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 coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: Let's get to the show. Let's go now to Mark
Speaker 2: Cuban to Lena Khan. There's been a great war. We
Speaker 2: talked about this previously where there had been efforts by
Speaker 2: Reid Hoffman, the Democratic mega donor billionaire, to oust Lena
Speaker 2: Khan on television. She is the FTC chair under President
Speaker 2: Biden and has been very aggressive on antitrust, specifically in
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley. Well, now, Mark Cuban, who has really emerged
Speaker 2: as a major kamalas surriat let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen, has come out in a recent Semaphore
Speaker 2: event to say, quote, if it were me, I wouldn't
Speaker 2: asked if she should keep Lena Khan as FTC chair.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: By trying to break up the biggest tech companies, you
Speaker 2: risk our ability to be the best in artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: This fits with a general strategy by Cuban to not
Speaker 2: only serve as a surrogate, but to do so for
Speaker 2: a very specific purpose, in that he wants to be
Speaker 2: the head of the SEC under Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 4: But I asked you, Mark, whether you would entertain being
Speaker 4: a Treasury secret or Commerce secretary in a.
Speaker 3: Harrison, head of the SEC, head of the SEC.
Speaker 5: That's the job I would take.
Speaker 3: That is a man who knows exactly what he wants.
Speaker 2: Because Kavudo is like, hey, are you going to be
Speaker 2: the Commerce secretary? He's like head of the SEC, head
Speaker 2: of the SEC. He knows exactly which one he's going for.
Speaker 2: This is though, and it will be an interesting fight
Speaker 2: if Kamala does win. So we had Senator Bernie Sanders
Speaker 2: come out. Let's put this on the screen. He says,
Speaker 2: Mark Cuban is wrong. Lena Khan is the best FDC
Speaker 2: chair in history. By taking on corporate greed and illegal monopolies,
Speaker 2: Lena is doing an exceptional job preventing large corporations from
Speaker 2: ripping off consumers and exploiting workers.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Lena for what you are doing.
Speaker 2: This is also interesting because I saw David Serota making
Speaker 2: this point. It is now that the Republican vice presidential candidate,
Speaker 2: Jade Vance has had better things to say about Lena
Speaker 2: Kahn publicly, at least publicly than Kamala Harris herself, who
Speaker 2: clearly has a disparate like billionaire coalition at the top,
Speaker 2: which is very broken up about how exactly she should govern,
Speaker 2: how she should have policy proposals and all that.
Speaker 3: And I think this will be a flagship test for her.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure which way to'll go if I had
Speaker 3: to bet. I think Cuban's going to wait, yeah, well.
Speaker 1: In the specific job that he's angling for head of
Speaker 1: the SEC that's the Securities Exchange Commission. Gary Gensler is
Speaker 1: the head of the SEC right now. And you know,
Speaker 1: the Mark Cuban billionaire types of the world, they not
Speaker 1: only hate Lena Khan also hate Gensler, and specifically they
Speaker 1: hate Gensler because he has been hard on crypto. He's
Speaker 1: been I mean, he's just like applying the laws to crypto,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of the you know a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the tech billionaire world, they are really
Speaker 1: adversarial towards Gary Gensler too, so Mark Cuban signaling he
Speaker 1: would be you know, friendly in a lot of regards
Speaker 1: if he was there as head of the SEC. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's one thing if you were like, oh,
Speaker 1: this guy's just out there freelancing like a billionaire, just
Speaker 1: like saying I hate these you know, attacks on corporate power.
Speaker 5: But he is.
Speaker 1: He is an official Kamala Harris surrogate, and he has
Speaker 1: made it clear in the past when he was criticizing
Speaker 1: the approach of the SEC, which is, you know, their
Speaker 1: approach is just literally actually enforcing the law. He was
Speaker 1: critical of that and he was asked, effectively like are
Speaker 1: you saying this or is the campaign saying this?
Speaker 5: And he was like, the campaign told me.
Speaker 1: She's told me to say these things, so you know,
Speaker 1: it's yeah, it's it sucks because the best hope for
Speaker 1: Kama from my perspective, would be that she would be
Speaker 1: more like Obama on foreign policy a little you know
Speaker 1: that he had the Iranian nuclear deal, he was a
Speaker 1: little bit more adversarial towards Israel. Not over stated in
Speaker 1: the case, but he was certainly better than Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: and that she would be more like Biden on domestic policy,
Speaker 1: where the FTC, the anti trust stuff, the labor stuff.
Speaker 1: The I think she labor seems like she'll be, you know,
Speaker 1: more or less where Biden was on labor as best as.
Speaker 5: We can tell.
Speaker 1: But the sec you know, skeptical approach to crypto that
Speaker 1: she would carry over those pieces. And you know, at
Speaker 1: this point you just have to say that in the
Speaker 1: cases are very worrying that she'll revert to the Obama era,
Speaker 1: very Wall Street cozy type of relationship towards Wall Street
Speaker 1: and Silicon Valley. It makes sense in certain regards since
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris was Attorney General of California during the time
Speaker 1: when a bunch of these tech companies were rising to
Speaker 1: be the monopolistic behemoths that they are right now, and she,
Speaker 1: you know, she did not scrutinize them whatsoever. A lot
Speaker 1: of her donor base came from that world, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so you know, on the one hand, yes,
Speaker 1: the Biden Harris administration has actually been really good on
Speaker 1: these things. In fact, we could put up D five.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department under Biden Harris is now considering asking
Speaker 1: a federal judge to actually break up Google and sell
Speaker 1: off parts of its business. So they have been certainly
Speaker 1: the most skeptical and the most tough on these you know,
Speaker 1: giant tech monopolies, and a lot of other monopolies as well,
Speaker 1: have have really tried to re establish antitrust regulation and
Speaker 1: enforcement and look at these anti competitive practices that giant
Speaker 1: companies like Google have, you know, have pursued. But but
Speaker 1: she seems so enamored with this, like I'm going to
Speaker 1: appeal to Republicans and I'm gonna, you know, appeal to
Speaker 1: Wall Street strategy that I think there's a real risk
Speaker 1: that she does not follow through on, you know, the
Speaker 1: positive Biden direction that we've seen on these things. I
Speaker 1: would be remissified and point out like, obviously Trump's biggest
Speaker 1: backer is Elon Musk, who's one of the richest people
Speaker 1: on the planet and is himself now at tech oligarch
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So you know, I don't want
Speaker 1: to make it seem like, oh, the Republicans will be
Speaker 1: better on big tech. The evidence is the Biden Harris
Speaker 1: administration has been better and more skeptical of corporate power,
Speaker 1: more skeptical of tech in general. Then the Trump administration was,
Speaker 1: But just from a you know, policy perspective, I think
Speaker 1: it's a real shame that she appears to be reluctant
Speaker 1: to let down the Mark Cubans of the world, thinks
Speaker 1: that this is like the best political direction for her
Speaker 1: to go in trying to cater to these you know,
Speaker 1: Wall Street executives and billionaires. And I don't know if
Speaker 1: it will matter in terms of the election, but I
Speaker 1: saw some opining from like Matt Iglesias and the like that,
Speaker 1: you know, there weren't really any political rewards for being
Speaker 1: more aggressive on anti trust enforcement. So the reason to
Speaker 1: jodahs because it's a good policy, not because it works out
Speaker 1: to be good politics. But I sort of disagree with
Speaker 1: that because if you look at the polling of Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and even of Joe Biden, to certain extending that
Speaker 1: is very unpopular. She consistently performs better on is going
Speaker 1: to represent the interest of the middle class, and you know,
Speaker 1: consistently performs better on questions of who's going to represent
Speaker 1: the wealthy and who's going to represent the average American?
Speaker 5: And you know, do I think that.
Speaker 1: People are really immersed in the details of what Lena
Speaker 1: Khan's doing at the FTC, et cetera, et cetera. No,
Speaker 1: but some of this breaks through. Some of this gives
Speaker 1: a sense of Okay, they've been you know, they've been
Speaker 1: fighting in these key regards, whether it's going after junk
Speaker 1: fees or trying to make it easier to file your taxes,
Speaker 1: or going after some of these big concentrations of power.
Speaker 1: Some of that does break through. And so to just
Speaker 1: dismiss those numbers of where she is performing better than
Speaker 1: Trump on who's going to represent your interest over the
Speaker 1: interest of the wealthy, I think is also to be
Speaker 1: very selective in your analysis of the politics of this.
Speaker 3: I just don't know.
Speaker 2: I really don't know this whole deliverism theory and all
Speaker 2: of that. I mean, yeah, it's like about how many
Speaker 2: voters out there who are even thinking about middle class
Speaker 2: think about the FDC. Now, I only scenario says toally wrong.
Speaker 2: They're going to feel it regardless of the policy or not.
Speaker 2: But are they paying attention. Evidence is probably not, so
Speaker 2: I think she might be able to get away with
Speaker 2: it if she does win under the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: It's an open.
Speaker 2: Question, Like I said, because of JD's previous comments, on
Speaker 2: Lena Khan and which direction that they will decide to
Speaker 2: go under their DOJ and their FTC. It really honestly
Speaker 2: depends on which donor or whatever. So we'll see. It's
Speaker 2: one of those where the actual question of it is
Speaker 2: more important at a policy level than necessarily like political.
Speaker 2: This is actually I mean again, it's like all I
Speaker 2: was talking about this yesterday on the Johnny Mitchell Show,
Speaker 2: By the Way to Connect, we were talking about economic
Speaker 2: policy and all that. Unless you're very wealthy, you don't
Speaker 2: really have any specific economic things to point to.
Speaker 3: I've been thinking about this.
Speaker 2: What do you mean rich people know exactly what they
Speaker 2: want from the tax code.
Speaker 3: Salt, that's it, salt.
Speaker 2: If you're a small business owner yah tcja QBI, you're like,
Speaker 2: you know exactly what you need to low or attacks
Speaker 2: by X, Y and Z.
Speaker 3: Most people.
Speaker 2: If you're a W two income person and you make
Speaker 2: less than four hundred thousand dollars a year, which is
Speaker 2: ninety something percent of the country, both of these candidates
Speaker 2: say they will not increase your marginal tax rate. So
Speaker 2: you have nothing specific that you can point to. Maybe
Speaker 2: if you work in the solar industry, you can be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's tax credit, or if you work in oil and gas,
Speaker 2: you can be like, Okay, I want some stuffsdy or whatever.
Speaker 3: Eventually that will filter down to me.
Speaker 2: But something I've realized in like this FTC and all
Speaker 2: that is that it is a hyper elite conversation because
Speaker 2: most people don't make money, or make enough money, or
Speaker 2: make money in the ways to be affected by this
Speaker 2: macro condition. A lot of it is just a totally
Speaker 2: elite conversation because I mean and correctly, people should not
Speaker 2: know about salt or any of these other things because
Speaker 2: you know, it doesn't affect your everyday life unless you're
Speaker 2: what three hundred K four un k or whatever household.
Speaker 2: By the way, I understand, there is one coreal I
Speaker 2: want to make the salt thing. Yeah, that some Californians
Speaker 2: have pointed out to me. If you did buy your
Speaker 2: house in n it te eighties, like a lot of boomers,
Speaker 2: and then it massively increased, the property tax bill has
Speaker 2: now become so high that the reduction of salt actually
Speaker 2: did negatively impact them. So that might be the one
Speaker 2: case where I am sympathetic on salt.
Speaker 3: I'm like, I get it.
Speaker 2: I get it because now you're paying a shit ton
Speaker 2: of property tax in the state of California, and that's
Speaker 2: no longer deductible from your overall federal tax burden. Again,
Speaker 2: the data does tell us that it's massively beneficial to
Speaker 2: make over one million.
Speaker 5: No, it's almost exclusively a tax.
Speaker 3: Menal over ninety percent.
Speaker 1: That's why you're like, oh, I don't know how Trumble
Speaker 1: got like I do.
Speaker 5: I mean we've already seen.
Speaker 3: Well we don't.
Speaker 2: That's not fair because he's not back in office like
Speaker 2: he says, but I'm going to have different people who
Speaker 2: are in power.
Speaker 3: Well, see all that works out. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: But think about this, think about this. Okay, what are
Speaker 1: the issues that he's flipped on?
Speaker 2: Okay, by the way, so don't don't don't erase what
Speaker 2: happened to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, which is that
Speaker 2: expats will no longer be double taxed coming through for this,
Speaker 2: Will someone think of rich Americans?
Speaker 5: That's right, and somebody please think of these things.
Speaker 1: That's you know, that's really going to feel the deal
Speaker 1: for him in terms of his election.
Speaker 3: There's four million of them and they can vote.
Speaker 1: So you've got you know, you've got his assault flip
Speaker 1: flop You've got him shifting on crypto. You've got him,
Speaker 1: you know, going to the oil and gas industry like
Speaker 1: I will do whatever you want. That's not real flip flop.
Speaker 1: You've got him promising rich people, billionaires that hey, back
Speaker 1: me because I'm going to do the tc JA that
Speaker 1: we know for sure he's going to do. And we
Speaker 1: see who has been honestly most empowered in his campaign,
Speaker 1: and that's Elon Musk, who is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: UH union busters in the country. Elon Musk is right
Speaker 1: now going to the Supreme Court to try to argue
Speaker 1: that the National Labor Relations Board is literally unconstitutional, and
Speaker 1: that is Donald Trump's probably biggest backer, certainly most influential backer.
Speaker 1: So no, I mean, I'm clear eyed about where Kabla
Speaker 1: Harris stands vis these issues and the hints that her
Speaker 1: campaign is giving out and also the notable silence that
Speaker 1: she won't say what she'll do on Lena. But I
Speaker 1: think we also have to be clear right about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is made it manifestly evident who you know he
Speaker 1: is catering to in his campaign and with cater to
Speaker 1: in office, which is the same group that he cater
Speaker 1: to in.
Speaker 2: All whether he I don't disagree with anything he said
Speaker 2: on the campaign. I'm saying with governance. What I do
Speaker 2: know is that with chaos comes potential opportunity. Will you
Speaker 2: get one hundred percent of like all the things that
Speaker 2: you just said, Probably not. But the one thing that
Speaker 2: I could point to is that with Trump and his
Speaker 2: whole like I've made a huge mistake last time not
Speaker 2: hiring enough loyalists, is that some of these loyalists have
Speaker 2: very different views on the economics than Gary Kohane or
Speaker 2: Jared Kushner the last time around. Will those people have
Speaker 2: any empowerment in the administration, It's totally open question. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's one of those where in general, I
Speaker 2: think you're probably right in terms of the way that
Speaker 2: it will go. But you know, we shouldn't also forget
Speaker 2: with the Republican Congress. You know, Trump may be pro salt,
Speaker 2: but that doesn't mean that Republicans are going to bring
Speaker 2: some salt back. Republicans love punishing blue states, and none
Speaker 2: of their constituents are the ones who have to pay
Speaker 2: for it. So it's little things like that where there
Speaker 2: are major fights to happen.
Speaker 3: All the TCJ.
Speaker 1: The fact that you've had a surge in Republican support
Speaker 1: in New York.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true, that'd be in the House.
Speaker 5: That to be in the Senate, right, but you brought
Speaker 5: up the House.
Speaker 3: Oh no, I was talking about the Senate. I'm saying
Speaker 3: in this I mean that's where DJ.
Speaker 1: But that's where like you know, that's why there's been
Speaker 1: the Salt Caucus on the Democratic side is because New
Speaker 1: York and New Jersey you've had genuine Republican surge. Again,
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to win New York overall, but you
Speaker 1: have a general genuine Republican surge, especially like Long Island
Speaker 1: in some of these areas, and so those are like
Speaker 1: the frontline Republicans swing district Republicans now, which gives them
Speaker 1: disproportionate power. So no, it would not surprise me to
Speaker 1: see them be you could pull off the sult thing,
Speaker 1: especially because you would have some Democrats to go along.
Speaker 2: But what if we had d House, our Senate, our Congress.
Speaker 2: That would be interesting because it's like, well, then you
Speaker 2: know if it does have to pass, look something that
Speaker 2: is going to go through.
Speaker 3: That's another thing. Not enough people talk about this.
Speaker 2: Again because most people don't know enough about tax policy.
Speaker 2: The greatest most tit t fight will take place in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Whenever
Speaker 2: it expires, there is no world where business will just
Speaker 2: let it flat fall flat impossible. There's way too much
Speaker 2: money that is on the line because otherwise everything just
Speaker 2: reverts back to it. So how that all goes, you know,
Speaker 2: we should just prepare our audience.
Speaker 3: That will be the most.
Speaker 2: Important economic time in frankly a decade since that past,
Speaker 2: because they'll probably re extend it for another eight years
Speaker 2: and that will govern the tax regime of AI, of crypto,
Speaker 2: of steel, unions of solar, like everything for what the
Speaker 2: future looks like, income tax, et cetera. It's going to
Speaker 2: be it's going to be a crazy fight. I'm actually
Speaker 2: kind of excited for it.
Speaker 1: We talk about polls, all right, So we continue to
Speaker 1: await Israel's retaliation against Iran. We know that Bibi Netna,
Speaker 1: who spoke to Joe Biden. We don't know much about
Speaker 1: the details of that conversation at this point, or even
Speaker 1: if it matters, given that Joe Biden barely exists at
Speaker 1: this point, but we did get some indications from Defense
Speaker 1: Secretary of Israel Yoev goalant, we can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen of what the attack will look like.
Speaker 1: This is what he's threatening. He says, Israel's coming attack
Speaker 1: on Iran will be deadly precise and especially surprising. They
Speaker 1: will not know what happened and how it happened. They
Speaker 1: will see the results. So that's what we.
Speaker 5: Know thus far. Ryan and Emily covered.
Speaker 1: But I just want to reiterate because it's so important
Speaker 1: that we have learned some of the most deeply disturbing
Speaker 1: things you possibly could about the US posture viz a VI,
Speaker 1: both the attacks on Lebanon and the forthcoming attacks on Iran.
Speaker 1: First of all, we had reports that, you know, some
Speaker 1: of the people were actually running midst Middle East policy,
Speaker 1: like Brett McGirk effectively greenlit the Israeli invasion into Lebanon.
Speaker 1: You now have bb threatening, Hey, we're going to turn
Speaker 1: which they have been all along, but these are now
Speaker 1: that they have actually invaded, even more credible. Hey, we're
Speaker 1: going to turn Lebanon into Gaza, calling on leban these
Speaker 1: people to rise up and throw off hesbela to so
Speaker 1: as to avoid the genocidal fate that has met the
Speaker 1: Palestinians in Gaza. So you have the US apparently green
Speaker 1: lighting that, and you have a report that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is not only cool with Israel now attacking Iran,
Speaker 1: but they are themselves considering in striking Iran directly, like
Speaker 1: the US doing that, which is unconstitutional, not to mention,
Speaker 1: not a thing that we should be doing. So that's
Speaker 1: where things stand right now. We also have, you know,
Speaker 1: very troubling images coming out of Lebanon. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you all have followed this story, but there's a
Speaker 1: UN peacekeepers that originate from Ireland that we're told to
Speaker 1: told by the Israelis like you need to get out,
Speaker 1: and they were like, no, we're peacekeepers. We're not going anywhere.
Speaker 1: We're staying here. And we can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen, the Israeli bombs. This is from the perspective
Speaker 1: of those Irish peacekeepers and you can see just how
Speaker 1: close they are bombing to this UN peacekeeping force and facility.
Speaker 1: We know there's already been massive civilian deaths in Lebanon.
Speaker 1: We know that a lot of civilian infrastructure has already
Speaker 1: been targeted in Lebanon. So those threats of turning at
Speaker 1: least southern Lebanon into Gaza seem like something that is
Speaker 1: very very possible. Let's go and put E three up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is just the latest in the
Speaker 1: oh buttons. Very frustrated blah blah blah. US frustrated by
Speaker 1: Israel's reluctance to share Iran retaliation plans by an administration
Speaker 1: hopes to avoid a repeat of surprise attacks like the
Speaker 1: killing of Hezbolah's leader. They say they've been repeatedly caught
Speaker 1: off guard by Israel's military actions in Gaza, Lebanon. Seeking
Speaker 1: a head off further escalation, some but hope the US
Speaker 1: would learn more about what Israel's contemplating During a plan
Speaker 1: meeting Wednesday between You'll have Golan and Defend Secretary Lloyd
Speaker 1: Austin at the Pentagon, but Galant postponed his trip. Natannil,
Speaker 1: who actually blocked him, blocked Gallant from leaving for the
Speaker 1: US On Tuesday night, is Israel continued planning it's around operation,
Speaker 1: an Israeli official said. US officials said they don't yet
Speaker 1: have either the timing of the strike or what Israel
Speaker 1: might target. We are the client state here, guys. That's
Speaker 1: basically the bottom line is we feed Israel's ambitions for
Speaker 1: whateverever death and destruction. They want to reek thround the region.
Speaker 1: The most we can apparently do with the level of
Speaker 1: impotence of Joe Biden is meekly protest and leaked to
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal that we are frustrated, which honestly,
Speaker 1: at this point, who really cares?
Speaker 3: Yeah, who cares at all?
Speaker 2: Inside Israel, they're also you know, look, there's some signs,
Speaker 2: some troubling signs.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Two people were killed in a town in northern Israel
Speaker 2: after it was hit by rocket fire from Hezbola. Patients
Speaker 2: were admitted to the hospital after that missile struck outside
Speaker 2: of Haifa, so you can see that there was a
Speaker 2: failure of their aerial defense systems. You also have this
Speaker 2: interesting sign of domestic consternation. Let's put this up there,
Speaker 2: please on the screen. One hundred and thirty Israeli soldiers
Speaker 2: declaring they will refuse to serve unless the government seeks
Speaker 2: a hostage deal. Quote for some of us, the red
Speaker 2: line has been crossed already. Reservists and draftees across multiple
Speaker 2: military branches that they warned they will see service if
Speaker 2: the hostage negotiations are not prioritized, so obviously, you know
Speaker 2: that was something where they feel I think correctly it's
Speaker 2: been totally abandoned. But I mean, this is not an
Speaker 2: act without punishment. This is literally like an act of mutiny.
Speaker 2: So you know, they'll be significantly punished if they do
Speaker 2: go through with it, and then that could potentially raise
Speaker 2: major domestic turmoil inside the country as well.
Speaker 3: So not all is good.
Speaker 2: You know, inside the country, there's losing a like I said,
Speaker 2: hundreds of billions of shekels. They have a huge problem
Speaker 2: right now with the lack of the Palestinian workers that
Speaker 2: are there, with the factor they have a pay all
Speaker 2: these reservists, and then those reservists are not at Imagine
Speaker 2: if you had a huge percentage of the young male
Speaker 2: population in the US just plucked out of the US
Speaker 2: economy overnight for an entire year, it would be crazy.
Speaker 2: That's what happened during World War Two. They're at that
Speaker 2: at scale, they're looking at a similar level of deployment.
Speaker 2: So it's you know, things are not good over there
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 1: The justification for the invasion of Lebanon and all the
Speaker 1: attacks on Hesbolah, etc. Including the you know assassinating of Nostrella,
Speaker 1: which they used over eighty two thousand pound bombs and
Speaker 1: you know, murdered a lot of civilians in the process.
Speaker 1: Of The justification for that was, oh, we got to
Speaker 1: get our people back into northern Israel because they've been
Speaker 1: displaced since October seventh. That's part of why this rocket
Speaker 1: attack on northern Israel is really significant from Hesblah, because
Speaker 1: they're not going to be safe to go back anytime soon.
Speaker 1: There are not still not many people who remain in
Speaker 1: northern Israel, and the only real answer in order to
Speaker 1: for your people to be safe and secure in general,
Speaker 1: and certainly safe and secure in northern Israel, is some
Speaker 1: sort of a diplomatic resolution ceasefire deal has wells firing
Speaker 1: rockets because of the Israeli onslaught in Gaza.
Speaker 5: They have made that clear.
Speaker 1: The entire time when there was a ceasefires, will also
Speaker 1: participated in that ceasefire, there were no rockets fired. And
Speaker 1: so you know, the idea that you're going to secure
Speaker 1: safety and security for your own people through more bombs
Speaker 1: and more conflict and going to war with war countries.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many countries have they even bombed at
Speaker 1: this point is foolish.
Speaker 5: It's foolish.
Speaker 1: It is not is you know, going to satisfy the
Speaker 1: desire for revenge among a large portion of the population.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, these actions are very popular. The
Speaker 1: you know, one hundred and thirty brave IDF soldiers signing
Speaker 1: on to this refusal to serve if the ceasefire deal
Speaker 1: is not negotiated. Notwithstanding, these actions in general are very,
Speaker 1: very popular. But there's a you know, a deeply troubling
Speaker 1: future for those people who actually care about the state
Speaker 1: of Israel because in addition to this domestic mutiny in
Speaker 1: some small corners, you also have a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are just like, I don't know if I'm going
Speaker 1: to stay here. Put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: is fascinating poll of Israeli citizens. Almost a quarter of
Speaker 1: Israelis have weighed leaving the country. You have thirty six
Speaker 1: percent of opposition party supporters who have weighed leaving the country.
Speaker 1: Similar number of secular respondents. And this matters a lot
Speaker 1: from like just basic sustenance of the state perspective in
Speaker 1: terms of Israel because the war, you know, the very
Speaker 1: religious predominantly many of the men don't work. They have
Speaker 1: large families, they have large birth rates, and they rely
Speaker 1: a lot and also don't serve in the military, by
Speaker 1: the way, they rely a lot on government safety net.
Speaker 1: So if you don't have those more secular citizens to
Speaker 1: be able to work, pay taxes, be you know, net
Speaker 1: positive into paying into that social safety net, the whole
Speaker 1: kind of program and the whole deal that they've got
Speaker 1: going on there really falters. Not to mention, it just
Speaker 1: continues this drift further and further to the more and
Speaker 1: more extreme right within society that you've already seen. And
Speaker 1: the other thing I was note worthy about this soccer
Speaker 1: is it's not just that they've like thought about leaving
Speaker 1: the country, like, you know, every election Donald Trump's maybe
Speaker 1: going to get re elected, you get to certain number
Speaker 1: of people that are like, this is it, I'm leaving
Speaker 1: the US.
Speaker 3: They never have.
Speaker 1: But these are people who, by and large majority of
Speaker 1: them have actually taken actions to like, let me look
Speaker 1: into jobs overseas, let me look into what the situation
Speaker 1: would be like for my kids in school, let me
Speaker 1: evaluate like properties, let me secure a past, you know,
Speaker 1: a pass border citizenship in another country. So they've they've
Speaker 1: taken it seriously beyond just like, you know, going on
Speaker 1: Twitter and being like I'm going to leave right.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, look, a lot of Israelis are dual citizens.
Speaker 2: It's also a small country, a lot of them travel,
Speaker 2: a lot of them travel a lot, a lot of
Speaker 2: them have relictives, you know, all across the world, or
Speaker 2: they speak multiple languages, so it's actually a lot more
Speaker 2: feasible for them to be able to lead.
Speaker 3: If they wanted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the bear is way way lower, especially given a
Speaker 2: lot of ties to Europe, you know, and the way
Speaker 2: that the U citizenship laws work in those places as
Speaker 2: long as you have relatives or whatever if you're from there.
Speaker 2: So my point is that it's actually real, And what
Speaker 2: you just pointed out is the biggest problem is the
Speaker 2: secular Israelis are the one They're the backbone of the
Speaker 2: Israeli economy and frankly of Israeli society.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 2: The rest of them are basically just welfare you know, recipients.
Speaker 3: They've decided that's an okay political bargain.
Speaker 2: But you know, in the long run, I've always thought
Speaker 2: it was very unstable and unsustainable. But after the war,
Speaker 2: I just cannot imagine, you know, after World War Two,
Speaker 2: like if you could consider, like if this nation state
Speaker 2: survives if you had all the veterans coming back, but
Speaker 2: then you also had half of the population that not
Speaker 2: only did not serve, but actively like was taking resources
Speaker 2: away from the war effort.
Speaker 3: I just can't imagine what that would look like.
Speaker 2: Part of the reason we were so united is because
Speaker 2: everybody had a role in the overall war efforts. So
Speaker 2: I looked societally, I just have no idea how this.
Speaker 2: I always thought this wasn't going to work, especially with
Speaker 2: the birth rates and all that. It always seemed unsustainable.
Speaker 2: But now I'm like, I have no idea how this
Speaker 2: conservts survived.
Speaker 1: And that's a real fisher In Israeli society is not like, oh,
Speaker 1: how do we treat the Palestinians because it's a very
Speaker 1: small minority that cares about that whatsoever. It's this like
Speaker 1: secular religious divide.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean you can empathize, like, imagine if
Speaker 2: fifty percent of the population or twenty five percent of
Speaker 2: the population in the US were you know, conscientious objectors
Speaker 2: even more different, and not even that they were actively
Speaker 2: like taking huge resources I mean from the state and
Speaker 2: ruling politics through their overall population.
Speaker 1: It's not analogous exactly, but if you think about like
Speaker 1: the divisions that were wrought that still exists in some
Speaker 1: ways over the Vietnam War, and the fact that you
Speaker 1: had you know, wealthier college kids like Donald by the way,
Speaker 1: who were able to get out of service. And meanwhile
Speaker 1: and and on college campuses. You also that's where you
Speaker 1: have this anti war movement. And then you have people,
Speaker 1: you know, more working class people who don't have that
Speaker 1: option for their kids, like flee to Canada or get
Speaker 1: some family doctor friend to say they have bone spurs
Speaker 1: or or you know, get to ferment through college or whatever,
Speaker 1: who are being chewed up and spit out and meet
Speaker 1: the meat grinder that was Vietnam. And you know that
Speaker 1: just that division created massive cleavages in American society. Like
Speaker 1: I said that in some ways still remain to this day,
Speaker 1: especially among older Americans. So in any case, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt they're on the forefoot in terms of the amount
Speaker 1: of death and destruction they're able to reak, and many
Speaker 1: countries across the region they are operating with absolute impunity.
Speaker 1: The US is not serving as it's not just not
Speaker 1: serving as a check, but as actively enabling and encouraging
Speaker 1: this direction, but there are also some deep societal fissures
Speaker 1: and warning signs for the Israelis for the.
Speaker 5: For the future.
Speaker 1: That's right, let's go on and get to you. This
Speaker 1: was very interesting Saga. You and Emily were flagging this.
Speaker 1: There's a huge backlash to Fox News reporter Trey Yanks,
Speaker 1: who has been on the ground in Israel and also
Speaker 1: in Gaza, to you know, probably as much as any
Speaker 1: Western reporter has, who issued a pretty compelling statement in
Speaker 1: favor of protection of Palestinian journalists.
Speaker 5: Let's take a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 6: There are so many neighborhoods that are flattened. Palestinians that
Speaker 6: are internally displaced will simply have no homes to return to.
Speaker 3: And while we.
Speaker 6: Get a first hand look at the destruction here, it's
Speaker 6: important to remember that Palestinian journalists do not have this access.
Speaker 3: They have been pushed to the south. Dozens have been killed.
Speaker 6: There's this false narrative about Palestinian journalists. More than one
Speaker 6: hundred of them have been killed by Israel since the
Speaker 6: war began. And I take very few positions in the
Speaker 6: conflicts that we covered, but let this be a position
Speaker 6: that I take journalists, specifically Palestinian journalists must be protected
Speaker 6: amid the war. The Israelis have killed journalists in drone strikes,
Speaker 6: they've killed them with small arms fire, and it's unacceptable.
Speaker 5: So soagrin.
Speaker 1: This is one of those things that should be like
Speaker 1: the least controversial thing ever, like don't kill the murder journalists,
Speaker 1: including Palestinian journalists. But he's right that there's this false
Speaker 1: narrative that exists of like, oh, well, if they're a
Speaker 1: Palestinian and they got killed, they must have been a
Speaker 1: terrorist if so facto, so we don't really care about
Speaker 1: them and they don't even really count. So, you know,
Speaker 1: kudos to him for saying it so clearly. There was
Speaker 1: no equivocal language here, There was no you know, they're
Speaker 1: being killed in blast. He directly said, Israel is killing
Speaker 1: them in drone strikes, in these other methods, and they
Speaker 1: deserve protection and we need to stop lying about who
Speaker 1: these people are and actually stand up for journalists.
Speaker 2: I'd actually shocked Fox let him put it on the air.
Speaker 2: That's more what I was surprised about there. Yeah, I know, Treya,
Speaker 2: I started out with him, we covered the White House together.
Speaker 3: I was our old friends.
Speaker 2: I remember the day they got that job, and he
Speaker 2: was so happy to become that foreign correspondent.
Speaker 3: It's something that he always wanted to do.
Speaker 2: And I think part of the reason that he's taken
Speaker 2: this position not only from you know, having watched it
Speaker 2: and becovered Israel for years before that. He probably knew
Speaker 2: some of these folks just from reporting. He'd been inside
Speaker 2: of Gaza and in West Bank multiple times before the war.
Speaker 2: But he also was in Ukraine when his colleague Ben Wallace, remember,
Speaker 2: was hit and actually lost his both of his legs,
Speaker 2: you know, in that horrible strike. So he has been
Speaker 2: present for the death and the maiming of his own colleagues,
Speaker 2: and so I think he understands probably more than anybody else.
Speaker 2: It's also disgusting to me how many people attacked him,
Speaker 2: not only for the statement, but you know, being like, oh,
Speaker 2: how many you know journalists or whatever of them are
Speaker 2: actually terrorist, Like hey, why don't you strap on a
Speaker 2: bulletproof vest and a helmet and you go into Gaza
Speaker 2: like Trey actually has, and then you will can and
Speaker 2: see it with your own eyes and then you can
Speaker 2: make some comment not from New York City, and because
Speaker 2: you went on a birthright trip once that you're a
Speaker 2: freaking Israel expert, you know, on Palistin. And that's actually
Speaker 2: why it annoys me so much, is like, you know,
Speaker 2: like the day I said he's a political he does
Speaker 2: his job, I think he does a pretty good job.
Speaker 2: And you know, just such an anodyne statement, which again
Speaker 2: he was just like, look, you can't do this. To
Speaker 2: be so viciously attacked the way that he was, I
Speaker 2: just think is so discussed.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me more about the nature of the attacks,
Speaker 1: because this didn't really exist in my social.
Speaker 2: Media real look avers replies, I mean, look at the
Speaker 2: replies to the segment Ryan, So let's read it.
Speaker 3: I'll read you some.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and see number one, what percent of
Speaker 2: the journalists have been actively participating in the conflict, the
Speaker 2: Palestinian journalist highlighting one who is there on October seventh.
Speaker 3: What does a Palestinian journal mean?
Speaker 1: Let's see, so basically they're like, they're all terrorists and
Speaker 1: they deserves pretty.
Speaker 5: Much the gist of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, seriously, Trey the hamas journalists, I fully agree that
Speaker 2: the true journalists must be protected, but you know better
Speaker 2: than most what kind of journalists we are talking about.
Speaker 2: It feels like you only saw their pressed vests, not
Speaker 2: their weapons and involvement in October seventh. Meanwhile, the Palestinian
Speaker 2: journalists pictures of them with guns to their head. What
Speaker 2: does Palestinian journalists hamas and press bests are not dry?
Speaker 2: I could go on forever. Okay, this is like every
Speaker 2: single you know reply to the thing. H yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: So I think the one of the important takeaways here
Speaker 1: is what you were pointing to Soccer, which is like
Speaker 1: he's actually there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly, like he is there? What do you know?
Speaker 1: And so all of the spin and the propaganda and
Speaker 1: the bullshit that this all gets wrapped in when you're
Speaker 1: sitting over here and watching from Afar, he does not
Speaker 1: have the luxury of that distance exactly. And there's a
Speaker 1: reason why journalists have had almost no access to the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip, and it's because of exactly this. The more
Speaker 1: images that are on our TV screens, the more reporters
Speaker 1: you have that are strips of that luxury of distance
Speaker 1: and spin and propaganda and you know, the dehumanization that
Speaker 1: comes with it. The more that you get honest reporting,
Speaker 1: even in an outlet like Fox News, like this, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, what they're deathly afraid of. So at the
Speaker 1: same time, you know, we've talked a lot about what's
Speaker 1: happening in Lebanon, We've talked about this potent, you know,
Speaker 1: very likely attack against Iran.
Speaker 5: I don't want to.
Speaker 1: Lose sight of the fact that they are actually ramping
Speaker 1: up attacks in the Gaza strip, that they are appear
Speaker 1: to be executing on that quote unquote General's plan to
Speaker 1: once again displace everybody from northern Gaza. Remember this was
Speaker 1: the very early phases of the war that this happened,
Speaker 1: that people were forced down of ethnically cleansed out of
Speaker 1: Gaza City and pushed further and further south. Now they're
Speaker 1: basically going back to the beginning and once again saying like,
Speaker 1: if you don't leave Gaza City and its environs, we
Speaker 1: are going to assume that you are a terrorist and
Speaker 1: you are a legitimate target. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: even the people who are trying to flee are being
Speaker 1: shot at and killed by the IDF. We have a
Speaker 1: report here that we can bring you from Jeremy Diamond
Speaker 1: from CNN.
Speaker 5: Let's take a look at a little bit of that.
Speaker 7: Civilians fleeing a war zone suddenly sprayed with bullets. The
Speaker 7: Israeli military ordered these people to leave northern Gaza and
Speaker 7: move south. With the hail of bullets they faced now
Speaker 7: a testament to why so many are choosing not to
Speaker 7: leave or simply cannot. Nine year old Danna is among
Speaker 7: those wounded in the attack. A pink shirt smeared red
Speaker 7: with her own blood after she was shot in the neck.
Speaker 7: At the hospital, her mother said an Israeli drone opened
Speaker 7: fire as they were fleeing south. The quad copter started
Speaker 7: shooting intensively. She says, everyone was running. There were so
Speaker 7: many bullets. Even my children's backpacks were full of bullets.
Speaker 7: The Israeli military decline to comment, but the attack came
Speaker 7: as it ordered nearly all of northern Gaza to evacuate,
Speaker 7: even as it says its renewed ground defensive is focused
Speaker 7: on just one city, Jabalia, but many are trapped, like
Speaker 7: fifteen year old Zam Zam. Anyone who hears my voice
Speaker 7: help us, try to get us out, she pleads. She
Speaker 7: says her mother was killed by Israeli forces. I watched
Speaker 7: her take her last breaths, and I couldn't do anything,
Speaker 7: she cries, so.
Speaker 1: Just think about this set of circumstances. So the idea
Speaker 1: of is saying, if you're in almost all of northern Gaza,
Speaker 1: you must evacuate. But then if you actually go to move,
Speaker 1: you're being shot at and killed. So you're trapped in
Speaker 1: northern Gaza even though you've been told to evacuate. And
Speaker 1: the policy of the IDF after those force evacuations is
Speaker 1: then you're, you know, legitimate fair game.
Speaker 5: You must be a terrorist if you stay.
Speaker 1: So you've effectively, with your drones and your gunfire trap
Speaker 1: people in northern Gaza and then turn them into a
Speaker 1: legitimate targets. It's just a license for extermination, is exactly
Speaker 1: what it is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's also noteworthy.
Speaker 2: Both Trey and Jeremy actually are in Israel. He's the
Speaker 2: Jerusalem correspondent. So you know, again, I'm just going to
Speaker 2: take seriously what those guys actually think and say.
Speaker 3: I covered the White House with both of them.
Speaker 2: I think they're both like pretty credible, and I have
Speaker 2: done a pretty good job on all of this, and
Speaker 2: I think it's quite noteworthy, you know, to look at
Speaker 2: theirs versus what Jake Tapper and Dana Bash might be
Speaker 2: saying here in Washington.
Speaker 5: Very good points.
Speaker 2: Let's get to the UFO update. Major new report from
Speaker 2: journalist Michael Schellenberger. Let's put this up there. All this
Speaker 2: everybody stick with me. The details are important. So new
Speaker 2: government whistleblower reveals for the first time the quote the
Speaker 2: name of an unacknowledged special access program for the unidentified
Speaker 2: anomalist phenomenon.
Speaker 3: Otherwise known as YOUAP.
Speaker 2: So the name of that program is Immaculate Constellation.
Speaker 3: Why does this matter?
Speaker 2: The name of the report named in the report by
Speaker 2: this alleged government whistle blower is specifically the name of
Speaker 2: the program for quote unquote UFO retrieval that was launched
Speaker 2: after two thousand and seventeen. Now, to be clear, the
Speaker 2: Pentagon is denying the existence of said program. The Pentagon
Speaker 2: said that they have no record of any program known
Speaker 2: as Immaculate Constellation. I will get to in a second
Speaker 2: why that matters and specifically why it is total bullshit.
Speaker 2: But the reason why, if you look at the overall
Speaker 2: existence of this is its centers on Congress. So people
Speaker 2: will remember that I was at that UFO hearing which
Speaker 2: was led by a multiple members of Congress. You had
Speaker 2: the testimony of Dave Grush, who was the UFO whistle
Speaker 2: blower about the existence of these programs that he had
Speaker 2: seen and had gone and pushed through the Inspector General.
Speaker 2: Well since then, what has since happened is more ramping
Speaker 2: up crystal within Congress of questions specifically around the GRUSH allegations,
Speaker 2: the DoD and the Inspector General's report. Now what they
Speaker 2: have found is basically blocking at every turn, and this
Speaker 2: is from the Congressmen themselves. I believe that they are
Speaker 2: trying to get another hearing in the works. But the
Speaker 2: point is is that this report and others like it
Speaker 2: from Grush giving Congressional investigators and members of Congress the
Speaker 2: ability to try and to search for very specific types
Speaker 2: of things through FOUA, through records requests, and by having
Speaker 2: names and others.
Speaker 3: It's very important to be able to dig.
Speaker 2: The historical analogy I would use is the only reason
Speaker 2: that we ever learned about many of the shenanigans that
Speaker 2: the CIA and the FBI were up to under the
Speaker 2: Church Committee was specifically because.
Speaker 3: Not advocating this.
Speaker 2: But it wouldn't be the worst thing if it happened,
Speaker 2: is some people broke into a FBI facility and they
Speaker 2: stole these documents from them. We had the names from
Speaker 2: the CIA programs like what happened with the Black Panthers,
Speaker 2: like the LSD experiments and all this stuff. And thus
Speaker 2: the Church Committee and members of the press and others
Speaker 2: were able to use FOYA to actually go and to
Speaker 2: look for what all that was. If that had not happened,
Speaker 2: there is no Church Committee and there's no revelation about
Speaker 2: what happened. That's why the name of this program matters
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so Ken Klippenstein has talked to me about
Speaker 1: this before because he does a lot of Foyer requests.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it's also obnoxious, like you have.
Speaker 5: To have a lawyer.
Speaker 1: It's not something that's a coordinary cit the center even
Speaker 1: an ordinary journalist without like a legal backing behind them
Speaker 1: can engage in because they'll just completely stonewall you. But
Speaker 1: part of the key of a successful Foyer request is
Speaker 1: you have to be able to ask very specifically for
Speaker 1: what you want. And so if you don't know the
Speaker 1: name of the program, you'll be phishing around and they
Speaker 1: can just say, no, don't have anything that meets that.
Speaker 1: And so that's why knowing the name of the program,
Speaker 1: so that you can actually make an effective foroy a
Speaker 1: request that they are legally obligated to fulfill in some
Speaker 1: manner after some period of like fighting you in courtant whatever.
Speaker 5: That's why this is important to.
Speaker 3: Take a decade.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I want everybody to understand this is not
Speaker 2: all going to come out like immediately.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Michael actually was on the Joe Rogan podcast just yesterday
Speaker 2: he broke some of this down.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 8: In that report, they claim that there is a that
Speaker 8: the Pentagon is illegally withholding information from Congress about a
Speaker 8: secret UAP program, and that secret UAP program is considered
Speaker 8: a parent program of other of other programs. But it's
Speaker 8: called immaculate constellation. I was told by a I was
Speaker 8: I had it confirmed by a second source that this
Speaker 8: is the name.
Speaker 3: I also was.
Speaker 8: Told that if we revealed the name that we would
Speaker 8: probably fall it get under surveillance.
Speaker 4: If I wanted to spread misinformation or disinformation, if I
Speaker 4: was an intelligence agent, I think I would get someone
Speaker 4: to be a whistleblower. I would sanction whistleblowers. I would
Speaker 4: tell them go on podcasts, go on radio shows, go
Speaker 4: on television and discuss all these different disclosures, and you
Speaker 4: can't tell them everything, the top secret stuff. You know,
Speaker 4: some stuff you got to keep a secret. Boy, I
Speaker 4: wish I could tell you, But there's more I can't
Speaker 4: tell you. There's a lot going on. And that's a
Speaker 4: really good way. I would think if I was in
Speaker 4: control of a narrative, that I wanted to be continuously slippery,
Speaker 4: like this is a very slippery conversation, like you never
Speaker 4: get to the end of it.
Speaker 8: And what would be the motivation?
Speaker 4: Because there's some sort of a program that exists that
Speaker 4: they want to hide, and the best way to hide
Speaker 4: it is to continually bring up and then debunk these
Speaker 4: fake programs.
Speaker 8: I'm comfortable saying I'm like ninety nine percent that the
Speaker 8: government is hiding information. Okay, So, and the reason I'm
Speaker 8: so confident of that is because Donald Trump said so
Speaker 8: multiple times that they're hiding information. When I signed him
Speaker 8: in the article.
Speaker 4: They probably told him that. And also they lied to
Speaker 4: him about a bunch of stuff. Oh sure, didn't even
Speaker 4: tell him about Chinese drones because they were he was
Speaker 4: going to shoot him down.
Speaker 8: So they told him something that he says has not
Speaker 8: been made public to the Arian people. So so if
Speaker 8: that's so my view is, look, if you think it's
Speaker 8: it's either a secret weapons program, that it's a government
Speaker 8: disinformation program, that it's just mis sightings, then I want
Speaker 8: the government. I wanted they have an obligation.
Speaker 3: To tell us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that it's a good pushback. But anyway, I'll
Speaker 2: get to a little bit now. Remember when I said
Speaker 2: that they had no record of the Immaculate Constellation.
Speaker 3: That's what the DoD is claiming.
Speaker 2: Get this, So when Dave Grush came forward in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three and this Google trend should not exist, it
Speaker 2: just so happened that there was a massive the spike
Speaker 2: of people searching Immaculate Constellation right next to Wright Patterson
Speaker 2: Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. So again, this is
Speaker 2: a term which nobody knows. Nobody's out there searching Immaculate Constellation.
Speaker 2: What they were worried about was that the name of
Speaker 2: that program had been leaked under Grush and they were
Speaker 2: searching those people around that area for the name Immaculate Constellation. WHOA,
Speaker 2: it's so suddenly and shockingly appears there in Dayton, Ohio.
Speaker 2: So I think that's evidence there of something going on
Speaker 2: for why we're why were so many people right around
Speaker 2: this Air Force bace just searching for this miraculously, especially
Speaker 2: a base.
Speaker 3: That's well known within that.
Speaker 2: I think what this does is it gives us a
Speaker 2: quiver into something to actually for Congress to begin looking into.
Speaker 3: And that's part of the problem.
Speaker 2: And I understand, I guess where Joe is coming from,
Speaker 2: but he needs to understand what pressure that Grush himself
Speaker 2: is already under. I mean, the guy's life is being
Speaker 2: investigated to high hell by the US government, basically lost
Speaker 2: his job. There is no incentive for a lot of
Speaker 2: these people to come out.
Speaker 5: Additionally, yeah, there's a lot of incentive to not come out.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, Yeah, they're destroying him.
Speaker 2: I mean, remember they leaked that whole thing about his
Speaker 2: PTSD incident and all that. Like, he has talked about
Speaker 2: having threats to his life. I don't know if it's
Speaker 2: true or not, but that's what he says. But in general,
Speaker 2: like his career has not gone well as a result
Speaker 2: of it. It's not like it has been good for
Speaker 2: his personal life. Additionally, I think what it says is
Speaker 2: somebody was explaining this to me, was that previously one
Speaker 2: of the reasons that that UFO legislation had gone down.
Speaker 2: The USAP Disclosure Act was so pressured by the intelligence
Speaker 2: community was specifically to stop them from the ability to
Speaker 2: uncover the very special ass program that exists. Like right
Speaker 2: here and now, for everybody out there, I get it.
Speaker 2: Everyone keeps saying, oh, it's coming, is coming, it is coming,
Speaker 2: et cetera. I totally understand, but you have to remember
Speaker 2: what the I mean. We just had Jefferson Morley on
Speaker 2: about JFK. It's been sixty years and we still don't know.
Speaker 2: You know, if you think about it. There were all
Speaker 2: these conspiracy theories in the nineteen fifties of people who
Speaker 2: were saying the CIA has brothels where they're drugging people
Speaker 2: and people are like, you're crazy, Like.
Speaker 3: What's wrong with you?
Speaker 2: Twenty five years later, you're like, oh, actually, not only
Speaker 2: was he totally right, it's way crazier than you could
Speaker 2: have ever imagined. If I had told somebody in the
Speaker 2: street in America the CIA wanted to blow up Castro
Speaker 2: with the cigar, I they would have said you are
Speaker 2: out of your mind, or or make it wear though.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true, these are real. This actually happened.
Speaker 2: If I go back to the Spanish American War or whatever,
Speaker 2: and I was like, wait, maybe it's America that blew
Speaker 2: up the USS main again hanged for treason. Never would
Speaker 2: have happened one hundred years later. What do we know
Speaker 2: it's true or it's probably true. So like I'm just
Speaker 2: saying for the incredible incredul increduluity and just the way
Speaker 2: that people think about like, oh, it's just taking a
Speaker 2: long time.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not that easy when the government.
Speaker 2: Wants to keep a secret, especially a very very tightly
Speaker 2: held one, you know here, it's they can't do it,
Speaker 2: and it can take a quiet tightn I efforts on
Speaker 2: behalf of the public to even you know, inch forward
Speaker 2: to getting it.
Speaker 3: That's all I would say.
Speaker 5: We'll see, Yeah, we'll see.
Speaker 3: I want to see. It's gonna take a while.
Speaker 2: By the way, Congress, you know, after this whole election
Speaker 2: nonsense is up, let's get back and let's.
Speaker 3: Get to work.
Speaker 1: Hey, Trump, if he knows all this stuff, like, brother,
Speaker 1: you're already in trouble with the law, you may as well,
Speaker 1: you're already in trouble for classified documents.
Speaker 5: May as well, just like let the people American people know.
Speaker 2: If he becomes president, he should just immediately you know, sign.
Speaker 5: All yeah, I mean last time.
Speaker 3: Well, last time around.
Speaker 2: You and Mike POMPEII own his ear famously, especially about
Speaker 2: the JFK thing. We're talking about this with Jefferson Morley
Speaker 2: and they're like, oh, you just can't let the public,
Speaker 2: you know, know any of this stuff, and I think
Speaker 2: it's just look, it is crazy Obama Trump. I mean
Speaker 2: remember what Obama said. He was like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: it's uh. He's like, he's like, there's some things that
Speaker 2: are out there, but we couldn't release it to the public.
Speaker 3: He said something along those lines.
Speaker 2: John Podesta I always talked about this, who was the
Speaker 2: chief of staff to Bill Clinton in the White House,
Speaker 2: Huge UFO guy. He tried for years to get the
Speaker 2: CIA and others to tell him about these programs. And
Speaker 2: he was the White House chief of staff with Yankee
Speaker 2: White security clearance, and they blocked him out completely.
Speaker 1: So just evan, someone should ask Joe Biden about this
Speaker 1: and maybe maybe his half cooked brain will not realize
Speaker 1: that he shouldn't be.
Speaker 5: Saying what it wouldn't even tell by accidentally.
Speaker 2: Biden is the ideal president for them. They're like, oh,
Speaker 2: what a joke you know. It's like in the UK
Speaker 2: they have a joke called yes Minister, where the deep
Speaker 2: state basically over there just jokes that the you know,
Speaker 2: whoever's in this yokal, who's in charge, the political guy,
Speaker 2: They're like, forget about it. We've seen fifty of them
Speaker 2: come and go. So for them, Biden is the ideal
Speaker 2: president in terms of who you can just hoodwink the
Speaker 2: entire time. All Right, thank you guys for indulging that.
Speaker 3: We will.
Speaker 2: If there's any breaking news over the weekend, we'll see you. Otherwise,
Speaker 2: we'll see you all next week.