1: taking a listen to what some of the workers had
Speaker 1: to say in their own words courtesy of more Perfect Union.
Speaker 9: Ye so now I was made the count.
Speaker 12: Are you out?
Speaker 3: Yea yea yea yea yes.
Speaker 14: You know, many of the talking heads and abundits have
Speaker 14: said to me repeatedly before we announced this campaign, you
Speaker 14: can't win in the South, said, Southern workers aren't ready
Speaker 14: for it. They said, no, you auto Workers didn't.
Speaker 10: Have it hit up.
Speaker 4: But you all said watch that.
Speaker 1: That last person you're listening to there Sean Fame, the
Speaker 1: new president of the United Auto Workers, who has made
Speaker 1: an aggressive push non lean Ta Campbell stance, going out
Speaker 1: on strike with regard to the Big Three contract negotiations.
Speaker 1: But in the wake of that victory, saying listen, we're
Speaker 1: going to organize the South. We're going to go after
Speaker 1: foreign automakers. This is basically not happened successfully before in
Speaker 1: American history, and so far it's looking pretty good for them.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put the next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Was not even close. Seventy three percent voted yes, twenty
Speaker 1: seven percent voted no. And again keep in mind, this
Speaker 1: is a plant that had voted twice before in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: I believe, in twenty nineteen, and had rejected unionization. Now,
Speaker 1: with the wins that you saw, you know, Starbucks, Teamsters,
Speaker 1: UAW with a more favorable climate amongst the public in
Speaker 1: favor of unions, with a more favorable National Labor Relations Board,
Speaker 1: this time the result is totally different. And the next up,
Speaker 1: they have a vote in mid May down in Alabama
Speaker 1: at a Mercedes plant that apparently they feel good about too.
Speaker 1: So it's astonishing, Sager, not just that.
Speaker 2: So not only do they have seventy three percent who
Speaker 2: cast in favor, but they had eighty four percent voter
Speaker 2: participations of the eighty four percent of the forty three
Speaker 2: hundred eligible workers in the plant actually participated. This is
Speaker 2: the first vote in the South, they're saying, the first
Speaker 2: time a Southern auto plant outside the three Detroit automakers
Speaker 2: has ever been organized by UAW. This of course makes
Speaker 2: sense because we have Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota and all this
Speaker 2: with a blanketed across the American South with a lot
Speaker 2: of manufacturing jobs and cars that have been strategically placed
Speaker 2: there because of right to work laws. Now, the question
Speaker 2: is about how that's going to change from this point forward.
Speaker 2: What they the Wall Street Journal even talks here about
Speaker 2: that there's less than four hundred thousand workers last year
Speaker 2: who are inside UAW. That is seventy five percent less
Speaker 2: than where they were in the nineteen seventies. So for
Speaker 2: them to have wins like this that grow for the
Speaker 2: future actually sets up that we're probably at the low
Speaker 2: point of US union membership than ever before and likely
Speaker 2: to go up. And one of the reasons is fun
Speaker 2: at least to cover this story. This might be the
Speaker 2: only rare piece of good news in our entire show,
Speaker 2: So we absolutely wanted to include it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, no doubt about it. And yeah, you can
Speaker 1: see the way the historic winds have changed, Like there's
Speaker 1: a huge backlash now against you know, we saw in
Speaker 1: COVID how these companies were screw workers over, they were
Speaker 1: risking their lives, they were making money hand over fist.
Speaker 1: They continue to make record breaking profits and not pass
Speaker 1: it on to consumers, let alone their workers continue to
Speaker 1: you know, corporate price gouging, et cetera. And people are
Speaker 1: through with it to the extent that even on a
Speaker 1: state like Tennessee where the politician, the political class there
Speaker 1: was overwhelmingly hostile to unions, you had a bunch of
Speaker 1: Southern governors come out against this union drive. They've been
Speaker 1: threatened with all, they're going to close the plant, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Those things just don't matter. And then you know,
Speaker 1: you also just have this momentum. Now that's so important
Speaker 1: because previously when workers saw just you know, concessionary contract,
Speaker 1: union loss after union loss, and the union based shrinking
Speaker 1: and shrinking and shrinking, it wasn't very compelling to join.
Speaker 1: And you know, when you see what the big three
Speaker 1: workers are getting there, like I do this same job,
Speaker 1: why the hell shouldn't I be getting the same type
Speaker 1: of pay, the same type of benefits, and have that
Speaker 1: similar type of life. So we'll see what happens in
Speaker 1: Alabama next. And speaking to that, you know, that momentum
Speaker 1: and this sense of solidarity across not just the auto industry,
Speaker 1: but a bunch of different you know, variety of industries,
Speaker 1: white collar, blue collar, service sector, et cetera. One worker
Speaker 1: said he was actually inspired by the writer's strike, which
Speaker 1: we thought was kind of interesting. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to that.
Speaker 15: We like when all the labor strikes first, you know,
Speaker 15: like the like the writers and stuff like that.
Speaker 10: Like I was a communications.
Speaker 15: Major in college, and so seeing the writers go on
Speaker 15: strike and standing after their rights, that was I was
Speaker 15: so excited about that. And then seeing there's a part
Speaker 15: of us that when we be talking about this just
Speaker 15: secretly in the back of our minders, like man, I
Speaker 15: wonder if I wonder if auto workers, if we're going
Speaker 15: to start seeing something like that.
Speaker 1: Here you can see the way these things have a
Speaker 1: momentum of their own, and I think it's, you know,
Speaker 1: the horses out of the bar. And I think you're right, Saga,
Speaker 1: that we've seen now the low point in terms of
Speaker 1: population union density, and it really matters because having workers
Speaker 1: have a little bit of say in their workplace, it's
Speaker 1: good not only for those particular workers, but it helps
Speaker 1: to set the standards across industries, across the entire liborpool.
Speaker 1: In the US. So very heartening to see this. Congratulations
Speaker 1: to these workers who risk a lot, by the way
Speaker 1: to organize here and stuck their neck out and now
Speaker 1: they get to have a say in their workplace.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the big change, the big question is going to
Speaker 2: be obviously the spread whether this will go to Toyota, apparently, Honda, Hyundai,
Speaker 2: and other foreign car manufacturers all across the American style.
Speaker 2: So this is one But this obviously is like a
Speaker 2: signal that goes out across that And but we also
Speaker 2: shouldn't forget, as we covered previously, it's not like the
Speaker 2: state governments aren't going to fight back. Oh yeah, this Alabama, Tennessee,
Speaker 2: all these other places. They're going to use everything in
Speaker 2: their disposal to try and to try and to quash
Speaker 2: any of these future votes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The last thing I'll mention here is Volkswagen. They
Speaker 1: are used to dealing with unions in their European locations,
Speaker 1: and so the reports are they were less hostile to
Speaker 1: unionization efforts than other automakers like Tesla, for example. Maybe,
Speaker 1: so that could be a key factor here as well.
Speaker 1: But the fact that this victory was so resounding, the
Speaker 1: fact that this same planet had lost two separate votes
Speaker 1: and now votes seventy three percent for a union really
Speaker 1: does show you that we're living in a different era now.
Speaker 1: Things have decidedly changed.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: All right, let's move on to Tucker Carlson on the
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan Experience. There were wild conspiracies flying when the
Speaker 2: episode itself was posted. Why doesn't it have enough views?
Speaker 2: What's going on there? Well, it's got several million views now,
Speaker 2: so everybody can relax. In general, just who don't have
Speaker 2: YouTube channels. In the first twenty four hours, it will
Speaker 2: often be much less publicly than what it actually is
Speaker 2: on the back end. I'm not really sure why they
Speaker 2: do that, but just so people understand that's what it is.
Speaker 2: After around twenty four hours or so, you can go
Speaker 2: and check and you will see the actual number. But
Speaker 2: that belies what's actually important. There were some ideological disagreements
Speaker 2: that were made on the show, where Tucker in particular
Speaker 2: echoed some of the things that he talked about previously
Speaker 2: whenever I interviewed him before about free speech hypocrites in
Speaker 2: the alternative media space.
Speaker 3: He names in shames.
Speaker 2: Barry Weiss and then also heavily implies Ben Shapiro as
Speaker 2: well let's take a listen.
Speaker 16: If you hear someone talk that's saying something that's kind
Speaker 16: of horseshit, it resonates with you that that's what you've seen.
Speaker 17: You had a moment with Barry Weiss on your show
Speaker 17: that when everywhere I saw a clip of it. I
Speaker 17: never saw the show itself, but she was going on
Speaker 17: about she was posing as one thing, and then you
Speaker 17: pressed you, you like, well, hold on a second, what do
Speaker 17: you mean by that? You just attack somebody? And she
Speaker 17: had no idea what she was talking about. And it
Speaker 17: became really clear to me watching that. I completely changed
Speaker 17: my view of Barry Weiss forever. I was like, oh,
Speaker 17: this she's a fraud. Actually, this person's not honest at all.
Speaker 17: Like she has a very specific agenda, that's all she
Speaker 17: cares about. The rest of this stuff is just a
Speaker 17: is a kind of sleight of hand maneuver.
Speaker 16: You're talking about the thing with Tulta Gabbart, that's correct. Yeah,
Speaker 16: she called her a toady and she didn't know what
Speaker 16: that meant.
Speaker 17: Well, but she had no idea like Telsea Gabbard had
Speaker 17: straight outside the lines on some Syria or something. Oh huh.
Speaker 17: And Barry Weiss was, you know, going through the files
Speaker 17: in her head, like what does she have to believe?
Speaker 17: And she was aware that, you know, Tulsi Gabbart had
Speaker 17: somehow violated that in a way that no one's willing
Speaker 17: to say, like in detail to her fully articulately, what
Speaker 17: did Tulsi Gabbert do wrong? No one will tell you.
Speaker 3: She's just bad. But it's important to be honest about
Speaker 3: what your agenda.
Speaker 16: She is honest. I think she is honest, and I
Speaker 16: really like her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 17: I'm not she's very into well, not against her personally.
Speaker 16: I just think that was a mistake, and I think
Speaker 16: you're allowed to do that and hopefully learn from that.
Speaker 17: If your agenda is neo kun politics, which is her agenda,
Speaker 17: just say so. Don't pretend to be a defender of
Speaker 17: free speech as a principle, which is what she does.
Speaker 16: How is she a defender of neokon politics?
Speaker 3: Very wise?
Speaker 17: Yeah, like what specifically, Well, anyone including me and Tulca Gabbard,
Speaker 17: who thinks that America shouldn't be funding worse that don't
Speaker 17: help America, she will attack.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's empirically true. I'm on Barry's feed literally, right,
Speaker 2: and listen, I have nothing personal against Barry Wise. You've
Speaker 2: only ever been cordial. This is purely a professional disagreement.
Speaker 2: Has put all that out there. But I'm on Barry's
Speaker 2: feed and everything is about individual students getting attacked at Yeah,
Speaker 2: for example, headline at the Free Press, I was stabbed
Speaker 2: in the Yale because I am a Jew. And then
Speaker 2: I continue to scroll past, and I see multiple retweets
Speaker 2: of like a panic going on anti free speech that's
Speaker 2: happening at Columbia University. If I continue to scroll and
Speaker 2: look at the Free Press, I see articles that are
Speaker 2: justifying more aid to Ukraine, more aid to Israel. But
Speaker 2: really what gave away the game to me? And this
Speaker 2: is actually just pure, one hundred percent proof, is it.
Speaker 2: Verry did an event in Israel with a guy named
Speaker 2: Natan Sharansky. Now most of you probably don't know who
Speaker 2: that is. Sharansky is an israel Israeli politician and a
Speaker 2: father of neo conservative ideology. He his book was chiefly
Speaker 2: responsible for George W. Bush's second inaugural address and the
Speaker 2: Freedom Agenda about spreading democracy to Iraq. So if you
Speaker 2: are doing an event with the father of the Freedom
Speaker 2: Agenda from Iraq, you are a neocon one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: And she did that unironically in Israel. And then also
Speaker 2: while there was posting videos like.
Speaker 3: This is what it's like to be under attack, you know, while.
Speaker 2: We're in Israel, people were like, yeah, what about a
Speaker 2: couple miles away over there in God's Like, I'm not
Speaker 2: justifying the attack, but I'm just come on, you know, like,
Speaker 2: let's chill here a little bit on the propaganda. So look,
Speaker 2: with all due respect to our friend Joe Rogan, I
Speaker 2: do think Barry is an absolutely unreconstructed neo conservative, a
Speaker 2: hypocrite whenever it comes to free speech, as Tucker correctly
Speaker 2: was calling out there, and he wasn't just talking about her,
Speaker 2: he was also talking about Ben Shapiro because both of
Speaker 2: those individuals raised and let's be honest, you know, monetarily
Speaker 2: became multi millionaires speaking out against free speech, hypocrisy and
Speaker 2: all that. And it's very easy, you know, to attack
Speaker 2: the left world, do it here anytime if we see
Speaker 2: hypocrisy as well. But you know, whenever it comes to
Speaker 2: an issue there where they have a deep emotional and
Speaker 2: religious attachment, then all of a sudden, all that stuff
Speaker 2: gets thrown right out the window.
Speaker 1: Listen part of Joe's charms that he sees the best
Speaker 1: in them. Yeah, that's we're sitting across from him, and
Speaker 1: that includes Barry Weiss, so we'll put him aside. In
Speaker 1: terms of the commentary. You know, the free speech part
Speaker 1: with Barry, it's so blatant because you know, when she
Speaker 1: was a college student, she was engaged aged in some
Speaker 1: of these activist efforts to get Muslim professors who she
Speaker 1: found to be saying things she didn't like canceled. Now
Speaker 1: she claimed once she entered her quote unquote free speech
Speaker 1: era that oh, I was a college student and people
Speaker 1: gave her a pass. Okay, find your college student. People,
Speaker 1: you know, make mistakes and they change and they grow,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. But the minute it came to Israel,
Speaker 1: suddenly she is the biggest cancel culture proponent that you
Speaker 1: could possibly am. I mean, that is what her entire
Speaker 1: Twitter feed is at this point. And it's not surprising
Speaker 1: that this tactic is being used to smear an entire
Speaker 1: protest movement and an entire cause because we see this
Speaker 1: plan on through throughout history. It's easier to you know,
Speaker 1: find the asshole in the movement, use that person to
Speaker 1: smear the entire movement, and then use that smearing of
Speaker 1: the movement to delegitimize the cause. And at this point,
Speaker 1: if you're an Israel supporter, that is a lot easier
Speaker 1: than actually out and out justifying what Israel is doing
Speaker 1: in Palestine day after day. It was a lot easier
Speaker 1: than out and out trying to argue that US continuing
Speaker 1: to support them as they were sending the world catastrophically
Speaker 1: in World War three is somehow an American interest. So
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's a cheap and easy playbook that
Speaker 1: we see throughout history. And yeah, she was happy to
Speaker 1: ditch the free speech language the minute that it was
Speaker 1: became inconvenient for her, after she built an entire your
Speaker 1: media empire off of it. So, I mean, that's just
Speaker 1: the reality.
Speaker 3: You believe what you want, Okay, it's free country.
Speaker 2: If you want to be rapidly pro Israel, cool, you
Speaker 2: want to cancel people who are Palestinian activists while you're
Speaker 2: in college and then apologize.
Speaker 3: For it, which is what she did. Objectively. She came
Speaker 3: out and said that she.
Speaker 2: Regretted her passing that I'll take you at your word,
Speaker 2: but then if you're immediately going to regress back to
Speaker 2: that same behavior, then I'm not going to take you
Speaker 2: out your word.
Speaker 3: I'm going to say that you are a giant hypocrite.
Speaker 2: And that's the same problem I have with Ben Shapiro, again,
Speaker 2: a pan who I have only ever had good personal
Speaker 2: interaction with. But this is a professional and a principal
Speaker 2: disagreement about what we view as important and what we
Speaker 2: view as actually whether you're standing up for what you
Speaker 2: said you believe in or not. And I think it
Speaker 2: was I'm glad that Tucker said that. I would hope,
Speaker 2: you know that Joe would maybe be take a look
Speaker 2: at some other free press articles that are out there,
Speaker 2: because I do think it's very important. There were also
Speaker 2: some allegations that Tucker made about blackmail and members of Congress,
Speaker 2: according to him, that he's seen from the intelligence community.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen, by.
Speaker 17: The way, you know, whatever, that's all I'll say, By
Speaker 17: the way, no, I mean, you know, people don't say
Speaker 17: that because they're worried abut getting punished. They're worried about
Speaker 17: someone putting kitty porn on their computer. Members of Congress
Speaker 17: are terrified of the Intel agencies I'm not guessing at that.
Speaker 17: They've told me that, including people on the Intel Committee,
Speaker 17: including people who run the Intel Committee, the people whose
Speaker 17: job it is to oversee and keep in line these
Speaker 17: enormous secretive agencies whose budgets we can't even know their
Speaker 17: black budget. It's there. The parents, the agencies are the children.
Speaker 17: They're afraid of the agencies. That's not compatible with democracy.
Speaker 2: Interesting alleging there that they'll put Katie porn on your
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, it's certainly possible. The broader thing, I
Speaker 2: definitely one hundred percent agree with. Glenn always loves to
Speaker 2: put play that clip of Chuck Schumer from twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: whenever he's like, Trump shouldn't mess with the Intel agencies
Speaker 2: and the CIA because they can really make life hard
Speaker 2: for you. And You're like, wait, what is your job
Speaker 2: is to is to.
Speaker 3: Oversee the CIA?
Speaker 2: Are you saying that there's the opposite, And I mean,
Speaker 2: considering what happened with Mike Johnson, where you have a
Speaker 2: guy who voted against Ukraine AID, spoke out against Ukraine AID,
Speaker 2: became president and then literally said because of the Intel
Speaker 2: that he decided to flip and become Winston Churchill and
Speaker 2: he prayed on on all that.
Speaker 3: I am not going to rule out blackmel Cristal. In
Speaker 3: terms of this, Mike john.
Speaker 1: Remember the Russian space Nuka just say situation when they're
Speaker 1: just yes with them through Listen the kitty porn thing.
Speaker 1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, no evidence presented. In addition,
Speaker 1: like this does kind of give a past to how
Speaker 1: any member of Congress in the future ends up with
Speaker 1: kitty porn on their laptop, to be like, it wasn't me,
Speaker 1: it was the Intel committees. It's just because I'm such
Speaker 1: a like, you know, warrior for truth that they're coming
Speaker 1: after me. Whatever. Look at what Tucker had to say
Speaker 1: about it. It's all out there in the open, soide
Speaker 1: don't love those comments certainly in terms the thing is
Speaker 1: that many of these conspiracies are out in the open.
Speaker 1: Like we were discussing before, we know the way that
Speaker 1: they rolled Obama. We know, you know, Trump was easily manipulated.
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson publicly admitted that he was emotionally manipulated by
Speaker 1: them into completely changing his previously held multiple positions. So
Speaker 1: I mean that part of it is just like it's
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy, that's just an undeniable fact about the
Speaker 1: way that they operate, and they can threaten to leak
Speaker 1: to the press, and there's any number of stenographers out
Speaker 1: there or print whatever they want to print, and they
Speaker 1: can ruin you, and these politicians know they can ruin you.
Speaker 1: You add to that, then you know the amount of
Speaker 1: money coming in not only through the Israel lobby, but
Speaker 1: also critically across every issue from the military industrial complex,
Speaker 1: these defense The defense industry is one of the largest
Speaker 1: funders of political campaigns. And you see how you end
Speaker 1: up with the results that we have, which are directly
Speaker 1: contrary to actual democracy and actual will of the people,
Speaker 1: which is why over and over and over again, you
Speaker 1: see these things only go in one direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, all right, let's okay, second part here, and
Speaker 2: this requires an entire discussion on its own.
Speaker 3: Talker and I do share a fascination.
Speaker 2: With UFO's UAPs whatever you would like to call it.
Speaker 2: But he seems to believe that the phenomenon as it
Speaker 2: exists involves something supernatural but of this world, and something
Speaker 2: that is not alien or extraterrestrial. Here's the case that
Speaker 2: he laid out on Joe Rogan.
Speaker 16: Well, when you say spiritual, like what makes you draw
Speaker 16: that conclusion that their spiritual?
Speaker 17: What's the obvious I mean spiritual maybe the wrong words supernatural?
Speaker 17: You know, they're beyond nature as we understand it. I mean,
Speaker 17: obviously they are. I mean, just chart their physical behavior.
Speaker 17: It doesn't you know, it goes outside of what we
Speaker 17: understand about physics. So if you have a craft, any
Speaker 17: object underwater that's traveling at five hundred knots as measured
Speaker 17: by sonar right there, you're challenging understanding physics, like what
Speaker 17: is that? How can that be?
Speaker 16: So they've they've tracked that, they've tracked things going five
Speaker 16: hundred knots under the sea.
Speaker 17: Yeah really, yeah, much much faster than any object could
Speaker 17: can actually go under under Oh for sure.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah.
Speaker 17: There's a lot of stuff going on underwater and a
Speaker 17: lot and there's video of these things coming out of
Speaker 17: the sky into the water and also emerging from the water.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 17: But then there's a deeper level, which is like, Okay,
Speaker 17: what's your relationship with these things? What is the US
Speaker 17: government's relationship with these things? And there's evidence that there
Speaker 17: is a relationship and that it's a longstanding and that
Speaker 17: raises like a lot of questions about intent, and.
Speaker 3: So like what is that?
Speaker 17: And I just personally decided, you know, and people have
Speaker 17: been hurt by these things. You know, that's a fact.
Speaker 17: That's a fact. It's a noble fact, it's a provable fact.
Speaker 3: And killed.
Speaker 17: And I'm not saying millions of people have been killed
Speaker 17: by whatever these things are, but people have been killed,
Speaker 17: and it's known because it's working its way through the
Speaker 17: courts out of the VA. So I don't know an
Speaker 17: object that is by definition supernatural, it's above the laws
Speaker 17: of nature as we understand them, and that has resulted
Speaker 17: in the deaths of people. We don't spend enough time
Speaker 17: thinking about like what that adds up to, like not good?
Speaker 17: Actually not good.
Speaker 2: So he's implying kind of the same stuff that he'd
Speaker 2: previously talks about here, Crystal. I mean, he seems to
Speaker 2: believe that uap ufo whatever you would like to call it,
Speaker 2: of beer in here for hundreds of years, which definitely
Speaker 2: there is evidence for that, but that they are like
Speaker 2: some sort of biblical angels and demons as opposed to extraterrestrials.
Speaker 3: So I'll let you weigh in before I give some
Speaker 3: of my thoughts.
Speaker 1: Well, this k yeah, this the context before of his
Speaker 1: interview with Putin, We're asked Putin something about this, and
Speaker 1: Putin's like, noe, yeah, I don't know. I feel like
Speaker 1: I have to get you to decode this for me,
Speaker 1: because I was asking you previously, how large of a
Speaker 1: percentage of the like UFO interest community shares this like
Speaker 1: Christian spiritual angel demons view of whatever the hell is
Speaker 1: going on?
Speaker 2: This is more of like a nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: UFO phenomenal. Really yeah, oh yeah, people back in the
Speaker 2: day used to really believe.
Speaker 1: I thought this was like a new school, like Christian Nationalism.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, definitely, no, absolutely not.
Speaker 2: If anything, it's much older, the more of the extraterrestrial school,
Speaker 2: I guess you could call it is. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: always been there for the entire time, but there's always
Speaker 2: been debates and all around this. To a certain extent,
Speaker 2: I don't even care, because as long as people are interested,
Speaker 2: it's just going to lead to more transparency. What kicked
Speaker 2: off this entire discussion actually was the declassification of the
Speaker 2: ConA Blue Program, and these were declassified documents. News Nation
Speaker 2: reporting this and I've confirmed at least some of it
Speaker 2: as well, from those people that I've spoken to, is
Speaker 2: specifically about a proposed program to try and reverse engineer
Speaker 2: back UFOs. It was quote scrapped according to them, when
Speaker 2: no alien technology was found, and the Pentagon continues to
Speaker 2: maintain there is no evidence of alien life. So what
Speaker 2: they said, basically, what they're claiming is there was a
Speaker 2: proposal to back engineer UFOs, but then they weren't able
Speaker 2: to find any UFOs. But why would you have a
Speaker 2: back engineering proposal if there were no UFOs?
Speaker 3: Whatever? Got chat?
Speaker 2: Okay, there's a lot of conversation I guess around this.
Speaker 2: To be honest, I mean, look, you know, nome disrespect.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it seem more plausible that that we're dealing with
Speaker 2: extraterrestrial life than we are angels and demons that we're
Speaker 2: dealing with if something, you know, one is in the
Speaker 2: realm of all scientifics. All sci fi is premised on
Speaker 2: what on the idea and specifically toying with the Fermi
Speaker 2: paradox and all that that if intelligent life is able
Speaker 2: to arise on a relatively unremarkable planet like Earth, then
Speaker 2: why would it not be able to arise in the
Speaker 2: billions and billions and trillions upon stars that exists in
Speaker 2: our galaxy at the same time. If there are, and
Speaker 2: extraterrestrial life is almost a certainty, then why haven't we
Speaker 2: been able to see it or observe it? And that's
Speaker 2: where it comes into play of like, well, an intelligent
Speaker 2: life would have to be able to achieve you know,
Speaker 2: faster than light travel at the exact same time that
Speaker 2: the human race has. One hundred and fifty thousand years
Speaker 2: or whatever of human evolution is a blink of an
Speaker 2: eye in terrestrial terms. So there may have been vast
Speaker 2: great civilizations that have been risen and fallen in the interim,
Speaker 2: and that way, we may be the only ones in
Speaker 2: our star system or whatever at the current moment that
Speaker 2: is able.
Speaker 3: To even see.
Speaker 2: So I accept, and you know, see both certain possibilities,
Speaker 2: but I think that that is a lot more of
Speaker 2: a possible explanation.
Speaker 3: I will just say, very humbly myself.
Speaker 1: That's very diplomatically put. Yeah, I'll just defer.
Speaker 3: To you on that one. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, in terms of the evidence for their theory, what
Speaker 2: they point to is again not necessarily incompatible with any
Speaker 2: theories around extraterrestrial life, because we're there evidence for supernatural
Speaker 2: and or like religion and all that really relies again
Speaker 2: on like big conversations within physics around the fourth and
Speaker 2: the fifth dimension and this whole idea if you ever
Speaker 2: watch Interstellar, you know the idea of its future humans
Speaker 2: send themselves back. I think that's the explanations if there
Speaker 2: is one for kind of what he's talking about. Gotch
Speaker 2: if that makes sense. Okay, anyway, there we go.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, we have a great guest standing by
Speaker 1: who's actually been tracking these protests on the Columbia University
Speaker 1: campus for quite a while. So let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: get to that. Very pleased to be joined this morning
Speaker 1: by prem Taker. He's a reporter for the as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: has been covering these Columbia University protests for quite some time.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, probub, welcome you.
Speaker 3: See you man.
Speaker 10: Happy to happ to be here, thank you.
Speaker 1: So we all were witnessed to some extraordinary scenes coming
Speaker 1: out of the campus grounds over the weekend. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen and maybe you
Speaker 1: can tell us what we see here. It's the New
Speaker 1: York Police Department coming in to arrest what appeared to
Speaker 1: be peaceful student protesters just give us a little bit
Speaker 1: of what we're looking at and what the backstory is here.
Speaker 10: Yeah, So.
Speaker 18: On Wednesday, as many people know, last week, Columbia administrators,
Speaker 18: including Columbia President Minushafik, had been called to Congress to
Speaker 18: testify in front of the hearing of the House committee
Speaker 18: that has been hosting hearings on antisemitism. And at the
Speaker 18: same morning that this was happening, hundreds of Columbia students
Speaker 18: had launched an encampment, both kind of in relation to
Speaker 18: this hearing, but more broadly sort of escalating ongoing demands
Speaker 18: they've had for years now about financial trends, expariency, and
Speaker 18: to call for the school to divest from companies that
Speaker 18: might be implicated in israels of violence in Palestine. And
Speaker 18: so there's this en camera that that sprouts up on
Speaker 18: Wednesday morning, very massive encampment at the same time the
Speaker 18: administrators are testifying in front of Congress at this hearing.
Speaker 18: Of course I was at the hearing live, but you know,
Speaker 18: as many people were just falling through Twitter and c
Speaker 18: spent if that's your choice. These members of Congress, especially Republicans,
Speaker 18: have really gotten Columbian administrators to agree to this premise
Speaker 18: that more needed to be done in response to these students.
Speaker 18: And so you see, the day after Thursday, Columbia acts
Speaker 18: on those premises and sends the NYPD to sort of
Speaker 18: sweep out this encampment and begin conducting arrests, of which
Speaker 18: I believe over one hundred students were arrested. I believe
Speaker 18: fifty odd students from Barnard, the Women's College at Columbia,
Speaker 18: and then thirty odd Columbia students, and I think this
Speaker 18: number has probably grown since then.
Speaker 10: We're also suspended.
Speaker 18: So that was the beginning of what we've now seen,
Speaker 18: you know, the past four or five days, just this
Speaker 18: ongoing escalation on part especially of the university to kind
Speaker 18: of meet these students, not with sort of perhaps good
Speaker 18: faith willingness to negotiate or discuss issues at hand, but
Speaker 18: really just to police them. And I'll note last night
Speaker 18: at one fifteen am, President Manushafik sent an email kind
Speaker 18: of expressing an interest in.
Speaker 10: In some ways.
Speaker 18: You know, of course people criticize the statement, but she's
Speaker 18: expressed a desire to kind of hash things out and
Speaker 18: then bring the temperature down.
Speaker 10: So that's kind of the latest.
Speaker 2: Update, okay, And so you also put out an image
Speaker 2: which we're about to play here, which was the aftermath
Speaker 2: after the NYPD he came in where it appears to
Speaker 2: actually pour gasoline on that. Let's actually see that image
Speaker 2: right now, and so prem that image underscore that it
Speaker 2: actually ended up increasing the amount of protesters.
Speaker 3: It's drawn attention. Now, what is the current status quo?
Speaker 2: And give us some background because things now I've reached
Speaker 2: the national discourse level. We've seen people calling for the
Speaker 2: National Guard to be brought in the NYPD.
Speaker 3: Mayor Eric Adams.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think we have that statement out there f
Speaker 2: seven guys, if we can put that up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. We have Mayor Eric Adams who has put
Speaker 2: out a tweet where he says that he deplores the
Speaker 2: amount of anti semitism on campus. I'm horrified and disgusted
Speaker 2: being spewed around the Columbia University.
Speaker 3: Hate has no place in our city.
Speaker 2: I've instructed NYPD to investigate any violation of the law.
Speaker 2: Rhetoric is certainly ramping up there. So what do you
Speaker 2: expect the fallout to?
Speaker 18: Yeah, So for context, in the past day or two,
Speaker 18: there have been instances of alleged you know, anti semitism
Speaker 18: that have been circulating throughout the internet, things that you know,
Speaker 18: we ought to verify, and also things that it's not
Speaker 18: clear if they were in fact Propositian students making these
Speaker 18: claims or doing these things. There's concerns as with protests,
Speaker 18: especially with regards to Israel pastime for years of potential infiltration,
Speaker 18: slash fall flags. You know, we're not sure, but regardless,
Speaker 18: in any case, those instances have helped propel numerous members
Speaker 18: of Congress, even the White House, as you saw Eric
Speaker 18: Adams as well as Governor Kathy Okle to issue statements
Speaker 18: essentially condemning the student protesters in all sorts of ways,
Speaker 18: whether it's you know, describing them or comparing them to
Speaker 18: possibly being terrorist sympathizers or at least echoing terrorist rhetoric.
Speaker 18: I believe John Fetterman had much more direct comparison that
Speaker 18: if you gave these students tiki torches, they'd be unmistakable
Speaker 18: from the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. But regardless, you know,
Speaker 18: that has definitely I think probably prompted this this late
Speaker 18: night savement from Manushafik, and so as far as how
Speaker 18: students and faculty members are navigating this today, all classes
Speaker 18: are virtual, I think as as the administration tries to
Speaker 18: figure out what.
Speaker 10: To do today.
Speaker 18: As well, faculty starting yesterday had a very hard time
Speaker 18: getting around campus. Their ide access to buildings. A lot
Speaker 18: of faculty reporting was either severely hindered or even just
Speaker 18: blocked and they had to be escorted to buildings. And
Speaker 18: that change was made kind of spontaneously, which means students
Speaker 18: to faculty who had you know, whether it was a
Speaker 18: notebook or project, and in various buildings that they couldn't
Speaker 18: really go to to get those things. So I think
Speaker 18: everything is kind of you know, being done by the
Speaker 18: sea of their pants in terms of how far this
Speaker 18: is spreading to your points are Yeah, Like after the
Speaker 18: NYPD was authorized to come in and arrest students, that
Speaker 18: set off hundreds more students to have more interest just
Speaker 18: in Columbia's campus, but also now students throughout the country
Speaker 18: who have already also been protesting against perhaps university involvement
Speaker 18: or investment in Israel's violence.
Speaker 10: They've been escalating to schools.
Speaker 18: And these aren't just Ivy League schools that are often
Speaker 18: you know, seen as the centrifuge of these actions. You know,
Speaker 18: there's the universe from North Carolina. There's Michigan University as
Speaker 18: of today that's doing an encampment Miami University in Oxford, Ohio,
Speaker 18: which I love to say the full sentence of because
Speaker 18: it's a very silly series of words. But there's a
Speaker 18: lot of schools across the country that now are being
Speaker 18: host to actions that are not just in solidarity with
Speaker 18: these Columbia students, but really just ramping up their own
Speaker 18: actions to say, well, if Columbia can do this too, Columbia.
Speaker 10: Students, I should say, then we ought to be escalating
Speaker 10: as well. It is kind of the mindset of these students.
Speaker 1: Have you seen any evidence that anti Semitism is one
Speaker 1: of the core emotions or goals that are fueling these
Speaker 1: protests movements across a variety of college campuses.
Speaker 18: So I've been speaking to students all across the country
Speaker 18: throughout the past six months, and I think, as in
Speaker 18: any case, of course, individual instances of antisemitism would surely
Speaker 18: happen to any place, because reality check, there are anti
Speaker 18: Semitic people in this country and in this world. But
Speaker 18: in terms of this specific protest movement, what we've seen
Speaker 18: at the Columbia protest, what we've seen at protests throughout
Speaker 18: the past six months, throughout past years. Is that it's
Speaker 18: very much both just visually if you take a look,
Speaker 18: but also in terms of their rhetoric, in terms of
Speaker 18: what they want. It's a multi racial, interfaith group of
Speaker 18: people that really just fired up by the idea that
Speaker 18: their schools, their elected officials, the people that they trust
Speaker 18: or just simply pay are implicated in what they see
Speaker 18: as a state government that's committing apartheid, that's committing violence
Speaker 18: that they might be financially implicated or institutionally implicated. That
Speaker 18: seems to be the driving force for all these protesters
Speaker 18: for the most part, as sort of an organization, as
Speaker 18: a group of people that are coming together for goals.
Speaker 18: It's to not allow the images that they've seen over
Speaker 18: the past six months, especially to continue. And as a
Speaker 18: lot of anti Zionis Jewish people say, not in their
Speaker 18: name either.
Speaker 2: So we have yet seen, though the chief Rabbi at
Speaker 2: Columbia F five, who can please put that up there
Speaker 2: on the screen where the chief Rabbi has put out
Speaker 2: a message to the more than two hundred and ninety
Speaker 2: Jewish students at Columbia University yesterday morning, recommending that they
Speaker 2: go home until it is safe again for them on campus.
Speaker 2: So is there any evidence that any of these students
Speaker 2: are unsafe on their campus?
Speaker 18: Yeah, so I think similarly again, I would say that,
Speaker 18: you know, there could very well be individuals of anti
Speaker 18: Cmitism that students are facing, and and if they're apporting
Speaker 18: them to to their own you know, whether it's their
Speaker 18: faith leaders or or campus leaders as the administration has recommended,
Speaker 18: then of course some of those leaders will say, hey,
Speaker 18: you know, I personally don't think it's safe. For what
Speaker 18: it's worth, there have been also lots of Jewish students
Speaker 18: and Jewish student leaders and and and facut members as
Speaker 18: well that are pushing back against that quite severely, especially
Speaker 18: given that many of the people within the encampment themselves
Speaker 18: are either Israeli or Jewish. So you know, I'm not
Speaker 18: going to UH as their individual porters say who should
Speaker 18: or shouldn't feel safe generally for for for their own
Speaker 18: individual's sake, But in terms of the campus as a whole,
Speaker 18: I think if we're going to look for UH document
Speaker 18: instance the violence that have been committed, of course, one
Speaker 18: of the main ones that's been on people's mind is
Speaker 18: of course the incident in January where students were sprayed
Speaker 18: with some sort of chemical It's not been confirmed what.
Speaker 10: At a rally for Gaza.
Speaker 18: That's one of the more prominent instances of of of
Speaker 18: violence against students, and nevertheless, those students continue to organize
Speaker 18: and be together. I believe the Craft Center as well,
Speaker 18: which is a big space for for Jewish students, has
Speaker 18: encouraged students to sort of, you know, are to not
Speaker 18: exit campus in this way because I think, you know,
Speaker 18: they want to, you know, make sure that they provide
Speaker 18: a space for students as well in case students are
Speaker 18: feeling you know, distressed. But I think for one, especially politicians,
Speaker 18: to to operate on this presumption that Columbia and other
Speaker 18: college campuses are not a safe place for Jewish people
Speaker 18: or Israeli people are really teeing off on these sort
Speaker 18: of viral claims of individual instances and are not entertaining
Speaker 18: the fact that there are scores of Jewish and Israeli
Speaker 18: students and students of all backgrounds that not only feel
Speaker 18: safe on campus, but feel empowered on campus because that
Speaker 18: they're of this organizing together.
Speaker 1: Prom last thing for you, I wanted to get your
Speaker 1: reaction to the White House statement, guys, this is E
Speaker 1: six we can put up on the screen. They said, Well,
Speaker 1: every American has the right to peaceful protest. Calls for
Speaker 1: violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students in the Jewish
Speaker 1: community are blatantly anti Semitic, unconsortable, and dangerous. They have
Speaker 1: absolutely no place on any college campus or anywhere in
Speaker 1: the USA. And echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organizations, especially
Speaker 1: in the wake of the worst massacre committed against the
Speaker 1: Jewish people since the Holocaust, is despicable. We condemn these
Speaker 1: statements in the strongest terms. How would you compare this
Speaker 1: reaction action to the White House to reported isolated comments
Speaker 1: of random protesters near college campuses. How would you compare
Speaker 1: that reaction to the reaction they had, for example, to
Speaker 1: a member of Congress calling for Gaza to be nuked,
Speaker 1: or another one saying goodbye Palestine, or another one saying
Speaker 1: there are no innocent Gozzins.
Speaker 18: Yeah, I think your question kind of lays out the
Speaker 18: answer itself. You know, this is actually something we had
Speaker 18: reported on two weeks ago, just going through every single
Speaker 18: sort of anti Palestine new thing that a member of
Speaker 18: Congress had said over the past exons, and of course
Speaker 18: that list could not be all inclusive just because it's
Speaker 18: so normalized. But you know, this administration has not issued
Speaker 18: any sort of direct formal response or statement with regards
Speaker 18: to those that growing pile of just vicious anti past
Speaker 18: in retic as you know, Lindsey Graham saying to level
Speaker 18: the place, Cotton, saying Israel can bounce the Reubland Gaza,
Speaker 18: as you just to you know, numerous representatives saying to
Speaker 18: you know, we're going to turn into a parking lot.
Speaker 18: Representative Brian mass who famously wore his idea of uniform
Speaker 18: to Congress, which I'm not sure how usual it is
Speaker 18: for an American number of Congress to away a foreign
Speaker 18: military uniform to to the halls of Congress, but he
Speaker 18: compared Palestinian civilians to Nazis and has said other vicious
Speaker 18: things as well.
Speaker 10: You know, this administration has not.
Speaker 18: Issued any sort of formal statement on it, let alone,
Speaker 18: you know, rhetorically or or politically exhibited any sort of
Speaker 18: counter to that idea. Those things kind of exist in
Speaker 18: the ether, and it's not sort of sort of evidently clear.
Speaker 18: And the same way that the Biden instiration has issued
Speaker 18: many many, many statements about October seventh about condemning Hamas,
Speaker 18: about anti Semitism, which is which is all good and great.
Speaker 18: You know you should be making those evident statements on
Speaker 18: violence and and and anti pow excuse me, anti sam
Speaker 18: Semitic rhetoric. They have not done the same at all,
Speaker 18: even for their own colleagues, saying, you know, genocidal rhetoric.
Speaker 10: I will know.
Speaker 18: One other thing is that this was in the same
Speaker 18: twenty four hours the White House statement as Israeli forces
Speaker 18: killing I believe eighteen or nineteen children, and then a
Speaker 18: husband because a pregnant wife, and then two yes, yes, exactly,
Speaker 18: and then two more women in Rafa, which should be underscored,
Speaker 18: is not only where over a million civilians are taking
Speaker 18: refuge after being displaced, but is where the United States
Speaker 18: has ostensibly said over and over and over again that
Speaker 18: they do not support a major operation without a plan
Speaker 18: to protect civilians. But in that time Israel has repeatedly
Speaker 18: done what I guess is normalized as a not major
Speaker 18: operation and has just been killing people just over time
Speaker 18: on mass But of course, nevertheless there was no formal
Speaker 18: clear statement on that, and I will update the people
Speaker 18: soon on this. But it's been hours since I reached
Speaker 18: out to the White House since midday yesterday about that
Speaker 18: exact thing, to see if you know, at least upon
Speaker 18: being prompted, if they would, you know, share a comment.
Speaker 10: I have not heard back yet.
Speaker 1: There you go, prom Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us this morning's pleasure to meet you, get to speak
Speaker 1: to you, and we've also enjoyed some of your exchanges
Speaker 1: with the State Department. So please keep up the good work.
Speaker 3: Thanks, ma'am, take care.
Speaker 10: Of you both.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks you too.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2: I'm sure we'll have a nice long show for everybody
Speaker 2: tomorrow too, and we'll see you all later.