Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, krysnal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do many things to get to this morning.
Speaker 1: So the continuation of this border showdown situation, both with
Speaker 1: a number of Red States ascending National Guard troops potentially
Speaker 1: in support of Governor Greg Abbott of Texas. We also
Speaker 1: have the Republicans in the House signaling they're going to
Speaker 1: block the deal made by Republicans in the Senate. A
Speaker 1: lot of interesting politics at play here, so we'll get
Speaker 1: into all of that. Also, RFK Junior is sparking Trump
Speaker 1: VP speculation and also talking about potentially leveraging the Libertarian
Speaker 1: Party in order to get ballot access. So a lot
Speaker 1: to get into there, and dovetails with what we're doing
Speaker 1: here at the show as well, because we've got that
Speaker 1: RFK Junior focus group coming up, which is going to
Speaker 1: be very interesting.
Speaker 4: Donald Trump hit.
Speaker 1: With a massive judgment in that EG and Carol, this
Speaker 1: was the defamation part. We will tell you the dollar amount,
Speaker 1: will tell you what else is coming up for him
Speaker 1: and how much of a hit it is to his
Speaker 1: net worth, what it could mean for the.
Speaker 4: Politics as well.
Speaker 1: A lot going on with regard to Iran and with
Speaker 1: regard to Israel. The US can't say whether we have
Speaker 1: troops in Yemen, which seems like kind of a critical point.
Speaker 1: We also have new details about that attack which killed
Speaker 1: three US service members, including who those service members are.
Speaker 1: This all comes as Israel is signaling that war now
Speaker 1: with Lebanon is imminent.
Speaker 4: So a lot to get into this morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right before we get to any of that, though,
Speaker 2: As Crystal mentioned, we have the RFK Junior focus group
Speaker 2: coming up.
Speaker 3: We're really excited for it.
Speaker 2: Had fortuitous time in considering how many moves the man
Speaker 2: appears to be making. So if you can support us
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot com, we have an advantage for the election
Speaker 2: special going on right now.
Speaker 3: Since we have so much work to do.
Speaker 2: We have a big team, we have big goals and
Speaker 2: other things that you can help us out there. So
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot Com. As I mentioned, let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: start with that border story. We've been monitoring it over
Speaker 2: the weekend, so Ryan and I were able to bring
Speaker 2: everybody the immediate news that the Texas Governor was going
Speaker 2: to continue building fencing and wire on the border. This
Speaker 2: was after the Supreme Court ordered the Texas National Guard
Speaker 2: not to get in the way of federal authorities from
Speaker 2: cutting said border wire. There's a standoff there between the
Speaker 2: Biden administration and the Texas governor. The Texas governor then
Speaker 2: exploiting a loophole and the decision saying well, I won't
Speaker 2: get in the way of the Feds if they want
Speaker 2: to cut the wire, but that doesn't mean that I
Speaker 2: can't build even more wire if I want to, escalating
Speaker 2: then into a major standoff nationally. Let's go and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. We've got a map here,
Speaker 2: map in red. Anybody want to wonder, No, it is
Speaker 2: not the civil war, a twenty four map.
Speaker 3: This is actually a.
Speaker 2: Map of all of the Republican governors and twenty five
Speaker 2: states now in the Union who are supporting the Texas
Speaker 2: quote unquote constitutional right to self defense, according to the RGA,
Speaker 2: which put out this graphic, So you've basically got every
Speaker 2: Republican state in the country except for the state of Vermont.
Speaker 2: Vermont there well at least every Republican state with a
Speaker 2: Republican governor except for the state of Vermont that is
Speaker 2: backing the governor Abbott, as well as some of these
Speaker 2: states sending specific National Guard assets to the border to
Speaker 2: help the Texas National Guard continue to increase the amount
Speaker 2: of border fencing and wire that is there. This actually
Speaker 2: comes on top of major negotiations here in Washington over
Speaker 2: a border package. The idea, if you guys will recall
Speaker 2: tying the border package to Ukraine aid funding. But that
Speaker 2: now appears to be going down in flames after President
Speaker 2: or former President Donald Trump and now the GOP front
Speaker 2: runner says he does not want that to pay. That
Speaker 2: is ruffling some feathers in the Senate for Republicans who
Speaker 2: wanted to try and get this negotiated.
Speaker 3: Here's what Senator James Langford from Oklahoma.
Speaker 5: Had to say, Why give him this in an election year?
Speaker 5: The cover of this deal that you critics say, it's
Speaker 5: still going to let a lot of people in, but
Speaker 5: he gets to take a victory lap that he's gotten
Speaker 5: something done.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, it's definitely not going to let a bunch
Speaker 6: of people in. It's focused on actually turning people around
Speaker 6: on it. It is interesting Republicans four months ago would
Speaker 6: not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and for our
Speaker 6: southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we
Speaker 6: actually locked arms together and said we're not going to
Speaker 6: give you money for this. We want to change in law.
Speaker 6: And now it's interesting a few months later, when we're
Speaker 6: fining it at the end, they're like, oh, just kidding,
Speaker 6: I actually don't want to change in law because the
Speaker 6: presidential election year, we all have an oath to the
Speaker 6: Constitution and we have a commitment to say we're going
Speaker 6: to do whatever we can to be able to secure
Speaker 6: the border.
Speaker 3: So what do you make of all this, Crystal, There's
Speaker 3: a lot going on here.
Speaker 2: If we missed you whenever you weren't here, it was
Speaker 2: it was mildly enjoyable to have some of the civil
Speaker 2: war maps again go viral and igniting some of that discourse.
Speaker 2: But the border deal collapse is probably the bigger headline
Speaker 2: story out of all of us, because it was probably
Speaker 2: the last chance to get anything done before the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four election, and now they're going to basically keep
Speaker 2: it in the election, considering how the House Republicans and
Speaker 2: the Speaker are saying, this is an absolute no go
Speaker 2: for us.
Speaker 1: Just quickly, on the Supreme Court decision that you referenced
Speaker 1: there and this sort of like you know, potential constitutional crisis,
Speaker 1: it seems like both sides have somewhat de escalated on
Speaker 1: that front and avoided the worst of what could have
Speaker 1: happened there, So that is good.
Speaker 4: Obviously.
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court very clearly decided this correctly,
Speaker 1: that it's the federal government that has authority here, and
Speaker 1: already the actions of the Texas National Guarden of Governor
Speaker 1: Abbott probably led to the death of two of three migrants,
Speaker 1: including a mother and two children, who the US authorities
Speaker 1: were unable to reach in order.
Speaker 4: To rescue them.
Speaker 1: So on that piece, obviously, I think the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: was correct, and I think that all of these governors
Speaker 1: around the country and the dovetails with the other piece.
Speaker 1: They love to use this as a political issue. They
Speaker 1: love to do symbolic stunts such as the you know,
Speaker 1: willingness to send their own National Guard troops down to
Speaker 1: the border. But apparently many Republicans much less interested in
Speaker 1: actually governing when it comes to this issue. And so
Speaker 1: it's sort of adorable to see Senator Langford who thought like, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I thought we actually cared about this. I thought we
Speaker 1: actually wanted these measures imposed here, we negotiated a deal
Speaker 1: that gets ninety percent of what we've been asking for.
Speaker 1: And suddenly you are making it plain as day that
Speaker 1: is more important to you to have a political wedge issue,
Speaker 1: a cudgel to use against President Biden, than you are
Speaker 1: interested in actually living up to the rhetorican solutions that
Speaker 1: you claim to support. Now, for me, personally, I don't
Speaker 1: support this legislation. I think it's draconian. I don't think
Speaker 1: it will deal with the problem. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: it's incredibly harsh and just on the enforcement side, doesn't
Speaker 1: deal with any of the root cause issues, doesn't do
Speaker 1: nearly enough to eliminate the asylum backlog that really is
Speaker 1: sort of at the center of all of this.
Speaker 4: So I'm happy that the.
Speaker 1: House Republicans are interested in blocking it, but it just
Speaker 1: shows you. To me, Sager, I'm very curious on your
Speaker 1: take as well, Like it's a perfect example of how
Speaker 1: fake our politics are, how much of all of what
Speaker 1: these people are saying. I'm not just talking about Republicans now,
Speaker 1: but Democrats too. It's just like political signaling. I mean,
Speaker 1: Rowe versus Wait is a perfect example. On the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: they would rather have it as an issue than solve
Speaker 1: the problem Trump and the threat to democracy. On the
Speaker 1: Democratic side, they would rather have it as an issue
Speaker 1: than actually put forward a candidate that could defeat Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as an example, and I think it's the same
Speaker 1: thing here with the border.
Speaker 4: These people have been running.
Speaker 1: Around acting like it's an invasion and this is existential
Speaker 1: and this is a war on our country. And when
Speaker 1: they're actually offered a deal that could do some of
Speaker 1: what they claim they want, now we can't give Joe
Speaker 1: Biden to win an election year.
Speaker 4: So it shows you where their priorities actually are.
Speaker 2: I'm very conflicted because I think rhetorically it sounds good.
Speaker 3: I will say on that drowning incident.
Speaker 2: It is in dispute from the Texas side, and they
Speaker 2: say that it's actually the Mexican's fault that happened, but
Speaker 2: we could put that aside for because those facts of
Speaker 2: that have yet to be completely clear. It's complicated because
Speaker 2: when we think about this as a fix to the border,
Speaker 2: it's not necessarily one, because if we look back at
Speaker 2: some of the executive actions that the Biden administration took
Speaker 2: immediately after Trump, and I'm basically channeling the case for
Speaker 2: the House Republicans here, they're like, listen on, you removed
Speaker 2: the emergency declaration of the border, you stopped using the
Speaker 2: pandemic restrictions previously, you tried to get us out of
Speaker 2: remain in Mexico, and you've continued to embrace the asylum policy.
Speaker 2: So it's not a problem of legislation. If you simply
Speaker 2: enforce the law, then we wouldn't be continuing to have
Speaker 2: this problem. In that case, they are true. Now I'll
Speaker 2: give the democratic side of this, which is that no
Speaker 2: present of the last four four administrations has actually enforced
Speaker 2: fully immigration law because Congress has not given them the
Speaker 2: requisite resources to actually quote unquote deal with the problem
Speaker 2: we're talking here. As you reference asylum judges, Allegedly, this
Speaker 2: Porter deal does include some asylum judges and increase in
Speaker 2: some of the backlog, but it doesn't focus on some
Speaker 2: of the problems that we have in general of people
Speaker 2: who are economic migrants taking advantage of an asylum like system.
Speaker 2: So if I were to look at this purely from
Speaker 2: a Republican point of view, I'd be like, no, screw you, man,
Speaker 2: Like I'm not going to hold hostage a to a
Speaker 2: foreign country of which I don't particularly want for a problem.
Speaker 3: That you created.
Speaker 2: Some of the details to here, Crystal are that this
Speaker 2: would effectively, as I understand it, the full legislation has
Speaker 2: not been released, they would allow five thousands, so the
Speaker 2: border would close after five thousand migrants have passed per day. Now,
Speaker 2: you can quickly do the math of what five thousand
Speaker 2: is currently and you could see that it's several hundred
Speaker 2: thousand people that would continue to be allowed in and
Speaker 2: effectively legalize illegal immigration through some sort of quasi I
Speaker 2: like bargain system without any bargaining chips on the Republican side.
Speaker 2: So the issue I think is a this still legalizes
Speaker 2: like illegal mass migration number one. But two, Well, no,
Speaker 2: I mean, five thousand people are coming across a border
Speaker 2: that's illegal.
Speaker 1: But yeah, but soccer it's not like five thousands come
Speaker 1: across and it's just like and you're scot.
Speaker 4: Free and you get to go.
Speaker 1: Most The idea is, if you hit a daily average
Speaker 1: of five thousand, they can shut down the border and
Speaker 1: completely end due process and like throw out any semblance
Speaker 1: of following our laws or international laws. Which is why
Speaker 1: I think this is an outrageous approach. So it's the
Speaker 1: polar opposite of what you're saying. The idea here is
Speaker 1: not five thousand get to go in free. It's if
Speaker 1: we hit that limit, then we're going to do away
Speaker 1: with due process and completely shut the border. That's exactly
Speaker 1: the sort of hard line tactics that Republicans have claimed
Speaker 1: that they want. In addition, with regard to it, you know,
Speaker 1: being tied together with Ukraine and the is relate, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's as much because of the Republicans as it is
Speaker 1: because of the Democrats, they claimed, And that's what Langford
Speaker 1: was saying, Like, you guys claimed you wanted to.
Speaker 4: Put these two together. We put it together.
Speaker 1: We negotiated the deal, and now when you see it,
Speaker 1: you're like, Nat, it's an election here. We didn't actually
Speaker 1: want this. And lastly, with regard to executive action. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it is always better to actually have legislation
Speaker 1: versus these one off executive action pieces. So I think
Speaker 1: that's nonsense that they're suddenly like, no, no, we don't
Speaker 1: want to have anything to do with it.
Speaker 4: You just handle it.
Speaker 1: You just deal with it with your limited powers that
Speaker 1: you have as president.
Speaker 4: And as you said, even if Joe.
Speaker 1: Biden said, like I want to enforce the law in
Speaker 1: as draconia manner as possible, he just literally doesn't have
Speaker 1: the resources and to back up for people who you know,
Speaker 1: may not be totally in mession in the details. And
Speaker 1: this is something you know, you and I have discussed
Speaker 1: many times, and I know.
Speaker 4: You agree with this.
Speaker 1: A big core of the problem here is the asylum process.
Speaker 4: There's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: You have three million case backlog in the asylum courts.
Speaker 1: What that means is that people around the world, at
Speaker 1: this point this has taken on a life of its own.
Speaker 1: We're not just talking about Central and South America. We're
Speaker 1: talking about people coming from really all over the globe
Speaker 1: who know that they can show up and whether or
Speaker 1: not they have a legitimate asylum claim, can say I
Speaker 1: claim asylum and it's going to be years before their
Speaker 1: case works through the system. That is really the core
Speaker 1: of the problem. And so this deal again which I
Speaker 1: don't support because of the Drakconian measures I just spoke to.
Speaker 1: But this deal does have additional asylum judges. I doubt
Speaker 1: it's sufficient. I doubt it will get rid of this
Speaker 1: three million case backlog that really is like.
Speaker 4: The crux of this issue.
Speaker 1: But I think if you're not talking about that piece,
Speaker 1: then you're not serious about dealing with the problem. To me,
Speaker 1: it just reveals like they're especially the House Republicans and
Speaker 1: certainly Donald Trump, are not actually serious about dealing with
Speaker 1: the problem. They don't actually live up to this rhetoric
Speaker 1: of like, oh my god, it's an invasion. It's the
Speaker 1: worst thing that's happening in the entire world. They like
Speaker 1: it as a political issue, and they want to hold
Speaker 1: on to those images at the border and being able
Speaker 1: to solely blame Biden and run on it for Trump
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 4: That's what they really want.
Speaker 2: I think some of that can be true, but I
Speaker 2: respectfully disagree, because if five thousand people are going to
Speaker 2: be crossing per day, and as you're saying, deny them
Speaker 2: due process. We're giving people due process. Before it was
Speaker 2: in Mexico and you just had to wait there. Biden
Speaker 2: administration has reversed that policy. Now you get to come
Speaker 2: to this country after one hundred and eighty days, you
Speaker 2: get a work permit. It takes years to go through
Speaker 2: the asylum process. It's not fair. It's not fair to
Speaker 2: people who are in the US. Most of these people
Speaker 2: are prime age working males who are you know, basically
Speaker 2: working low paid jobs. Is good for big business, but
Speaker 2: I don't think it's fair to anybody is involved, including
Speaker 2: the migrants and including us. But I mean it is
Speaker 2: to me. I think it's effectively legalized mass immigration. We're
Speaker 2: gonna have hundreds thousands of people who are coming here
Speaker 2: who are economic migrants, are not asylum secrets. The vast
Speaker 2: majority of them have their asylum claims who are dismissed
Speaker 2: at the eventual trial to stay here for years and
Speaker 2: years and years, and they're allowed to work. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's basically mass migration. I mean it's one of those
Speaker 2: where they're allowed to stay. Now, in terms of deportation,
Speaker 2: we've had and haven't had any mass deportation in this country. Actually,
Speaker 2: basically since Obama, which is an inconvenient.
Speaker 3: Thing for Trump. Trump says that he's going to do
Speaker 3: it whenever he comes back. We'll see.
Speaker 1: But that's imported more people than Trump, by the way,
Speaker 1: but Barden Biden has deported more.
Speaker 4: People than Trump has.
Speaker 1: But again, the five thousand thing, I just think it's
Speaker 1: very I don't think it's fair the way that you're
Speaker 1: framing it, because again, this is actually the most draconian
Speaker 1: part of this legislation. It's not that the five thousand
Speaker 1: people that come in they just get a free pass.
Speaker 4: I mean what we have right.
Speaker 3: Asylum, Yes, free pass.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's sober. That's how it works right now with
Speaker 4: this decent is bad five thousand that's it.
Speaker 1: Then there's no more due process than even people who
Speaker 1: have legitimate asylum claims, which some people truly do. They
Speaker 1: don't get their chance, they don't get to make the case.
Speaker 1: And I think that is wildly unfair. But I just
Speaker 1: think it's very dishonest to frame that as like, oh,
Speaker 1: these five thousand, it's just a free pass, and you're
Speaker 1: greenlighting this many, you know, one hundred thousand migrants a month.
Speaker 1: You can already look at the number they're coming across.
Speaker 1: The numbers are very high. I don't deny that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So it's the polar opposite. It's that you are cutting
Speaker 1: off the number of people who get to come in
Speaker 1: and claim asylum right now.
Speaker 4: There is no limit.
Speaker 1: They're saying, Okay, we're going to put in this five
Speaker 1: thousand limit, which again I don't support. But if you
Speaker 1: are an immigration hardliner, I don't see how you look
Speaker 1: at that and think that that's a step backward. That
Speaker 1: is a step forward. If you are an immigration hardliner.
Speaker 2: Well I would put it this way, and I do
Speaker 2: consider myself a relative immigration hardliner, which is I think
Speaker 2: these people should all could apply for asylum in Mexico
Speaker 2: and then if they're legitimately allowed, then they can come in.
Speaker 2: That's probably going to be less than one percent of them.
Speaker 2: Right now, we have an insane situation. All of these
Speaker 2: Somalians and people from all over the world, as you said,
Speaker 2: who are just coming across the border. They're going to
Speaker 2: stay here for years and years, and the likelihood of
Speaker 2: their deportation is nearly zero, even if they do commit crimes.
Speaker 2: And this is exactly kind of where I get to
Speaker 2: the issue about sovereignty means that you get to have control.
Speaker 3: Now in this you're going to have some modicum of control.
Speaker 2: Again, I would channel the House Republicans case, which I
Speaker 2: think is fair, is that you created a problem which
Speaker 2: genuinely did not exist as badly under Trump because you
Speaker 2: remove the remain in Mexico policy, and you fought tooth
Speaker 2: and nail in the Supreme Court in order to allow
Speaker 2: this mass asylum like process allowing to the release of
Speaker 2: approximately six to eight million.
Speaker 3: People over the last three years.
Speaker 2: That's genuinely disorderly, and that's dramatically much more than happened
Speaker 2: under Trump. Now, Trump had a couple of things to
Speaker 2: his benefit. He had remained in Mexico, but really what
Speaker 2: saved him is the pandemic. If we're all being honest.
Speaker 2: He was allowed to use the pandemic era policy at
Speaker 2: that time and CDC guidelines to basically make it so
Speaker 2: that people were not allowed to come in and even
Speaker 2: the limited amount under remain in Mexico were able to
Speaker 2: enter the country. The issue, I think again though, comes
Speaker 2: back to a question of politics, and I don't think
Speaker 2: that you're wrong. I don't think that you are incorrect
Speaker 2: because Trump himself actually admitted this. We could take a
Speaker 2: listen to what he said at the rally where he's like,
Speaker 2: you're damn right, I want to take credit for killing
Speaker 2: this border deal.
Speaker 3: Let's play it.
Speaker 7: We cannot let this happen to our country. As the
Speaker 7: leader of our party. There is zero chance I will
Speaker 7: support this horrible open borders betrayal of America. It's not
Speaker 7: going to happen. I noticed that, and I'll fight it
Speaker 7: all the way. I noticed a lot of the senators,
Speaker 7: a lot of the senators are trying to say respectfully,
Speaker 7: they're blaming it on me. I said, that's okay, Please
Speaker 7: blame it on me, please, because they were getting ready
Speaker 7: to pass a very bad bill. And I'll tell you
Speaker 7: what a bad bill is. I'd rather have no bill
Speaker 7: than a bad bill. A bad bill you can't have.
Speaker 7: And that's what was happening.
Speaker 3: So that backs up what you're saying.
Speaker 2: I think we can be honest at least about that
Speaker 2: Trump is there like I would rather have no bill
Speaker 2: than a bad bill. And I would also say this
Speaker 2: for people who share some of my immigration politics. If
Speaker 2: people want to go and watch Rai Han Salam and others,
Speaker 2: they warned that if you have an incompetent president who
Speaker 2: has somebody who has immigration views that are like this,
Speaker 2: and if you have bad execution, as we genuinely saw
Speaker 2: under Trump where he was unable to get a bill pass,
Speaker 2: then you end up actually having some of the worst
Speaker 2: of both worlds.
Speaker 3: But curious for your reaction to the Trump.
Speaker 1: Segment, yeah, I mean he just says it out in
Speaker 1: the open, right. I mean, listen, there was I can't
Speaker 1: remember who it was one of the Republican senators who
Speaker 1: early on was like, listen, Republicans, you're not going to
Speaker 1: get a better deal than this under Trump. And the
Speaker 1: reason you're not going to get a better deal is
Speaker 1: because there is no way in hell that Democrats would
Speaker 1: allow an enforcement only bill with zero provisions for Dreamers,
Speaker 1: with no pathway to citizenship for anyone. There is no
Speaker 1: way in hell they would agree to that under Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The only reason that any of them would agree to this,
Speaker 1: which goes directly again everything they've said that they stand
Speaker 1: for on immigration for the past number of years, is
Speaker 1: because there's a democratic president. So when you're talking about government,
Speaker 1: and again, I'm glad they're blocking this bill because I
Speaker 1: don't support it, But if you're talking about governance. It's
Speaker 1: not is this the perfect ideal everything that I want
Speaker 1: under the sun Bill. It's you said that this is
Speaker 1: an incredibly important problem. You said that these are some
Speaker 1: of the methods that you would go about fixing it.
Speaker 1: And now that it's on the table, do you actually
Speaker 1: care about the issue or do you just want a grandstand?
Speaker 1: And clearly Trump is indicating like, no, I just want
Speaker 1: a grandstand. I want to use this as a wedge issue.
Speaker 1: And there are other Republicans who are even more forthright
Speaker 1: about not wanting to give Biden a quote unquote win
Speaker 1: in an election year. So it's led to people like
Speaker 1: James Langford. There are others who are like, wait a second,
Speaker 1: who are sincere apparently about the issue, and now that
Speaker 1: it's here, they're confused that, oh it turned down. The
Speaker 1: rest of you people weren't actually serious when you were
Speaker 1: making these claims. You just like the issue, you like
Speaker 1: the problem hanging out there. You like to use it
Speaker 1: to beat up the Democrats and beat up Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And you're not actually serious, that's what you know. It
Speaker 1: appears to me. And when they remain in Mexico policy,
Speaker 1: I mean just because you made the point like Biden
Speaker 1: wanted to get rid of it, the court said he couldn't.
Speaker 4: It's still in place, So.
Speaker 1: It's not like, you know, that's a major like, that's
Speaker 1: a lot of the Trump era immigration policy has actually
Speaker 1: remained in place. This would provide this president, and by
Speaker 1: the way, if Trump gets elected him as well with
Speaker 1: more power more like hardcore enforcement power at the border.
Speaker 1: So if this is an important issue for you, if
Speaker 1: you're an immigration hardliner, if you believe these measures are
Speaker 1: actually going to do something, everybody that is on that
Speaker 1: side should be supporting it. And the fact that they're
Speaker 1: not shows you they'd rather play politics.
Speaker 2: I think it's tough, Crystal. So I would put it
Speaker 2: to you this way. This is important as to Republicans.
Speaker 2: It is healthcare to people who support Bernie Sanders. So
Speaker 2: it's like, well, this is basically this is not even Obamacare,
Speaker 2: like in terms of what it would mean for healthcare.
Speaker 2: If we're going to put it in the comparable thing, Now,
Speaker 2: should you support it because it legally might get through maybe,
Speaker 2: or like, are you going to keep fighting for basically
Speaker 2: the best of what you can get? If you were
Speaker 2: to able to take the House, the Senate, which you know,
Speaker 2: it's very much within the realm of possibility that Republicans
Speaker 2: control those and.
Speaker 1: Then you're not going to get a filibuster proof majority
Speaker 1: in the Senate.
Speaker 4: That's what I mean.
Speaker 2: Okay, but I would put it this way then, I mean,
Speaker 2: does that mean you should stop fighting for you know,
Speaker 2: Medicare for all or something like in comparison, but soccer.
Speaker 1: If public option was on the table, even though it's
Speaker 1: not my ideal solution, I would say.
Speaker 4: Go for it.
Speaker 1: If expanding so if expanding social Security was on the table,
Speaker 1: which you know it was at one point during Build
Speaker 1: Back Better, I wouldn't say no because I just want
Speaker 1: to have this issue to run on in the next election.
Speaker 1: I would say, no, this is going to help people,
Speaker 1: This is important to me. We should embrace it and
Speaker 1: live to fight another day and keep pushing for more
Speaker 1: of what, you know, the direction that we think we
Speaker 1: should go in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's tough.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think just because the enforcement only is
Speaker 2: on the migration and it doesn't deal with the illegal
Speaker 2: immigration side here already, it does actually set up for
Speaker 2: you know, some sort of future fight which definitely could
Speaker 2: go against Republicans in terms of speaker Mike Johnson, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: He threw cold water on this.
Speaker 2: Has actually been basically saying this from the beginning, because
Speaker 2: I've been talking to some of the people who are involved,
Speaker 2: and they're like, look, the entire Senate deal is fake regardless,
Speaker 2: because Johnson is already in huge trouble right now in
Speaker 2: the Republican Caucus because of some of the spending deals
Speaker 2: that he's cut. If he allowed some sort of a
Speaker 2: silent and immigration bill to go through the Freedom Caucus
Speaker 2: and a lot of the immigration hardliners who barely he
Speaker 2: has two or three votes, you know, that are keeping
Speaker 2: him from getting his ass thrown out. Just like Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 2: he would have the same issue. So he tweeted out quote.
Speaker 2: President Biden falsely claimed yesterday he needs Congress to pass
Speaker 2: a new law to allow him to close the southern border.
Speaker 3: He knows that's untrue.
Speaker 2: As I explained to him in the letter last year
Speaker 2: and have specifically reiterated to him, he can take executive
Speaker 2: action immediately to reverse the catastrophe he has created. That's
Speaker 2: kind of what I was talking about in the previously
Speaker 2: when I was trying to channel some of the else
Speaker 2: Republican and some of the more hardline talking points that
Speaker 2: I've seen who are out there. Anyway, I'm curious what
Speaker 2: you think, Crystal, just in terms of how this will
Speaker 2: move forward, because one thing is correct, even if you
Speaker 2: can read, you know, this is getting a lot of
Speaker 2: attention and all that immigration is the worst issue for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, and the longer this goes on, it is
Speaker 2: worse for him. I mean, if anything, if I were
Speaker 2: to say that Biden won the election in twenty if
Speaker 2: we were sitting here in twenty twenty four after election day,
Speaker 2: I'd be like, he won because of Roe, and he
Speaker 2: won because, yeah, basically for Roe and Trump insanity. And
Speaker 2: if I were to say that Trump won, I would
Speaker 2: say he won because of Biden's age and immigration were
Speaker 2: probably the top two things that would contribute to that.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this is the worst issue. Well, it's
Speaker 1: one of the worst issues for Joe Biden now. So
Speaker 1: I think Israel has become a really bad issue for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden for different reasons of his right, because of
Speaker 1: his own base and how opposed they are to his approach.
Speaker 4: So there's a lot going on.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a lot of analysis from roles
Speaker 1: who basically are like, see how clever Joe Biden is.
Speaker 1: You know, we offered this draconian bill, and now Republicans
Speaker 1: are being exposed as not caring about the issue, which,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I think that is true, but
Speaker 1: I don't really think that that message is going to
Speaker 1: be successful. I don't know that people are following the
Speaker 1: ins and outs to realize that Republicans have been exposed
Speaker 1: as just wanting to shamelessly demagogue on this issue and
Speaker 1: not actually interested in solving the problem. So I don't
Speaker 1: really agree with that analysis. And there was also there
Speaker 1: was a study that just came out. It focused on
Speaker 1: European countries, but you know, as we've discussed before, a
Speaker 1: lot of the politics globally and certainly in Europe is
Speaker 1: like downstream and connected to what is going on here
Speaker 1: as well. And he's not the first Biden is not
Speaker 1: the first center left president to try to win electorally
Speaker 1: by basically adopting hard right positions on immigration specifically. And
Speaker 1: there was just a new political science study that came
Speaker 1: out that was like, this doesn't work. It's not successful
Speaker 1: because you are giving credence to the arguments being.
Speaker 4: Made by the other side.
Speaker 1: Why would voters take like the watered down version of
Speaker 1: the argument versus you know, the real, genuine article in
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. No one's going to think Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: harder on the border, harder on immigrants than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And you're going to alienate the people in your own
Speaker 1: coalition who disagree with you on this issue, and you're
Speaker 1: going to, you know, really undermine their enthusiasm for your candidacy.
Speaker 1: So I definitely disagree with those who are out there
Speaker 1: who think that this is like a brilliant political maneuver
Speaker 1: by Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: I don't think so at all.
Speaker 1: I think it's very likely to backfire and you know,
Speaker 1: not help him to win reelection.
Speaker 4: I think that's all the way around.
Speaker 3: I agree with that there's no way you can out
Speaker 3: immigration Donald Trump. I mean, it's just not going to.
Speaker 2: Happen, because even in five thousand, he's going to talk
Speaker 2: about the issue all day.
Speaker 3: It's not like the images are going to stop, right.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, he could still say He's like, look,
Speaker 2: I'll get it to zero. It's one of those where
Speaker 2: even if he can't do it, you could say it
Speaker 2: so rhetorically, I think that immigration voters in general. I
Speaker 2: guess the only case for it would be to try
Speaker 2: and get it out of the news. But I don't
Speaker 2: see that happening either. Like we just said, it's going
Speaker 2: to be an issue, whether people like it or not.
Speaker 2: You know, that's a really interesting study. I need to
Speaker 2: check that out. If I had to guess, it's like
Speaker 2: you said, it's that if you're centrist, you're just never
Speaker 2: going to be able to play kate voters who for
Speaker 2: whom this is the number one issue, and this is
Speaker 2: the number one issue for Republicans, Like I think it's
Speaker 2: a you know, politically, just consider this. If you're an
Speaker 2: immigration voter, you're almost one hundred percent, or immigration hardline voter,
Speaker 2: you are almost one hundred percent voting in GOP primary,
Speaker 2: Like you are almost one hundred percent going to vote
Speaker 2: for the Republican candidate. Joe Biden is not going to
Speaker 2: cross you over now in terms of people who are
Speaker 2: upset about it and feel like it's chaotic and others.
Speaker 2: I could maybe see the case, you know, for Biden,
Speaker 2: but you know, the left coalition point is not as
Speaker 2: an important one as well, because if you already got
Speaker 2: problems here with Israel. Now you're going to have some
Speaker 2: problems with the immigration groups and all this, and I'm
Speaker 2: skeptical as to their actual political power like nationally, but
Speaker 2: I definitely accept their political power intra coalitionally with the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party. They could cause real issues for him if
Speaker 2: something like this went through, and for a lot of
Speaker 2: other Democratic candidates. So yeah, I think it's a bit
Speaker 2: of a wash. I think you're right, and I do
Speaker 2: think Trump will probably come out on top.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've had elections before where Republicans really tried
Speaker 1: to make immigration the central issue. I think in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen it was one of the central issues and it
Speaker 1: was obviously successful.
Speaker 4: Donald Trump got elected in twenty eighteen. There was a
Speaker 4: big push to use this to.
Speaker 1: Like migrant caravan, remember all that situation, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: successful in Red states. I think that in the combination
Speaker 1: of the migrant caravan thing and Kavanaugh sort of locked
Speaker 1: in Republican voters and kept them from straying from the flock,
Speaker 1: kept them energized, and perhaps blocked some upset elections in
Speaker 1: in red states across the country, but with swing voters
Speaker 1: it was not successful. And my guests will be would
Speaker 1: be that you know, we've seen in the midterms this
Speaker 1: last time around, like they were trying to make immigration thing.
Speaker 1: They're certainly trying to make the economy thing a thing,
Speaker 1: and other issues won the day. I think, like you said,
Speaker 1: the people who are mostly voting on immigration are already Republicans.
Speaker 4: I think they're already going to vote for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't think Joe Biden, no matter how much of
Speaker 1: an immigration hardline liner he tries to make himself appear,
Speaker 1: at this point, I don't think there's any way in
Speaker 1: hell he's going to win any of those voters at
Speaker 1: this point. So I would be I would be very
Speaker 1: surprised if immigration ends up being the issue that wins
Speaker 1: the day. And then the last thing I'll say about
Speaker 1: it is, you know, there are some signs that not
Speaker 1: only is the economy somewhat improving, but that voters are
Speaker 1: starting to feel a little bit better about the economy,
Speaker 1: and concerns about the economy and concerns about immigration go
Speaker 1: hand and glove. You know, if you've got people who
Speaker 1: feel very insecure about their own finances looking for an
Speaker 1: outlet like that for what's going wrong for me, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's classic people come in the politicians like
Speaker 1: Trump are happy to come in and say it's their fault,
Speaker 1: it's the immigrants fault. They're the ones who are ruining
Speaker 1: your town, taking your job, et cetera, et cetera. People
Speaker 1: are much more open to that message when they feel
Speaker 1: very economically insecure. So that'll be the other piece that's
Speaker 1: really important is how do people Do people continue to
Speaker 1: marginally feel a bit better about the economy as we
Speaker 1: move towards election day, or do they feel really insecure
Speaker 1: and are more open to those messages.
Speaker 4: So that's the other thing.
Speaker 1: I don't think those two issues are not separate, I
Speaker 1: guess is what I would say, how the economy is
Speaker 1: doing and how people feel about immigration.
Speaker 2: No question, there's no It's not an accident that major
Speaker 2: immigration politics spike to the nineteen eighties, after the problems
Speaker 2: of the nineteen seventies and after the two thousand.
Speaker 3: And eight financial crisis. Absolutely correct.
Speaker 2: The only X factor I would say is some of
Speaker 2: these blue cities like New York, Chicago and others having
Speaker 2: a lot of migrants get bussed up there.
Speaker 3: That could maybe be the only way that I.
Speaker 2: Could see some of the dynamics change, because that's relatively
Speaker 2: new post twenty twenty two, at least at scale in
Speaker 2: terms of stressing issues. But that doesn't mean New York
Speaker 2: is going to go red. It could mean that it
Speaker 2: could go, you know, less blue than before. Maybe it
Speaker 2: actually might change the popular vote. But we'll see, and
Speaker 2: I'm curious to see how it shakes out. So RFK
Speaker 2: Junior giving an interview recently where he confirmed some rumors
Speaker 2: that the Trump camp had actually reached out to him
Speaker 2: to serve as vice president.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: He asked you that today, what would your response be.
Speaker 8: I would not take that job. I'm flattered that President
Speaker 8: Trump would offer to me, but it's not something that
Speaker 8: I'm interested in him.
Speaker 4: Did he reach out for his tea?
Speaker 8: People from the team have reached out to me.
Speaker 3: People from the team have reached out to me.
Speaker 2: We are definitely going to ask, by the way, our
Speaker 2: RFK Junior focus group about this, whether this is something
Speaker 2: they want. By the way, you could support us there
Speaker 2: if you can, for our previeum member.
Speaker 3: But what did you make of this, Crystal?
Speaker 2: What did you make because I mean there is some
Speaker 2: high level jiu jitsu going on here.
Speaker 3: If it's true, I don't think it'd be the worst
Speaker 3: move in the world.
Speaker 4: Well, okay, so a few things.
Speaker 1: First of all, I can't help but notice when whenever
Speaker 1: a politician gets to ask one of these questions, like
Speaker 1: he didn't say a hard no, right, there was a
Speaker 1: little bit of wiggle room left in there. He said,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not interested in it.
Speaker 4: Well that's different.
Speaker 1: Maybe you'll get interested in it. Maybe they'll make you
Speaker 1: interested in it.
Speaker 4: You know, it's not like, no, absolutely not, I'm running
Speaker 4: for president.
Speaker 1: I would never do that. I think Donald Trump is atrocious.
Speaker 1: In fact, he says he's honored to be considered for
Speaker 1: the job, which you know, a real like absolutely no.
Speaker 1: I can't stand Trump and he needs to never be
Speaker 1: president again. Like no one would in that camp would
Speaker 1: be like, oh, I'm honored to be considered for vice
Speaker 1: president to Donald Trump. So I noted that. To me,
Speaker 1: that means the door's kind of open. He says this
Speaker 1: thing about people on his team breached out, and the
Speaker 1: Trump people denied that this is the case. But you know,
Speaker 1: who's on your team can be very loosely defined. It
Speaker 1: could have been someone who's sort of like vaguely affiliated,
Speaker 1: you know, affiliated with him. But not directly on the
Speaker 1: payroll something like that. So I don't know what to
Speaker 1: make of it from the Trump perspective. I don't actually
Speaker 1: think it makes a lot of sense from the Trump
Speaker 1: perspective personally, because what does r of K Junior At
Speaker 1: this point and we'll talk about this in a moment.
Speaker 1: He's only been able to get on one ballot. The
Speaker 1: polls that have been coming out don't show that he
Speaker 1: is taking more from Trump than Biden. It seems to
Speaker 1: be relatively split fifty to fifty. Many of the polls
Speaker 1: that include RFK Junior actually seem to.
Speaker 4: Show Trump doing a little bit better.
Speaker 1: And that scenario with him on the ballot, So it's
Speaker 1: not just not clear to me politically what Trump gets
Speaker 1: out of it. And he also has seemed to signal
Speaker 1: he really wants to have a woman as vice president,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think seems to be looking in
Speaker 1: that direction. So to me, it doesn't really totally add up.
Speaker 3: It depends.
Speaker 2: It's one of those where let's say he does go
Speaker 2: for let's say he does get on all the bout,
Speaker 2: it's gonna be very difficult. He's only gotten on one
Speaker 2: so far. He told us to get on all fifty
Speaker 2: we'll see I remain it's going to be a very
Speaker 2: very difficult uphill climb, and he's going to have to
Speaker 2: seriously hit in terms of his volunteers. It's going to
Speaker 2: cost a lot of money together out there. If we
Speaker 2: don't see that in the next couple of months, will
Speaker 2: relatively know whether it's going to happen. The second thing
Speaker 2: that he floated was going on the libertarian ticket. Let's
Speaker 2: actually take a listen to that because that would inform
Speaker 2: some of the calculus for Trump.
Speaker 3: Let's see what he had to say in a recent
Speaker 3: SCNN interview.
Speaker 9: Is it possible that you will seek, as you are
Speaker 9: running as an independent, you will seek still to be
Speaker 9: the Libertarian candidate, which would assure you getting on all
Speaker 9: fifty state ballots.
Speaker 8: Is that's something that we're looking at. We have a
Speaker 8: really good relationship with Libertarian Party. I'm going to be
Speaker 8: speaking at the California the Libertarian Party convention. I think
Speaker 8: it's next week or maybe a couple of weeks. And
Speaker 8: then we're talking about me talking speaking in New York.
Speaker 8: But you know, so that is and then we have
Speaker 8: our own political party now in the six states, which
Speaker 8: have rules that make that give us an advantage to
Speaker 8: have our own political party.
Speaker 4: We're not going to ask you.
Speaker 3: I ask you the question. I ask you the question.
Speaker 8: Yeah, Well, we are talking to the Libertarian Party, and
Speaker 8: I feel very comfortable with most of the values the
Speaker 8: Libertarian Party, and you know, we, like I say, we
Speaker 8: have good relationships. I'm talking regularly to libertarian groups, so
Speaker 8: we'll continue to do those talks. I can't give you
Speaker 8: a headline news story today, Mike Climbs, Sorry, ask about
Speaker 8: something different, Okay.
Speaker 2: I actually think this would be the best strategy for him.
Speaker 2: I just saw that the Libertarian Party is on the
Speaker 2: ballot in all of these states, especially the major and
Speaker 2: competitor one is they've done the ballot access work, etc.
Speaker 3: It would generally make sense.
Speaker 2: And because we've seen previously between two to three percent
Speaker 2: of the vote go libertarian, especially when Trump is on
Speaker 2: the ballot, like Joe Jorgenson previously in the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: election twenty sixteen that actually did pretty well as well.
Speaker 2: Imagine if the Kennedy name was there. If so, if
Speaker 2: I were Trump. Historically, many these libertarian voters are people
Speaker 2: who have crossed over from the Republican ballot and or
Speaker 2: would have voted for Trump, especially if he got libertarian,
Speaker 2: I would want him on my ticket because it'd be
Speaker 2: one of those where that is a chaos factor. If
Speaker 2: he remains independent and he's not on the states that
Speaker 2: really matter in terms of ballot then you're right. But
Speaker 2: it's one of those calculus which he doesn't have to
Speaker 2: make this decision crystal until the convention in June and July,
Speaker 2: so he's got several months to kind of marinate, and
Speaker 2: by that time we're gonna know what the ballot, access
Speaker 2: and all of that looks like. So you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of that, even though he splits equally, it's just
Speaker 2: enough of a chaos factor. And considering how Iiden can't
Speaker 2: get Kennedy on his ticket but Trump plausibly could, then yeah,
Speaker 2: I could see it happening. But there are a lot
Speaker 2: of other reasons, Like you said, here's the truth, Like
Speaker 2: RFK Junior has many liberal positions. I don't mean in
Speaker 2: a denigrating way, but it could be problem for the
Speaker 2: Republican coalition. I think it'd probably be fine just because
Speaker 2: as a valance wise and like for some of the
Speaker 2: voters and others he might be able to bring in.
Speaker 2: It would probably net net out. The GOP establishment would
Speaker 2: definitely have a problem with that. I don't know if
Speaker 2: Trump even particularly cares. So, yeah, there's some interesting analysis here.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: There is no way that Trump picks a VP candidate
Speaker 1: that he is not one thousand percent sure is going
Speaker 1: to be absolutely loyal to him in.
Speaker 4: Every cipical circumstance.
Speaker 1: Right because even though Mike Pence, you know, licked his
Speaker 1: boots for ninety nine point nine percent of the four
Speaker 1: year term. When it came down to it and he
Speaker 1: was like, how about you subvert the constitution and rig
Speaker 1: the election for me, Mike Pence was like, no, I'm.
Speaker 4: Not going to do that.
Speaker 1: Trump is not going to risk having someone with even
Speaker 1: a tiny sliver of a shred of backbone and independent
Speaker 1: thought and listen, maybe rf K Junior would just go
Speaker 1: along to get along with whatever he wanted him to do.
Speaker 1: That's possible. I have no idea, but Trump doesn't know
Speaker 1: that doesn't know either. There's no demonstrated record of, you know,
Speaker 1: absolute fealty. There's no demonstrated record of like defending the
Speaker 1: most insane and outrageous things that Trump has ever done,
Speaker 1: and so there is no doubt in my mind that
Speaker 1: whoever Donald Trump chooses is going to be someone who
Speaker 1: has a consistent record of absolutely slavish devotion to Donald J.
Speaker 4: Trump.
Speaker 1: On the libertarian piece, this is starting to get some
Speaker 1: Cornell West vibes. And I say that with respect to
Speaker 1: Cornell West, who as an intellectual I obviously and you know,
Speaker 1: a thinker, an activist I have a deep respect for.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the way that he's run his campaign,
Speaker 1: you know, rf K Junior, now he started in the
Speaker 1: Democratic primary, then he jumps out and he's an independent.
Speaker 1: Now in some states he's formed his own party now
Speaker 1: with a libertarian ticket. And it's like, this is getting
Speaker 1: really messy. And the other thing is I don't know
Speaker 1: the backstory of why Cornell West, you know, dropped from
Speaker 1: being a Green Party candidate. But Green Party, Libertarian Party,
Speaker 1: these aren't just names on a ballot or like theoretical
Speaker 1: you know ideas. These are actual parties with actual structures
Speaker 1: and their own actual internal politics. And there will certainly
Speaker 1: be people and we've seen you know, some of this
Speaker 1: commentary online who are libertarians who have been activists within
Speaker 1: the Libertarian party who are like, who is this guy?
Speaker 4: He's not a libertarian.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 1: Here's ten positions that he has taken, including his you know,
Speaker 1: devotion to Israel, unconditional support for Israel. Many of them
Speaker 1: have issue with that do not fit with the Libertarian
Speaker 1: Party with my values, and no, even though maybe he
Speaker 1: could get a higher percentage electorally, like, what does that
Speaker 1: matter if we don't have a candidate who actually reflects
Speaker 1: Libertarian Party values consistently down the line. I think that's
Speaker 1: an issue for him as well as you can't just
Speaker 1: like be like, guess what, guys, I'm gonna be the
Speaker 1: Libertarian Party nominee.
Speaker 4: They have their own process and their own politics as well.
Speaker 3: I was really interested to see Dave Smith.
Speaker 2: He's probably the most prominent libertarian that I know of
Speaker 2: who hosts the podcast frequently a guest on Rogan, he says,
Speaker 2: I've admired many aspects of the RFK Junior campaign. His
Speaker 2: opposition to COVID, tyranny, vax mandates, the Ukraine War, and
Speaker 2: the deep State has been nothing short of heroic. However,
Speaker 2: his support for the war in Gaza is disqualifying. We
Speaker 2: are the anti war, non interventionist party and that is
Speaker 2: non negotiable period. He will not be our nominee. I
Speaker 2: will do everything in my power to see to that.
Speaker 2: Somebody like Scott Horton also comes to mind, who we've
Speaker 2: had here on the show, very prominent anti war libertarian,
Speaker 2: and I will say that is one area where RFK
Speaker 2: Junior would have trouble with libertarians on Israel specifically because
Speaker 2: so much, especially of the modern electoral libertarian movement, can
Speaker 2: be traced back to the Ron Paul two thousand and
Speaker 2: eight twenty twelve campaigns, which were so foundational in the
Speaker 2: Iraq War and an opposition to the global war on terror.
Speaker 2: So if we consider it that way, especially if we
Speaker 2: get embroiled in a bigger Middle East conflict, it would
Speaker 2: be incredibly difficult to have.
Speaker 3: You know, let's be real, it's not a large.
Speaker 2: Group of people of people who vote libertarian, and within
Speaker 2: that there's a critical mass who being anti war is
Speaker 2: like the most important thing to them, almost in many
Speaker 2: cases more important to them than any of the economic policies,
Speaker 2: by the way, which I respect and I have that's
Speaker 2: a lot of friends I have on the libertarian anti
Speaker 2: war kind of side, is because I think that they
Speaker 2: see this so critically for the future of the US
Speaker 2: and just how much it ruined America in the post
Speaker 2: Iraq War, post two.
Speaker 3: Thousand and one period.
Speaker 2: So, now that I consider it that way, and especially
Speaker 2: some of Dave's commentary on that, it really could be
Speaker 2: a problem for him if he did.
Speaker 3: Try to get that way.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: And you know, I am really interested to see some
Speaker 1: of the thoughts of the focus group that we have
Speaker 1: been in paneled for. What is it like a week
Speaker 1: from now, We're gonna be lead talking to them. We'll
Speaker 1: get their thoughts on all of this, you know, potential
Speaker 1: Libertarian Party, potential Trump VP, et cetera. But you know,
Speaker 1: the difficulties in getting ballot access.
Speaker 4: It's not rfk's fault.
Speaker 1: This was intentionally, especially post Ross Perrot, both of the parties,
Speaker 1: whatever states they controlled, they decided to make this basically
Speaker 1: impossible to accomplish. And it's outrageous. It's an offense to democracy.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be that way.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I'm not an RFK junior supporter, but he should be
Speaker 1: on the ballot in all fifty states of the series campaign.
Speaker 1: He's raised serious money. I mean, as a real operation,
Speaker 1: it should be possible for him to get on the ballot.
Speaker 1: In all fifty states, so that voters, if they want
Speaker 1: to avail themselves of that choice, have that option available
Speaker 1: to them. But because of the you know, dominance of
Speaker 1: the two party system, the way they basically collaborated to
Speaker 1: shut out any and all other voices, it's going to
Speaker 1: be very difficult for him.
Speaker 4: And I doubt I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not privy to like internal Libertarian party discussions, and
Speaker 1: I don't know any activists in the Libertarian Party, etc. Really,
Speaker 1: but I sort of doubt that that's going to be
Speaker 1: a real solution for him in the end.
Speaker 4: Either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it could be very much but yeah, and as
Speaker 2: you said, I completely agree with you in terms of
Speaker 2: ballot access and all that. By the way, if anybody
Speaker 2: in the state of the Virginia wants to contact me,
Speaker 2: I will sign it in order to get him on
Speaker 2: the ballot. But it's a very very difficult climb upwards
Speaker 2: in order to try and make that happen.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to Trump.
Speaker 2: This is a big, big story, not just for reasons
Speaker 2: that the media wants you to care about, but for
Speaker 2: Trump personally and how we can inform some of the
Speaker 2: stakes that will inform his needing to win the presidency
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: You guys might have been following the second of case
Speaker 2: involving the defamation or allegedly, I guess now proven of
Speaker 2: eging Carol, eging Carol, if we'll all remember, had accused
Speaker 2: Trump of sexuals assault in a previous defamation case in
Speaker 2: which she alleged that he had defamed her in her
Speaker 2: comments whenever he denied it. The jury did not find
Speaker 2: necessarily that the quote unquote sexual assault, arny that had happened,
Speaker 2: but they did find that defamation had occurred.
Speaker 3: I'm just phrasing it. Well, let don't.
Speaker 4: Correct you on that soccer.
Speaker 1: They actually did find that sexual assault, not rape occurred. Okay,
Speaker 1: that was there were three options available to them, and
Speaker 1: this was a civil trial, so the standard is different.
Speaker 1: It's a preponderance of evidence, are more likely than not.
Speaker 1: There were three options that he raped her, that he
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted her, or that there was inappropriate touching, and
Speaker 1: they decided yanimously that there was sexual assault.
Speaker 2: Thank you for correcting me, because that has been incredibly confusing.
Speaker 2: Major Trump defense has been. The jury did not find
Speaker 2: the actual allegation. And then when I had read in
Speaker 2: terms of the sexual assault and or harassment, what the
Speaker 2: jury had found, it didn't make any sense because of
Speaker 2: the connection there, as you said, to the actual defamations,
Speaker 2: Like you can't necessarily find somebody guilty of defamation if
Speaker 2: you didn't find that the underlying claim had any merit whatsoever. Anyway,
Speaker 2: as we pointed out, it happened in the first case,
Speaker 2: Trump immediately came out and allegedly, according to Ejen Carroll,
Speaker 2: to famed her. So she immediately then filed another defamation
Speaker 2: case against Trump. This one the jury award, now, as
Speaker 2: we showed everybody, is some eighty three million dollars, which
Speaker 2: is an extraordinary sum of damages to be awarded to
Speaker 2: Egene Carroll in this trial. Now, the reason that matters
Speaker 2: is because it challenges Trump's own personal financial decisions and
Speaker 2: some of the legal problems that he's found himself in.
Speaker 2: When we connected to the fraud trial that previously happened
Speaker 2: in the state of New York, which accused him of
Speaker 2: artificially inflating the asset values of his properties.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahe and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: They show here from the New York Times quote is
Speaker 2: that the jury's decision to award eighty three million to
Speaker 2: Ejene Carroll has come at a very opportune time for
Speaker 2: the former president. Mister Trump and his family business are
Speaker 2: currently bracing for the judge in that case to impose
Speaker 2: a punishment in the coming weeks that could also reach
Speaker 2: hundreds of millions of dollars. As we relate back to
Speaker 2: that New York case. The enterprise that they say here
Speaker 2: is that Trump isn't going to be taken down by
Speaker 2: a bunch of criminal cases, but the enterprise that is
Speaker 2: Trump is going to be picked apart by these civil cases,
Speaker 2: and at some point there is a risk of collapse,
Speaker 2: collapse being connected to his own personal financial situation, and
Speaker 2: that actually does seem to be a genuinely existential threat
Speaker 2: crystal in a way that some of these legal charges
Speaker 2: and others are not in that the other legal fees
Speaker 2: and other problems that Trump has, and all these criminal
Speaker 2: cases and all that these are ones where he could
Speaker 2: fundraise off of and of which people can pay his bills,
Speaker 2: supporters and others. This is a well established, kind of
Speaker 2: established way whenever political opponents and political supporters and another
Speaker 2: that are under or under trial or have to pay
Speaker 2: legal expenses. The RNC and others can chip in, but
Speaker 2: this is one that genuinely impacts his own personal fortune
Speaker 2: and he can't get the same level of bailout that
Speaker 2: he would need necessarily. And then even if did, just
Speaker 2: imagine a scenario where he'd have to raise hundreds of
Speaker 2: millions of dollars to pay off personal defamation lawsuits and
Speaker 2: business problems, which kind of undercuts so much of the
Speaker 2: foundational case for why he was the person in the
Speaker 2: first place to host The Apprentice and build the image
Speaker 2: in the brand that he did that eventually carried him
Speaker 2: into the presidency.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, listen, can Trump before a eighty three.
Speaker 1: Million dollar suit without I'm sure it hurts, But is
Speaker 1: it you gonna make or break him?
Speaker 4: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: When you add another potentially three hundred million dollars, which
Speaker 1: is what they're asking for in the civil fraud case
Speaker 1: with regard to his business, I mean probably he can
Speaker 1: still stomach that, but it's real money, even for a
Speaker 1: billionaire like Donald Trump. And he said before he has,
Speaker 1: you know, over four hundred million dollars cash on hand,
Speaker 1: which is you know, sufficient to cover those expenses, but
Speaker 1: just barely.
Speaker 4: I'm not one of.
Speaker 1: These, you know people who think, oh, Donald Trump really
Speaker 1: isn't actually rich, it's like all a scam and a
Speaker 1: fraud and a house of cars or whatever. He has
Speaker 1: plenty of property, has plenty of assets. He is genuinely
Speaker 1: a very very wealthy person and very likely a legitimate billionaire.
Speaker 1: But we are talking about sums of money at this
Speaker 1: point that are extremely consequential for him. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any doubt about that, you know, with regard to
Speaker 1: Egen Carroll and this particular you know, finding of defamation
Speaker 1: coming on top of the finding that he did again,
Speaker 1: this is a civil trial, so the evidence is different.
Speaker 1: He's not going to prison for this, but in the
Speaker 1: civil trial finding that he did sexually assault Egen Carroll,
Speaker 1: those you know decades ago.
Speaker 4: You just have to there's two pieces.
Speaker 1: Number One, it's one of the first times that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has ever been found like things have ever gone
Speaker 1: against him in terms of accountability. We're so used to
Speaker 1: him operating in a political sphere where there are just
Speaker 1: no consequences for the many things that he does that
Speaker 1: are like totally outside of what any other politician could
Speaker 1: get away with.
Speaker 4: So it's always a lesson.
Speaker 1: For me to remember as we watch these criminal cases
Speaker 1: unfold and develop, that the results for him in the
Speaker 1: courtroom have been very different than the results for him
Speaker 1: in the political sphere. So that's number one. Number two,
Speaker 1: it kind of cuts in the other direction. If any
Speaker 1: other candidate, if this was Joe Biden and a jury
Speaker 1: found unanimously that he had sexually assaulted Tara Reid or
Speaker 1: some other female accuser, whenever, this would be one of
Speaker 1: the biggest stories in the country. I mean, it would
Speaker 1: be incredibly consequential. And yet because it's Donald Trump, it's
Speaker 1: like kind of a blip. I mean not to say
Speaker 1: he doesn't get any coverage, but it's certainly not the
Speaker 1: number one story in the country.
Speaker 4: It's not the number one.
Speaker 1: Political story in the country. And that is kind of remarkable.
Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely agree, Crystal.
Speaker 2: And the thing is it both highlights the problems for
Speaker 2: Trump in the courtroom and also his political ability to
Speaker 2: survive something that anybody else would never get away with,
Speaker 2: Like you said, with Biden, I mean, even if we
Speaker 2: consider just some of the previous things that happened with
Speaker 2: Biden or in terms of media treatment and ane of that,
Speaker 2: But if we had an actual case that went through
Speaker 2: it just would it would be completely different in the
Speaker 2: way we think about it. I was fascinated to see this,
Speaker 2: which MAGA folks have been attacking Nikki Haley on Haley
Speaker 2: appears to be trying to make a bid for these
Speaker 2: voters in the Republican Party who don't like Trump and
Speaker 2: who are very concerned kind of by a behavior, kind
Speaker 2: of more normy politics, by supporting actually the Egen Carol verdict.
Speaker 3: Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 11: I absolutely trust the jury and I think that they
Speaker 11: made their decision based on the evidence. It cracks that
Speaker 11: people trying to over analyze. I just tell the truth
Speaker 11: as I see it. I think there have been politics
Speaker 11: played with prosecutors that have brought on some of these cases.
Speaker 11: I think there's been politics played even with the judges.
Speaker 11: But I do think American juries still get it right.
Speaker 11: They listen to the evidence, they make the decision based
Speaker 11: on the evidence, and I do still trust any American
Speaker 11: that sits on a jury. I trust that they're making
Speaker 11: the right decision. But this goes to a bigger thing, John,
Speaker 11: We've got a whole other year of this, So what
Speaker 11: we watched was Donald Trump throw a temper tantrum the
Speaker 11: night of the New Hampshire primary because forty three percent
Speaker 11: of Republicans didn't vote for him. Then I see him
Speaker 11: throw a temper tantrum in this courtroom. The reality is
Speaker 11: are we going to have a country in disarray and
Speaker 11: a world on fire and deal with more temper tantrums?
Speaker 2: So I was fascinated by those Commons Crystal, because that's
Speaker 2: a great pitch for the general election. But when you're
Speaker 2: running in a primary where people see Trump as the
Speaker 2: messiah who has not come since Reagan, what are you doing?
Speaker 2: They don't believe. They think that the media is rigged.
Speaker 2: They think that the court system and all that is rigged.
Speaker 2: They don't know any of the details about eging.
Speaker 3: Carroll and all that.
Speaker 2: They're like, they're out to get him, they're trying to
Speaker 2: bankrupt him. He's fighting for us and all that. So
Speaker 2: I just don't get her strategy. It's one of this,
Speaker 2: like which primary running in Lady.
Speaker 1: Well, to me, it's an indication that she's basically accepted
Speaker 1: she's not going to be.
Speaker 4: The Republican nomination, and so she's pitching.
Speaker 1: For whatever her other future career prospects may be because
Speaker 1: earlier in the primary, she was much more careful about
Speaker 1: how she presed her criticism of Donald Trump and you know,
Speaker 1: keeping the kid gloves on and never going too far,
Speaker 1: and you know, being very sort of like vague in
Speaker 1: her concerns and complaints about him. So not just with this,
Speaker 1: but we've seen other indications that she's now going sort
Speaker 1: of like all in Chris Christy never Trump anti Trump lane.
Speaker 1: She doesn't have a path to the Republican nomination barring Trump,
Speaker 1: like dying or being thrown in prison. So I think
Speaker 1: this is more about her positioning herself for I don't know, media,
Speaker 1: career board position, whatever she thinks maybe the next step
Speaker 1: for her personally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just one of those where this was
Speaker 2: also like a major red line, you know for a
Speaker 2: lot of Trump Maga folks. I saw Jason Miller works
Speaker 2: with the Trump campaign being like, this is it. She
Speaker 2: will have no place.
Speaker 3: Who knows.
Speaker 2: It could all be talk, she could be a VP,
Speaker 2: but I personally I doubt it. If you're going to
Speaker 2: be talking this way.
Speaker 1: Going what were the T shirts she was selling his
Speaker 1: T shirts? Like Trump said, what they were banned from
Speaker 1: the Maga movement or something like that, and then she
Speaker 1: was selling t shirts that said banned. It just feels
Speaker 1: like I may be wrong about the language, but is
Speaker 1: that what it was banned?
Speaker 2: I would here permanently barred Nikki Haley for permanently barre
Speaker 2: best woman win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, permanently permanently barred because Trump said they would permanently
Speaker 1: barred anyone who supported her from the Maga movement, and
Speaker 1: so she leaned into it. I mean again, like in
Speaker 1: an earlier phase, she wouldn't have done that when she
Speaker 1: actually thought it was an active possibility that she might
Speaker 1: be the Republican nominee. Now I think it's just sort
Speaker 1: of like a yolo moment, and let me position myself
Speaker 1: for whatever other career I'm looking forward to. That's not
Speaker 1: going to be president, and it's not going to be
Speaker 1: a Republican presidential Dominie.
Speaker 2: Well, I hear Boeing still needs some help, Nikki, so
Speaker 2: because he's had such a good velo last time. Just
Speaker 2: to highlight what you said as well, let's put the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg tear sheet, guys, please up on the screen. Is
Speaker 2: that they say that the cash stock pile that they
Speaker 2: currently have is some four hundred and fifty million. Genuinely
Speaker 2: is at risk here if both of these verdicts go
Speaker 2: against Trump from the eighty three million to the initial
Speaker 2: three or four hundred million. And that's one of those
Speaker 2: two where you know you highlight it correctly, where look,
Speaker 2: four hundred million dollars hurts. No matter how much of
Speaker 2: a billionaire billionaire you are, period, he could be worth
Speaker 2: ten billion, that's still a substantial chunk of your net worth.
Speaker 2: It also kind of misunderstands financially billionaires. I mean, most
Speaker 2: of these people do not have a lot of cash
Speaker 2: on hand. In fact, that's usually not very tax efficient
Speaker 2: for them. They try to keep it as tied up
Speaker 2: in tax advantage assets like real estate, stock and others,
Speaker 2: and have very little cash on hand. Then they borrow
Speaker 2: against those ass So even if it did force him,
Speaker 2: like you were saying, to liquidate a portion of his portfolio,
Speaker 2: that's still very difficult.
Speaker 3: That's not all that easy. You got to sell it, you.
Speaker 2: Got to find a buyer, you gotta have you know,
Speaker 2: equity guys and all that come in and all this.
Speaker 2: So this could significantly complicate his life no matter what if.
Speaker 1: This happens, absolutely, And there's another layer with this civil
Speaker 1: fraud trial, which what I read said they're expecting a
Speaker 1: verdict as soon as this week in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: he's already been found that he committed fraud. Now it's
Speaker 1: a question of how much money he's going to have
Speaker 1: to pay. So he's not going to get off scott
Speaker 1: free with this one. There's going to be some kind
Speaker 1: of penalty, and along with that judgment, it is possible
Speaker 1: that he'll be forced to liquidate his assets in New York,
Speaker 1: which are really central to his brand, you know, you
Speaker 1: think about like Trump Tower, and some of his most
Speaker 1: iconic properties are in the state of New York. And
Speaker 1: the other thing, Soccer, I'm sure you have noticed with
Speaker 1: super rich people too, is that even when they have
Speaker 1: like millions and millions of dollars in the bank and
Speaker 1: tons of property and assets and stockholdings and whatever, they
Speaker 1: can still feel poor somehow, even, you know, and they
Speaker 1: take a hit to their bottom line or their cash
Speaker 1: d windows or whatever. So I think these judgments, I
Speaker 1: think they bite, you know, I don't think that they're nothing.
Speaker 1: He clearly in the courtroom with Egen Carroll was very agitated,
Speaker 1: very unhappy, very upset. Couldn't sort of like keep that
Speaker 1: to himself. It was incredibly clear. And so we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens with this civil fraud judgment. But you know,
Speaker 1: for me, the bottom line with all of these things,
Speaker 1: as I said before, is that the outcomes for Trump
Speaker 1: in the courtroom very different from the outcomes for Trump politically.
Speaker 1: His normal tactics and tricks and maneuvers and whatever aren't
Speaker 1: working with these judges aren't working with these juries. And
Speaker 1: for all of the sense, this man is invincible and
Speaker 1: teflon don and every ball, every bounces, always bounces his way.
Speaker 1: That has not been the case in the you know,
Speaker 1: in the sport setting thus far.
Speaker 4: So we'll see what happens from here.
Speaker 3: Yep, good flag. All right, let's get to it. Ron.
Speaker 1: We're getting new details this morning about that deadly attack
Speaker 1: that killed three US service members in Jordan on the
Speaker 1: border there with Syria, including who those service members were.
Speaker 4: This is unbelievably tragic. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Three young black soldiers, all based out of the state
Speaker 1: of Georgia, are now dead because of those attacks.
Speaker 4: We read you a little bit about them.
Speaker 1: Three American soldiers killed in a drone attack at a
Speaker 1: US base in Jordan this weekend were Army reservists from
Speaker 1: a Georgia based engineer unit. William Rivers, Kennedy Leyden Sanders,
Speaker 1: and Brianna Alexandria Moffett were killed in that January twenty
Speaker 1: eighth attack when an unmanned aerial system crashed into the
Speaker 1: container units they were using for housing on the base.
Speaker 1: At least now these numbers have gone up. At least
Speaker 1: forty additional US troops were injured that according to Pentagon officials.
Speaker 1: This comes, of course, on top of the two Navy
Speaker 1: Seals who were dead after attempting to intercept weapons that
Speaker 1: Iran was allegedly.
Speaker 4: Sending to Yemen, the.
Speaker 1: Service members who were done in a training exercise, and
Speaker 1: quite a number of US service members who have suffered
Speaker 1: also traumatic brain injuries and other injuries in additional of
Speaker 1: these similar style attacks.
Speaker 4: And as we covered.
Speaker 1: Yesterday, Sager, we've had something like more than one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty of these attacks on our service members in
Speaker 1: the region. And one of the big questions that we
Speaker 1: immediately had yesterday was how the hell did this happen?
Speaker 4: How did our air.
Speaker 1: Defenses fail to the point where this suicide drone attack
Speaker 1: was able to succeed. We're now getting some answers, at least,
Speaker 1: this is the official answer coming from the US government,
Speaker 1: as told by the Wall Street Journal. We can put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. They say the US failed
Speaker 1: to stop a deadly attack on an American military outpost
Speaker 1: Jordan when the enemy drone approached its target at the
Speaker 1: same time that a US drone was also returning to
Speaker 1: the base. This, again, according to US officials, the return
Speaker 1: of that US drone led to some confusion over whether
Speaker 1: the incoming drone was friend or foe. Officials have concluded
Speaker 1: so far, though they cautioned the inquiry into the attack
Speaker 1: was in an early stage. So what do you make
Speaker 1: of these revelations and the details that they are providing
Speaker 1: US so far?
Speaker 2: Soccer, Well, there are a couple of terrifying options. Number
Speaker 2: one is that it's not true and they're hiding the
Speaker 2: truth from US. I would not dismiss that possibility. There's
Speaker 2: been a lot of discussion Crystal about whether this really
Speaker 2: did occur in Jordan or not, because they could have
Speaker 2: complicated had legal complication problems if this did occur in.
Speaker 3: Syria and others.
Speaker 2: But I'll put that to the side, and let's just
Speaker 2: at least, you know, let's try and take the Pentagon
Speaker 2: at their word. If we take them at their word,
Speaker 2: then our billion dollar weapons systems are you know, air
Speaker 2: defense systems that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 2: that allegedly are keeping safe all of our thousands, tens
Speaker 2: of thousands of American service members who are currently in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, if they are able to fail because
Speaker 2: a US drone is in proximity, and that's all it
Speaker 2: takes to allow an Iranian drone in there, and that
Speaker 2: could kill three American service members while they are sleeping,
Speaker 2: on top of wounding some thirty four others, with eight
Speaker 2: in critical condition. That's pretty terrifying. That's actually was my
Speaker 2: immediate kind of response to this, is that we are
Speaker 2: not nearly as prepared for twenty first century conflict as
Speaker 2: the Pentagon and the media and everybody wants you to
Speaker 2: thinkne The drone warfare, specifically the asymmetric warfare that we've
Speaker 2: seen pioneered by the Ukrainians and the Russians in the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian War of the last two years, has accelerated this
Speaker 2: to the point where you have groups like the Huthis
Speaker 2: that can cause multi billion dollars worth of damage and
Speaker 2: shut down the Red Sea if they want to with
Speaker 2: very little sophisticated technology. You can have the greatest navy
Speaker 2: on Earth, which we do, with the greatest weapon systems
Speaker 2: and all that, and you can't stop same here with
Speaker 2: US Suicide drone is that sometimes, or even suicide drone
Speaker 2: and all that, it just means one way drone, Just
Speaker 2: so everybody's clear. Some people don't like the terminology, but
Speaker 2: whatever we want to call it, it doesn't cost that
Speaker 2: much money. We're talking in the thousands of dollars, and
Speaker 2: we have hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment that
Speaker 2: have been bamboozled and that failed on this occasion, and
Speaker 2: now you have the lives of our people at risk.
Speaker 2: I'm honestly terrified of what this means for what a
Speaker 2: future US conflict is going to look like where our
Speaker 2: service members are there, because the signs are everywhere from
Speaker 2: the Hoho Thies to this. But don't forget either, those
Speaker 2: Patriot missiles that missed, those ballistic missiles that were launched
Speaker 2: from inside of a rock that landed on top of
Speaker 2: a US base. That was actually the biggest flag to me,
Speaker 2: because that is supposed to be the most conventional type
Speaker 2: military technology we've been preparing for.
Speaker 3: And if that's able.
Speaker 2: To penetrate a US air defense system, I mean, come on,
Speaker 2: they always tell us like, don't worry North Korean missiles
Speaker 2: never going to make it here. You watch all this
Speaker 2: going on, I don't believe you. I don't believe it
Speaker 2: at all, especially because none of it's been really battle
Speaker 2: tested yet.
Speaker 1: And there's some real parallels with the sense of complacency
Speaker 1: that Israel had before October seventh as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: they had really relied on this super high tech you know,
Speaker 1: multimillion dollar fence surveillance. We've got the automatic machine guns
Speaker 1: pointed in at the Gaza Strip. And the very first
Speaker 1: thing that reportedly Hamas militants did is they used effectively,
Speaker 1: like cheap off the shelf drones to disable all that tech.
Speaker 1: It didn't take that much and leave them completely exposed
Speaker 1: and allow the horizon atrocities that occurred on October seventh
Speaker 1: to occur. So I think that's a very important, you know,
Speaker 1: part of this story and has a lot of implications
Speaker 1: for current warfare and the future of warfare and the
Speaker 1: pain that a ragtag gorilla group can inflict even on
Speaker 1: the greatest superpower in the entire world. So there's that
Speaker 1: piece of it, and then immediately, of course, there's the
Speaker 1: huge quot questions, which we talked about yesterday, of what
Speaker 1: happens now, because the idea that Israel's assault on Gaza
Speaker 1: was going to just remain in the Gaza strip is
Speaker 1: now over. It's been over, but no one can pretend
Speaker 1: anymore when you have over one hundred and sixty attacks
Speaker 1: on our service members throughound the region, which once again
Speaker 1: begs the question, what the hell are they even doing?
Speaker 1: They're sitting as sitting ducks to start with. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is no reason why these three young Army reservists
Speaker 1: should be dead now and their families grieving. There is
Speaker 1: absolutely no reason that they should have been there in
Speaker 1: the first place, let alone the way that the Biden
Speaker 1: policy of unconditional support for Israel has incredibly predictably led
Speaker 1: to this very result. Sadly, it was only a matter
Speaker 1: of time before there were direct losses and casualties as
Speaker 1: a result of that policy. You have, obviously what's happening
Speaker 1: in the Red Sea with our strikes on the Houthis
Speaker 1: in Yemen and the fact that you know, our policymakers
Speaker 1: they claim this isn't a war.
Speaker 4: I don't know what a war is if it's not.
Speaker 1: You know, a repeated sustained military engagement, which is apparently
Speaker 1: what they're planning here, in spite of the fact that
Speaker 1: they have admitted Joe Biden himself admits we know this
Speaker 1: is not going to work. Then you add to this,
Speaker 1: this is insane. This is a good catch from Ken Klippenstein.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. I don't know even
Speaker 1: what to say about this. But the Pentagon is saying
Speaker 1: there are no US troops in Yemen, but the White
Speaker 1: House is saying there are US troops in Yemen.
Speaker 4: Who's right? Who knows?
Speaker 1: Why can't they agree on this what should be like
Speaker 1: a basic fact that the American people should be well
Speaker 1: aware of, especially given now our attack on the Hoothies.
Speaker 1: I mean, is it ignorance that's terrifying? Is it lies
Speaker 1: that's also terrifying?
Speaker 4: What do you make of this? Saber?
Speaker 1: The fact that they can't even agree on something as
Speaker 1: basic as where our US service members are even located
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 2: They at let's be clear they are absolutely on ground
Speaker 2: and Yemen, because that was a slip up, and this
Speaker 2: gets to I cover the Pentagon, and I know all
Speaker 2: their tricks. One of the things that they would do
Speaker 2: is to avoid saying that we had troops on the
Speaker 2: ground in a certain place. The threshold would be usually
Speaker 2: mandatory reporting if troops are there for a certain number
Speaker 2: of days. It can be ninety, it can be one
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty. There's certain various different thresholds one hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty going back all the way to the Vietnam.
Speaker 3: So what do you do.
Speaker 2: You send some troops for one hundred and seventy nine days,
Speaker 2: you pull them out one hundred and seventy nine day.
Speaker 2: So when you do that, you don't have to report
Speaker 2: it to Congress. The other way to get around it
Speaker 2: is to tend contractors. Is to hire contractors and send
Speaker 2: them in on various danger missions, but to support them
Speaker 2: with the US military and basically just play an accounting
Speaker 2: gimmick where technically you don't have US service members who
Speaker 2: are on the ground, but you have a combined force
Speaker 2: let's say that's below said threshold. You can have at
Speaker 2: some point between four to five thousand people on the
Speaker 2: ground in Syria, and technically, according to Congress, there's only
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty there. I literally watched it happen
Speaker 2: whenever we were in the whole counter isis thing. So
Speaker 2: when they're claiming they don't have troops on the ground here,
Speaker 2: the technical definitions for all of this become so like
Speaker 2: nitty gritty for the way that they can deny it
Speaker 2: that in the spirit of it, they are almost certainly
Speaker 2: not telling the truth. And you know, if you think
Speaker 2: about it, we are currently conducting military operations inside of Yemen.
Speaker 2: It would be insane to think that there were at
Speaker 2: least some US troops, some US connected assets that are
Speaker 2: there on the ground. We've seen throughout all of our
Speaker 2: military campaigns. It's very difficult to do everything solely from
Speaker 2: the air. Maybe they're connected assets, allies, whatever. So I
Speaker 2: absolutely believe that Ken is telling us the truth. I
Speaker 2: think the White House probably just slipped up and tell
Speaker 2: and accidentally revealing it in their notes locations, because when
Speaker 2: it comes to the spirit of it, let's just be
Speaker 2: very clear, there's absolutely shenanigans that are going on behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, and this is how they always.
Speaker 3: Get away with it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean there's so many issues here. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there's the fact that you know, they did not seek
Speaker 1: approval from Congress, and this is unconstitutional. Is a number
Speaker 1: of members on both the right and the left have
Speaker 1: indicated their concerns. There's a plan for an ongoing military
Speaker 1: campaign the US. The administration you know, swears all this
Speaker 1: isn't an active war and we're not looking for escalation.
Speaker 4: I mean, just turn it around.
Speaker 1: If we had some country repeatedly bombing us and with
Speaker 1: boots on the ground in our country, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: we would see that as an act of war. There
Speaker 1: would not be any ambiguity about like, oh, well, we
Speaker 1: didn't technically get the congressional authorization. No, if we were
Speaker 1: being repeatedly bombed in a sustained military campaign, which by.
Speaker 4: The way, has caused deaths in.
Speaker 1: Yemen, and we had boots on the ground of a
Speaker 1: foreign government in our country, you better believe that we
Speaker 1: would understand quite clearly that these were acts of war
Speaker 1: and that we were at war with this other government.
Speaker 1: So let's keep that in mind for one thing. But
Speaker 1: you know, to get back to where we started with
Speaker 1: these three US service members and the attack by these
Speaker 1: militias that receive funding and training from Iran. As we
Speaker 1: discussed yesterday, you know, the instant reaction from all the
Speaker 1: most psychopathic neo cons on the Republican side of the
Speaker 1: aisle was time to go to war with Iran and
Speaker 1: let's bomb the hell out of them.
Speaker 4: You know, we've got to strike back, etc. Etc. And
Speaker 4: the media class does the.
Speaker 1: Snow favors either, because that's always the direction that they
Speaker 1: push in as well, even though the heart of the
Speaker 1: problem here, the core of the issue is our unconditional
Speaker 1: support for Israel and our unwillingness to push for a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: When there was a you've period six days of a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: these attacks stopped, and our service members and our country
Speaker 1: were much much safer. So here is a reporter pushing
Speaker 1: John Kirby, spokesperson John Kirby, or strikes on Iran. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to his response.
Speaker 5: Is the president currently actively considering potential attacks inside Iran.
Speaker 12: We are not looking for a war with Iran, We
Speaker 12: are not seeking in conflict with the regime in the
Speaker 12: military way, and as I said in the opening, we're
Speaker 12: not looking to escalate here. This attack over the weekend
Speaker 12: was escalatory, make no mistake about it, and it requires
Speaker 12: a response, Make no mistake about that. I will not
Speaker 12: get ahead of the president's decision making.
Speaker 5: You're not saying either way whether striking inside Iran is
Speaker 5: or isn't.
Speaker 12: We are not thinking for a war with Iran, MJ.
Speaker 12: I am not going to speak to the president's decisions.
Speaker 4: So hopefully that is accurate.
Speaker 1: Hopefully they are not looking to escalate, and hopefully they
Speaker 1: don't want war with the Run and critically are going
Speaker 1: to do what it takes to avoid a war with
Speaker 1: the Run. But the most important thing they could possibly do,
Speaker 1: in addition to whatever the retaliatory response is, is to
Speaker 1: push for and secure a ceasefire. That would be the
Speaker 1: best path to de escalation. Is that if that is
Speaker 1: in fact what they want. And by the way, Soccer,
Speaker 1: there was actually an Axios report that had administration officials
Speaker 1: acknowledging that that was the case, that all of these
Speaker 1: attacks and tensions, et cetera stem from Israel's assault on
Speaker 1: Gozen are.
Speaker 4: Support of it.
Speaker 1: So it's not like they don't understand the nature of
Speaker 1: what we're facing in the region right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look, it's all obvious and it just gets to
Speaker 2: the games that are played, and I don't want to
Speaker 2: forget the three people who are killed here, you know,
Speaker 2: in the beginning, And that's why it really bothers me.
Speaker 2: I mean, even let's consider this this base where this happened, Crystal.
Speaker 3: You know how it was in Jordan. It was on
Speaker 3: the border with Syria.
Speaker 2: For a reason, to support all of these black ops
Speaker 2: that are going on side of Syria. The justification for
Speaker 2: the troops there is that they're fighting isis this is laughable.
Speaker 3: It's twenty twenty three. Why are they there?
Speaker 2: Why are these army reservists somehow being called up for
Speaker 2: duty and sent there in support?
Speaker 3: What what are they doing?
Speaker 2: No one will tell you the answer to that question
Speaker 2: because it is so outrageous and nonsensical. And instead it
Speaker 2: comes to this of like, all, you're gonna bomb Iron
Speaker 2: or not? Is that not on the table. It's like, look,
Speaker 2: even if we bomb Iraq and Syria, and I guarantee
Speaker 2: you we could take out the specific unit or whatever
Speaker 2: that has done this, it didn't happen in a vacuum.
Speaker 2: We tried very hard in Iraq. We tried to kill
Speaker 2: our way out of the insurgent problem.
Speaker 3: Didn't work.
Speaker 2: It only worked whenever we tried to try and deal
Speaker 2: with the political problems that we're fueling the insurgency. And frankly,
Speaker 2: even that had very limited success, required a lot of time, material, money,
Speaker 2: troop debts and all of that, and we eventually ended
Speaker 2: up pulling out. But the limited amount that we ever
Speaker 2: have made any progress in the country was commitment and
Speaker 2: to try to deal both with fighting insurgents but to
Speaker 2: deal with the political problems that are underneath there. It
Speaker 2: is very obvious where all of this stems from, and
Speaker 2: it is also obvious though the Biden administration doesn't want
Speaker 2: to deal with it. Okay, but then you were signing
Speaker 2: us up for a continued tit for tat thing like this,
Speaker 2: and this, unfortunately, could just be opening salvo. Three troops
Speaker 2: killed here, who knows how many killing a response?
Speaker 3: What does the response look like.
Speaker 2: Let's hope it's not a disaster and that people don't
Speaker 2: die in the initial response, and then what because then
Speaker 2: if people do, then we're going to be responding to
Speaker 2: the response. That's exactly how these things play out, going
Speaker 2: all the way back to Gulf of Tonking and others.
Speaker 3: It doesn't happen just immediately.
Speaker 2: It's a slow thing that you can't even necessarily recognize
Speaker 2: in real time where the turning points were. But if
Speaker 2: I were to guess, I think to who the action
Speaker 2: was probably it. I mean, that just really is what
Speaker 2: put the military operations outside the theater. And what bugs
Speaker 2: me again is that Israel is not paying for any
Speaker 2: of this. Israel is not doing any of this, but
Speaker 2: they're the ones who are responsible.
Speaker 3: We have somehow.
Speaker 2: You know, we're all paying a global Israel tax on
Speaker 2: our shipping, on our military deployment for what like this
Speaker 2: is not something that is in our.
Speaker 3: Overall strategic interest.
Speaker 2: And you know, I wish we could look those three,
Speaker 2: the families of those three people in the face and
Speaker 2: give them a better explanation for why they were in
Speaker 2: harm's way in the first places.
Speaker 1: It is so sad, It is so tragic, and it
Speaker 1: really also underscores the fact that all of these neocons
Speaker 1: who are constantly hungry for war, it won't be them.
Speaker 1: They're not going to be the ones right who are
Speaker 1: sleeping at a barracks and have a suicide drone kill
Speaker 1: them in their sleep. It's not going to be their
Speaker 1: sons and daughters it's not going to be their loved ones.
Speaker 1: We all know who this burden would fall on. And
Speaker 1: the political class has next to no connection or care
Speaker 1: ultimately for their lives, for their dreams, for their aspirations,
Speaker 1: and it's utterly disgusting. There is also a very ominous
Speaker 1: uh situation brewing conflict at the Rafa border in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip, and this has become a really critical area
Speaker 1: because for a variety of reasons. I mean, for one thing,
Speaker 1: it is the critical border crossing that the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: shares with Egypt. For another reason, you know, after Northern Gaza,
Speaker 1: after everybody was basically forced down of there, the million
Speaker 1: plus people who lived in Northern Gaza force the south.
Speaker 1: Many of them went to Kanyunis. Then Kanyunis came under
Speaker 1: heavy bombardment. Many of them now fled to the Rafa area.
Speaker 1: So you have over a million Palestinians living in this area.
Speaker 4: It's packed densely.
Speaker 1: If you look at the photos, it's just tent after
Speaker 1: tent after tent. And now the Israelis are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: if we actually want to come close to accomplishing our
Speaker 1: supposed military objectives of getting comas in the Gaza strip
Speaker 1: while we're to have to attack the Rafa area.
Speaker 4: That's the next piece of the puzzle.
Speaker 1: Well, Egypt is really pushing back in an aggressive manner
Speaker 1: on the budding Israeli plans for this part of the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. Let's put this up on the screen. So
Speaker 1: this is from Middle East Monitor. The headline here is
Speaker 1: Egypt told Palestinian factions of decision to prevent Israel from
Speaker 1: invading Rafa. Let me read from the report because this
Speaker 1: is very consequential. In form, Palestinian sources reported Sunday, Egypt
Speaker 1: told the Palestinian factions of its firm decision not to
Speaker 1: allow the Israeli occupation to invade the Palestinian Egyptian border
Speaker 1: zone at Rafa. The sources pointed out Egypt had stressed
Speaker 1: that quote, any attack on the Egyptian Palestinian border is
Speaker 1: an attack on Egyptian national security. Palsainian resistant factions praise
Speaker 1: the Egyptian decision and considered it a safeguard of borders
Speaker 1: and sovereignty, noting Egypt is firm against the displacement project.
Speaker 1: That is the you know, the idea floated by many
Speaker 1: cabinet ministers pushed aggressively by many cabinet ministers to push
Speaker 1: Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip entirely and into Egypt.
Speaker 1: A few days ago, the head of egypt State Information
Speaker 1: Service said the Israeli endeavor to control the Philadelphia cord
Speaker 1: or that's this border region in the Gaza Strip along
Speaker 1: the border with Egypt is expected to threaten Egypt Israel
Speaker 1: relations and Sogeri comes amid reports that some sort of
Speaker 1: operational plan and activity in the Rafa region is imminent.
Speaker 1: Also reports that Israel is saying they want to, you know,
Speaker 1: take greater security control over this crossing. And I don't
Speaker 1: think it's an accident that this more aggressive posture from
Speaker 1: the Egyptians of basically saying hell, no, we're not going
Speaker 1: to allow it, We're not going to be party to
Speaker 1: This also comes on the heels of the ICJ decision
Speaker 1: that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, which
Speaker 1: further puts pressure on Egypt to be no party to
Speaker 1: that whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a big problem for them.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a giant mess because of the tunnel
Speaker 2: network that is currently concentrated mostly under the Rafa crossing,
Speaker 2: but more importantly because they pushed all of the humanitarian
Speaker 2: The entire humanitarian situation is now consolidated there. So how
Speaker 2: exactly are you going to move people out of said region?
Speaker 2: Where are they supposed to go? It would only it
Speaker 2: would honestly probably be even worse in some cases, just
Speaker 2: because it's so much more concentrated, and because the defenses
Speaker 2: and other things. In many cases, you could consider this
Speaker 2: like not a last stand per se, but at least
Speaker 2: the last stand in infrastructure for a lot of Hamas,
Speaker 2: because it's the last kind of area that they have
Speaker 2: pretty good command and controls. Very likely also where all
Speaker 2: of the Israeli hostages are raising questions there about how
Speaker 2: you're going to you know, get these people to save them,
Speaker 2: if that's sustensibly even the goal. So I think it's
Speaker 2: a nightmare situation. And it's actually probably outside of Lebanon,
Speaker 2: which we're about to talk to. This is this sleeper
Speaker 2: area where you could see major international tension. Egypt has
Speaker 2: long kind of been ignored throughout this entire thing. I know,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of questions like why won't the Egypt
Speaker 2: take them? Well, first of all, a lot of the
Speaker 2: Palestinian leadership and others don't want to leave the Gaza
Speaker 2: Strip because they fear they won't be able to return.
Speaker 2: Second is that Egypt has its own domestic political considerations.
Speaker 2: They hate the Muslim Brotherhood and they hate anything that
Speaker 2: even smells of Islamism. So they have their own, you know,
Speaker 2: domestic political considerations as to why they're kind of behaving
Speaker 2: this way. But in terms of national pride, small d democratic,
Speaker 2: you know, input on the Egyptian governments such as it exists,
Speaker 2: the Palestinian issue is a hot one and if they
Speaker 2: see you know, troops firing and bombs on Egyptian territory
Speaker 2: and others, that's going to be considered, you know, a
Speaker 2: breach of sovereignty, and there definitely could be you know,
Speaker 2: a major crisis that erupts here. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 2: if this is a sleeper issue as the Israeli war continues.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is absolutely correct, And it's worth recalling that
Speaker 1: the status of this border, this was part of what
Speaker 1: was negotiated during the Oslo Accords, So this is sort
Speaker 1: of long standing, you know, settled agreements in terms of
Speaker 1: how this whole thing is supposed to function. You know, Egypt,
Speaker 1: I think you're right to lay out their own domestic
Speaker 1: political concerns, not to mention that they are in a
Speaker 1: lot of economic trouble and have a high debt burden.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: So having an influx of a refugee population would be
Speaker 1: very challenging for them there. But I mean there is
Speaker 1: also the fact that they do not want to be
Speaker 1: party to an ethnic cleansing, and the Egyptian sort of
Speaker 1: like the Arab street, as I say, in Egypt, is
Speaker 1: really sort of the beating heart of you know, support
Speaker 1: for Palestine and of broader regional Arab sentiment. So you know,
Speaker 1: they don't want any part of this, and I think
Speaker 1: they're feeling increasing pressure because I also think that South
Speaker 1: Africa has sort of shamed some of these countries of
Speaker 1: why weren't you all the ones that brought this case
Speaker 1: to the ICJ, Why haven't you done anything, You've set back,
Speaker 1: You've done absolutely nothing, And so I think that has
Speaker 1: also put pressure on a lot of these governments to
Speaker 1: at least posture like they are more in support of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian cause, like they're actually willing to do something
Speaker 1: on behalf of Palestinians, not just put out like strongly
Speaker 1: worded statements. That is not the only trouble brewing in
Speaker 1: this region. So obviously Netnah, who has every incentive to
Speaker 1: keep this war going forever, He has every incentive and
Speaker 1: so does his war cabinet to expand this war. And
Speaker 1: they have been teasing for a while a more aggressive
Speaker 1: approach with regard to Lebanon and Hezbela, and it looks
Speaker 1: like that day may fast be approaching. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. According to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,
Speaker 1: Israeli troops will quote very soon go into action near
Speaker 1: the country's northern border with Lebanon. Galant told troops and
Speaker 1: near that border with the besieged Gaza strip that others
Speaker 1: were being deployed to Israel's north quote they will go
Speaker 1: into action very soon. He added, Reservists would be gradually
Speaker 1: released to prepare and come ready for future operations. Now obvious,
Speaker 1: there's already been fire exchange, there's been sort of back
Speaker 1: and forth skirmishes with Hesbela are long disper region. But Sager,
Speaker 1: they seem to be indicating that a broader offensive and
Speaker 1: opening up an entirely new front officially in this war.
Speaker 4: That this could be coming in your days.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I mean they're saying it very openly.
Speaker 2: I believe the Defense Minister whenever he says that you
Speaker 2: will be in action sometime soon. And I think that
Speaker 2: that is Look, even the most pro Israel people, Barry Wiss,
Speaker 2: for example, who is just in Israel. She put out
Speaker 2: some tweet and after her visit and all of that,
Speaker 2: and she said, even here in Israel, it's a matter
Speaker 2: of if, not where it's going to happen. It's not
Speaker 2: a matter of if, it's a matter of when. In
Speaker 2: terms of Lebanon, and it will be ten times what
Speaker 2: we have seen in Gaza for the Israelis in terms
Speaker 2: of the price that they would pay for the domestic populus.
Speaker 3: In particular, this would.
Speaker 2: Really bring the war home in a way that not
Speaker 2: even October seventh necessarily did, because we're talking about conventional war,
Speaker 2: not terrorism. Day by day missiles and others that can
Speaker 2: penetrate the Iron Dome and put hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 2: people and really at risk in terms of in terms
Speaker 2: of where they're sleeping. There's already been the largest internal
Speaker 2: resettlement in the history of the State of Israel, evacuating
Speaker 2: the northern border but many Israeli towns, cities and others
Speaker 2: would very much be within the range of Hezbola missiles
Speaker 2: and rockets. It would require the remobilization of the IDF, which,
Speaker 2: let's be honest as not exactly colored themselves in glory
Speaker 2: from a tactical military perspective in their conduct with Gaza. Well,
Speaker 2: Hamas is nothing compared to the battle test of guys
Speaker 2: in Hesbola who've been fighting in Syria now for like
Speaker 2: a decade.
Speaker 3: I mean, these are people who are there.
Speaker 2: You could compare it like to the Japanese military in
Speaker 2: the nineteen forties, which had you know, honed their skills,
Speaker 2: their military leadership and others for a previous decade in
Speaker 2: China and Manchuria and elsewhere. I mean, these were people
Speaker 2: who are very battle tested, very battle hard, and well
Speaker 2: equipped and supplied in a way that Hamas not was
Speaker 2: not did not even come close.
Speaker 3: And I'm not.
Speaker 2: Sure that I think we can all just you know,
Speaker 2: say very clearly that if Gaza bled out to the
Speaker 2: who thies and to killing American service member in Jordan,
Speaker 2: then we should multiply the same ten the same ten
Speaker 2: factors should apply for Bahrain, for our troops in Jordan, Syria, Iraq.
Speaker 2: For what that would look like. I think it would
Speaker 2: turn things up to a whole other level. The other
Speaker 2: important point thing we should note is that Hesbol is
Speaker 2: a much more strategic ally to the Iranians than Hamas was.
Speaker 2: Hamas is like a convenient thing that's out there. They
Speaker 2: fund them, but it's not like they're not like blood
Speaker 2: brothers in the same way. Hesbol as a whole other
Speaker 2: story in terms of the way that the Iranian regime
Speaker 2: and Hesbol have been, you know, kind of handing glove
Speaker 2: now for decades, especially with Nasrala their leaders. So if
Speaker 2: this is going to happen, it's going to be a
Speaker 2: full blown regional war. I don't think we should go
Speaker 2: away from that. And they're the ones who are saying,
Speaker 2: I don't know why. We're the ones who are obviously
Speaker 2: since we already with Gaza, are the ones who are
Speaker 2: paying the outer prize that we're not doing anything about this,
Speaker 2: but apparently we're not. If they're willing to say it openly,
Speaker 2: then they don't care. They either not listening or they
Speaker 2: just don't care what we have to say, probably.
Speaker 1: Both, And they've been saying it openly from the beginning.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many comments do we talk about where
Speaker 1: you have Goland and others were saying, hey, we could
Speaker 1: turn Beirut into Gaza Strip, you know, I mean, and
Speaker 1: look at what has happened in gods of what an ominous,
Speaker 1: horrifying thing that is to say at this point, I
Speaker 1: also think it's really important to keep the big picture
Speaker 1: in mind here. Hespela had nothing to do with October seventh.
Speaker 1: They weren't connected to that at all. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the logic of this is insane. There is no logic
Speaker 1: to it outside of net Yahoo and his you know,
Speaker 1: yo have Goland and the rest of the ministers in
Speaker 1: the War cabinet, their own desire to save their political skin,
Speaker 1: especially because the reality is their goals in the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 1: their stated goals in the Gaza Strip of eliminating Hamas,
Speaker 1: which was not the real goal, but their stated goals
Speaker 1: of eliminating Hamas was never possible even by their own
Speaker 1: standards and by their own metrics, they have really dramatically failed.
Speaker 1: They have not been able to kill any of the
Speaker 1: top leadership in the Gaza Strip. They have not been
Speaker 1: able to with their military secure the release of the hostages.
Speaker 1: The only time hostages were released were because of diplomatic negotiations.
Speaker 1: In fact, the military methods are contrary to keeping the
Speaker 1: hostages safe and being able to return them home. They
Speaker 1: have not even destroyed a majority of the tunnels. Eighty
Speaker 1: percent of the tunnel network is still operational and still fine.
Speaker 1: So what they have been able to do, which is
Speaker 1: consistent with some of the real GIG goals, is to
Speaker 1: create conditions of absolute hell and horror and destruction of
Speaker 1: complete civilian life on the ground in the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: as a sort of warning and a potential deterrent and
Speaker 1: a method of hopefully pushing Palestinians completely out of the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip. And you know, Egypt is now taking a
Speaker 1: hard line against that. The US claims to be against
Speaker 1: that as well. But as i'll you know, go through
Speaker 1: a report in a moment that describes how many of
Speaker 1: the cabinet ministers in the Israeli government they don't care
Speaker 1: what we say. They're still out there aggressively advocating for
Speaker 1: exactly that ethnic lansing plan, which has been part of
Speaker 1: the aspirational goal from the beginning. So the only logic
Speaker 1: here for expanding this front is to give Netanyahu's some
Speaker 1: sort of military victory, to keep the war going for
Speaker 1: as long as possible so that he can try to
Speaker 1: cling to power. That's what's going on here. And you know,
Speaker 1: to your point saga about how the US, you know,
Speaker 1: we we've claim from the beginning, Oh, we don't want
Speaker 1: to spill over into a broader conflict.
Speaker 4: How's that going for you?
Speaker 1: How many fronts are being engaged on at this point,
Speaker 1: you know, And the total insanity of the fact that
Speaker 1: these people, Biden and others are admitting that they know
Speaker 1: our foreign policy is basically stupid and insane, but they
Speaker 1: can't help themselves from pursuing the stupid and insane foreign
Speaker 1: policy anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right, and you know a lot of this.
Speaker 2: Look, I would hope for a cease fire deal that
Speaker 2: may or may not be in progress right now. We're
Speaker 2: trying to monitor it live. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. So as of yesterday, it seemed like
Speaker 2: there was a maybe it's that negotiators are closing in
Speaker 2: on a hostage deal. It would height halt fighting in
Speaker 2: Gaza for weeks. Some of the details, Crystal are I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm still curious if you want to break it down, like, yeah,
Speaker 2: what is exactly real and not?
Speaker 3: Because there's so much conflicting information.
Speaker 1: Right well, the context of your comments and why you're
Speaker 1: sort of self peddling it is because we also got
Speaker 1: comments from Netanyahu this morning basically pouring water on the
Speaker 1: contours of the deal that has been outlined in.
Speaker 4: Various press reports.
Speaker 1: So put the actually the next piece on the screen
Speaker 1: from Axios, which had more detail about what supposedly this
Speaker 1: potential deal could contain. They say Katari and Egyptian mediators
Speaker 1: to present Hamas with a framework this week for negotiations
Speaker 1: over a three phase deal. The first phase would include
Speaker 1: a six week pause and fighting release of roughly forty
Speaker 1: Israeli hostages in exchange for Israel freeing the numbers I
Speaker 1: saw were hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. If you read into
Speaker 1: this report, they have more details on what these phases
Speaker 1: would theoretically be. The way that it's presented here by
Speaker 1: this reporter is effectively like this is being brought to
Speaker 1: Hamas as a potential framework. My understanding is this is
Speaker 1: based on some you know, discussions BIA mediators with Hamas
Speaker 1: about what might be acceptable to them as well as
Speaker 1: part of a deal, so it's not like they're just
Speaker 1: have no idea whether this would be potentially a fruitful direction.
Speaker 4: To engage in with Hamas.
Speaker 1: They have some idea that potentially they could agree to
Speaker 1: this as well. The first phase is that six weeks
Speaker 1: ceasefire release of a set number of Palestinian prisoners exchange
Speaker 1: for Hamas being thirty five to forty Israeli hostages. This
Speaker 1: would include women, older men, so men over the age
Speaker 1: of sixty and those who have serious medical conditions. Then
Speaker 1: the second two phases, they haven't fully agreed on the details.
Speaker 1: The idea would be they'd sort of lock in stone
Speaker 1: the idea for the first phase, who would be released,
Speaker 1: how many Palestinian prisoners, how long it would how long
Speaker 1: it would go for. They'd have a rough idea of
Speaker 1: the second two phases that's phase two and three, but
Speaker 1: wouldn't fully lock that in until they were in initial
Speaker 1: phase one. But they say the second phase is expected
Speaker 1: to include the release of Israeli soldiers and civilian men
Speaker 1: under the age of sixty from captivity in Gaza, so
Speaker 1: basically like military age men and actual soldiers would be
Speaker 1: released for additional Palestinian prisoners in the third phase, you
Speaker 1: would include the release of bodies of hostages, hostages who
Speaker 1: have been killed which are being held by Hamas. For
Speaker 1: each stage, they say, a different key would be determined
Speaker 1: for the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released. The
Speaker 1: duration of the second and third stages has not yet
Speaker 1: been defined, and that would be determined in the negotiations,
Speaker 1: but the ideas it would be several more weeks of
Speaker 1: pause and fighting in addition to the original six week ceasefire,
Speaker 1: which is why you're hearing reports that this would be
Speaker 1: a roughly two month ceasefire. Now, after having said all
Speaker 1: of that, we have comments from Natyahuo this morning basically
Speaker 1: saying no, we're not going to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
Speaker 1: We are not going to remove Israeli IDF forces from
Speaker 1: the Gaza strip. So whether these negotiations are still possible,
Speaker 1: whether they're ongoing, we just can't say at this point
Speaker 1: whether this is a real direction or not.
Speaker 3: Right exactly.
Speaker 2: That's that's really the TLDR is like in this morning
Speaker 2: President Natagna, who is like, no, I won't release anybody.
Speaker 3: I won't.
Speaker 2: I mean, I just think that the schizophrenic nature of
Speaker 2: the negotiations, and all of this just highlights the problems
Speaker 2: inside of Israel is that Natanyahu's got an extreme right
Speaker 2: wing coalition. They're the only people who are protecting him
Speaker 2: as long as he advances their aims. They don't want
Speaker 2: to see spire. They want war with Lebanon. They literally
Speaker 2: said it as we open here. There's also he can't
Speaker 2: help but highlight this. Israeli anti war pretic protesters have
Speaker 2: been cracked down dramatically on to the point of being
Speaker 2: arrested in others. For days now, there has been a
Speaker 2: protest to stop humanitarian aid that was actually going into Gaza,
Speaker 2: that is being openly allowed by the government and even
Speaker 2: visited by them. So here is a news report from
Speaker 2: inside of Israel on English Israeli news channel that spotlights
Speaker 2: some of this.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 13: We're going to interview some of them that we can
Speaker 13: try and find to talk to some of them who
Speaker 13: came out. But there are members from all different sides
Speaker 13: of Israeli political spectrum.
Speaker 3: They say they're from the.
Speaker 13: Right, there are people from the left, they're religious, they're secular,
Speaker 13: all some of our families of hostages, but all coming
Speaker 13: out for the simple goal of saying trying to stop
Speaker 13: humanitarian aid. So, Shoshana, do you want to join me
Speaker 13: and tell us a little bit about why you came
Speaker 13: out here today, why it's important for you to come
Speaker 13: here and protest.
Speaker 3: Why do you think they need to stop this aid?
Speaker 10: Well, all the hay that's going in is going straight
Speaker 10: to Hamas, is just supporting, supporting the terrorists. I don't
Speaker 10: see any reason to support terrorism. Nobody wants that. We
Speaker 10: just want our hostages home. We want to stop Kamas.
Speaker 10: I don't understand why that's a problem.
Speaker 3: That's really the argument that she's making. It's pretty clear.
Speaker 2: Also, I wonder where that lady's from, though, by the way,
Speaker 2: Korea a kind of curious accent.
Speaker 1: I love the way that that news presenter to portrays
Speaker 1: this like some oh, heartwarming coming together of all factions
Speaker 1: of Israeli society to starve the children of Gaza. Even
Speaker 1: the Israeli government does not claim that all the aid
Speaker 1: is going through Hamas. They have said, and I don't
Speaker 1: even think that this is accurate. But at most ten
Speaker 1: percent of the aid is being intercepted by Hamas.
Speaker 4: At most ten percent.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about missiles, we're talking about basic food stuffs,
Speaker 1: water for you know, maybe formula, milk, flour, sugar, things
Speaker 1: you know that are absolutely essential at a time when
Speaker 1: the majority of the people in the Gaza Strip are
Speaker 1: literally starving. Every single person there is in a food
Speaker 1: hunger crisis, the worst by far in the world, and
Speaker 1: all sectors of Israeli society coming together to block any
Speaker 1: of this aid to get it to the starving children
Speaker 1: of the Gaza Strip. But just to give you a
Speaker 1: little bit of a sense of the flavor of these protests,
Speaker 1: we have some video we can show you where they're
Speaker 1: talking about, how they're thinking about what they're doing, which
Speaker 1: is insane. And then we have a video that will
Speaker 1: show you as well of Defense Minister Yoav Galant who's
Speaker 1: visiting some of the IDF reservists in uniform, who are
Speaker 1: telling them how much they support these efforts to block
Speaker 1: the aid.
Speaker 4: And by the way, they also say, hey, don't be.
Speaker 1: Scared about resettling the Gaza Strip, which is you know,
Speaker 1: another subject of much conversation with the Israeli domestic audience.
Speaker 1: So here you can see a little bit of video
Speaker 1: of some of the protesters, you know, walking up to
Speaker 1: the protests. They say, the trucks you see here before,
Speaker 1: you're full of flower bags and sugar. When you mix
Speaker 1: this up with fertilizer, you get explosives, which are used
Speaker 1: for the rocket warheads and the rocket fuel. What you're
Speaker 1: looking at is not humanitarian aid, it is military munitions.
Speaker 1: What we call flower or sugar to them, it's explosives.
Speaker 1: Now this is the reserves. He says, don't be afraid
Speaker 1: of occupation.
Speaker 4: No aid and no nothing.
Speaker 1: We are now going to block the trucks containing aid.
Speaker 1: So you know, getting a very clear picture of some
Speaker 1: of the sentiment from the soldiers charged with this military
Speaker 1: operation in the Gaza strip and you have Golan, you know,
Speaker 1: hearing this directly from them. Soccer, what did you make
Speaker 1: of those videos? And also the idea that flower and
Speaker 1: sugar to starving Palestinians that's actually rocket fuel, it's actually explosives.
Speaker 1: That's how they think about flower and sugar as their
Speaker 1: children are literally starving to.
Speaker 3: Get to dot.
Speaker 2: You know, I thought I'd seen a lot growing up
Speaker 2: during the Iraq War, and it turns out I didn't
Speaker 2: see shit. And that's that's like a pretty crazy thing
Speaker 2: to think about. Like I grew up thinking that Donald
Speaker 2: Rumsfeld was the actual devil, and that George W. Bush
Speaker 2: and all these other people were some of the worst
Speaker 2: people who would ever lived and had since Robert mcnamaraan
Speaker 2: of the other people who got us in to Vietnam.
Speaker 2: But this is I mean, listen, If anything, it just
Speaker 2: confirms that history certainly does repeat itself, and then a
Speaker 2: lot of the you know, the things within the human
Speaker 2: character are easily replicable, and that you should never take
Speaker 2: that for granted whenever you enter a new age.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's that's just the only way I could
Speaker 3: look at it. It's just crazy. I think.
Speaker 2: What's crazy to me in general, the way these reelis
Speaker 2: have conducted themselves is I just don't understand how they
Speaker 2: don't know that we live in a social media age
Speaker 2: and that the age of translation and others, every single
Speaker 2: thing you say is going to go viral and the
Speaker 2: world and the critics and all them will see it. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, sure it hasn't had an impact in terms
Speaker 2: of US policy, but that can't be the only thing
Speaker 2: that you care about. You know, people are going to
Speaker 2: remember this has changed dramatically changing politics here in the
Speaker 2: United States. So I don't know, maybe they just don't care,
Speaker 2: which is a crazy thing in my opinion. For a
Speaker 2: nation that literally relies on foreign direct investment and military
Speaker 2: aid from a global superpower, you should probably care how
Speaker 2: you're perceived in that country.
Speaker 1: But they're completely used to acting with impunity and there
Speaker 1: being no consequences. I mean, when was the last time
Speaker 1: that there were really significant consequences.
Speaker 4: This is the.
Speaker 1: Result, I mean, that brazen nature of you know, all
Speaker 1: the IDF soldier tiktoks and the rhetoric from every level
Speaker 1: of government up to and including bb Net and Yahoo.
Speaker 1: I think it's a direct outgrowth of the fact that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration from the beginning said we don't care
Speaker 1: what you do, no red lines, do what you need
Speaker 1: to do. We'll ship you the weapons, we'll expedite the weapons,
Speaker 1: we'll click occasionally leak to the pross about how set
Speaker 1: we are, but we're not going to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: So of course they act with impunity and they let
Speaker 1: it all hang out. Speaking of which, this report from
Speaker 1: Haratz about this Gaza resettlement conference which just occurred in
Speaker 1: Israel and was attended by many Lacud party members, senior
Speaker 1: Lacud party members, and government cabinet ministers is really something
Speaker 1: You should really read all of it because the comments
Speaker 1: that were made, the brazen nature of them, the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, some of the most insane psychos on
Speaker 1: the far right, I mean, they're hailed as heroes for
Speaker 1: these comments. So I mean that gives you another idea
Speaker 1: of why the comments are made, Why this is all publicized,
Speaker 1: It's because it's popular among plenty of secks of Israeli society.
Speaker 1: This is bolstering the images of people like Smotrich and
Speaker 1: Bengevie every time that they thumb their nose at the
Speaker 1: US and they say, we don't care that you don't
Speaker 1: want us to do ethnic cleansing. This is our plan
Speaker 1: and this is what we want to do. So put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. From Haretz, the headline here
Speaker 1: the people of Israel will settle Gaza. Netnahu's ministers at
Speaker 1: far right conference endorse expulsion of Palestinians. Keep this up
Speaker 1: for a second because they have one of the quotes
Speaker 1: in here that was completely insane. They say voluntary immigration
Speaker 1: is at times the situation you impose until they give
Speaker 1: their consent. That was according to Netnahu's communications minister, who
Speaker 1: said this on stage to cheers and applause, exposing the
Speaker 1: true message of the conference for the victory of Israel
Speaker 1: the transfer or expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. In this
Speaker 1: report they talk about how there were many different ideas
Speaker 1: for how Gaza could be resettled. There was something for
Speaker 1: every potential settler here to get behind. One offered a
Speaker 1: once in a lifetime opportunity to take part in the
Speaker 1: rebuilding of the Jewish city of Gaza as a green,
Speaker 1: technological city, open to all and uniting all sections of
Speaker 1: Israeli society. Ethnic cleansing using like liberal lefty language is
Speaker 1: really quite something to behold. They have a list of
Speaker 1: all of the ministers and Lakud party members who were there.
Speaker 4: It was very well attended. Many people in.
Speaker 1: Power were there cheering on the idea of ethnic cleansing
Speaker 1: and resettlement.
Speaker 4: They said.
Speaker 1: The biggest response came for videos of soldiers in Gaza
Speaker 1: calling for the strip to be resettled, shouting out that
Speaker 1: there are no innocens or photographing themselves with banners for
Speaker 1: the settlements that were previously dismantled.
Speaker 4: Ben Gevier called.
Speaker 1: For the execution of terrorists, encouragement of what he terms
Speaker 1: emigration for gossens. He says, we have already seen and
Speaker 1: understood that running away brings war. If we don't want
Speaker 1: another October seventh, we must return home and control the territory,
Speaker 1: as well as propose a torah and holocic. I don't
Speaker 1: know that word logic encouraging emigration for gossens and the
Speaker 1: death penalty for terrorists.
Speaker 4: So this is.
Speaker 1: Totally contrary to US government policy, supposedly anyway, official government policy.
Speaker 1: You'll recall Sagre that we felt compelled to at least
Speaker 1: put out some sort of a statement condemning the language
Speaker 1: of these ministers in the past, clearly without taking further action.
Speaker 1: This has not deterred them whatsoever. And it also, of
Speaker 1: course comes after the ICJ specifically cited some very similar
Speaker 1: comments that were made as plausibly inciting genocide. Clearly they
Speaker 1: do not care, because the text of what they were
Speaker 1: saying and what was.
Speaker 4: Being cheered on here is absolutely wild.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you read this, and you also couple it
Speaker 2: with some interesting comments that Galant actually made today about
Speaker 2: security control over the West Bank, it seems that within
Speaker 2: the you know, within the allowable options, the best option
Speaker 2: quote unquote that seems to be politically realistic. Is just
Speaker 2: a return to the status quo, which is not something
Speaker 2: that the US has ostensibly supports, which was Israeli security
Speaker 2: control over Gaza and no future government Palestinian state, et cetera,
Speaker 2: which Netanyahu is ruled out. That seems to be the
Speaker 2: best one under option. The other option it's this one.
Speaker 2: So this just again raises questions for the United States,
Speaker 2: where we've put sanctions in place on people Israeli settlers,
Speaker 2: specifically taking action against settlers or who have been supporting
Speaker 2: settlers and who have been attacking Palestinians in the West Bank.
Speaker 2: Because it's contra to overall US policy. I'm wondering where
Speaker 2: is the simultaneous US sanction and action on this part
Speaker 2: if we do believe ostensibly and what the sustainable quote
Speaker 2: unquote solution should look like afterwards. And you know, if
Speaker 2: something like this is just so brazen and so obvious,
Speaker 2: you know, at a certain point you either endorse it
Speaker 2: or you don't.
Speaker 3: So they need to make it clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and these people know what they want. Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: no like a day after, what are we going to do?
Speaker 1: We're still thinking about, We're still figuring no They have
Speaker 1: maps of exactly where and when and how they would
Speaker 1: they would resettle Gaza and come in and you know,
Speaker 1: reinvade that land. They know exactly what they want to do,
Speaker 1: and that in and of itself is a very powerful thing,
Speaker 1: especially when you look at the Gaza Strip today and
Speaker 1: you realize it is uninhabitable. I mean, the northern part
Speaker 1: of the Gazza Strip in particular has been utterly destroyed.
Speaker 1: The civil villion infrastructure, from universities to hospitals, to schools,
Speaker 1: to residential houses and apartment I mean it is decimated.
Speaker 1: So that's step one is make it unlivable. Push them south,
Speaker 1: Push them south, push them south. Now you've got over
Speaker 1: a million Palestinians in Gaza, sheltering in Ratha right on
Speaker 1: the border, just one step further into the Egyptian desert.
Speaker 1: And these folks at this conference completely get their way
Speaker 1: and their goal of what they want to see for
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 3: All right, guys, that's it for us today, Crystal.
Speaker 2: We were hoping that you're going to be back here
Speaker 2: in the studio on Thursday.
Speaker 3: Things are looking good on that front. Again.
Speaker 2: Thank you to everybody for the well wishes. If you
Speaker 2: want to acknowledge them.
Speaker 1: Crystal, Yes, I very much appreciate that everything is going
Speaker 1: good here, so fingers crossed. I'll be back in studio
Speaker 1: with you guys on Thursday.
Speaker 2: There you go in the Meanwhile, we've got the RFK
Speaker 2: Junior Focus Group work that's coming up.
Speaker 3: You can take advantage if you want.
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot com great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow, and
Speaker 2: we will see you all on Thursday