Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. When do we have Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a top Republican talking about some big
Speaker 1: scary threat set Washington on fire?
Speaker 4: Is it a sye up spoiler alert? Yes it is.
Speaker 4: We'll break it all down for you, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1: We also have the last addition, I believe, of our
Speaker 1: RFK Junior focus groups, some really interesting comments.
Speaker 4: They're kind of pressed on.
Speaker 1: Okay, but if the election is really coming down to
Speaker 1: it's either going to be Trump or Biden, are you
Speaker 1: still sticking with RFK Junior. Very interesting responses there. This
Speaker 1: comes a mid A report. We'll get into whether this
Speaker 1: is just a tott hit job or whether it's that
Speaker 1: any they're there, but about his campaign staffing and chaos, etc.
Speaker 1: So again we'll break that down for you. We've also
Speaker 1: got to take a look at the continued liberal meltdown
Speaker 1: over John Stewart's return. Mary Trump said that he is
Speaker 1: a threat to democracy, so I mean, we just couldn't
Speaker 1: resist with that one. Also, in more serious news, we've
Speaker 1: got some breaking news this morning. Israeli forces are storming
Speaker 1: the largest remaining operational hospital in the Gaza Strip, threatening
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of Palestinians who've been sheltering there. Of
Speaker 1: course hundreds of patients who've been seeking care there. So
Speaker 1: we will give you all of the latest there. I'm
Speaker 1: taking a look at a truly horrifying and disgusting piece
Speaker 1: that Haretz ran in the context of Israel's assault on Gaza.
Speaker 1: Soccer's taking a look at the state of the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, and we're looking forward to have Ryan Gerdeski
Speaker 1: joining the show again. He's got some harsh criticism for
Speaker 1: Republicans in the wake of their most recent loss in
Speaker 1: New York's third congressional district. So always interesting to hear
Speaker 1: from Ryan and his assessment, his unvartished assessment of what
Speaker 1: is going wrong.
Speaker 2: Ryan will always shoot it to you straight, and that's
Speaker 2: what I appreciate and love it.
Speaker 1: He does not hold back. He says what he really thinks,
Speaker 1: whether you agree with him or not.
Speaker 2: Absolutely Before we get to that, as a reminder, if
Speaker 2: you can support our focus group work at breakingpoints dot
Speaker 2: com the full focus group, and I'll give another one
Speaker 2: during our focus group segment. We'll be coming out to
Speaker 2: all of our premium subscribers, I believe tomorrow, and then
Speaker 2: it will post later.
Speaker 3: On on all public platforms.
Speaker 2: But if you want to see it, and you want
Speaker 2: to see it first and support future endeavors like this,
Speaker 2: you can sign up at breakingpoints dot com. So let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and start with the great threat?
Speaker 3: What is it? This set Washington a light.
Speaker 2: My phone has never buzzed more than in the hours
Speaker 2: that this was all going on.
Speaker 3: This all started yesterday at.
Speaker 2: Eleven thirty five am with a very ominous statement from
Speaker 2: Representative Mike Turner. He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 2: He said this quote. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen today. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Speaker 2: has made available to all members of Congress information concerning
Speaker 2: a serious national security threat. I am requesting President Biden
Speaker 2: declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress,
Speaker 2: the Administration, our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary
Speaker 2: to respond. Immediately, people are like, wait, what are we
Speaker 2: under attack?
Speaker 3: You know, some of us may have been wondering whether
Speaker 3: it was aliens. We were like, what is happening here?
Speaker 3: Is it Iran? Is it China? What could it possibly be?
Speaker 2: Things got even more ominous because just minutes later the
Speaker 2: White at the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Speaker 2: took the podium refused to tell.
Speaker 3: Us what it was, but he was like wow.
Speaker 2: I was frankly surprised that the Congressman had put out
Speaker 2: the statement.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: So first, I reached out earlier this week to the
Speaker 5: Gang of Eight to offer myself up for a personal
Speaker 5: briefing to the Gang of Eight, And in fact, we
Speaker 5: scheduled a briefing for the four House members of the
Speaker 5: Gang of Eight tomorrow that's been on the books. So
Speaker 5: I am a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out
Speaker 5: publicly today in advance a meeting on the books for
Speaker 5: me to go sit with him alongside our intelligence and
Speaker 5: defense professionals tomorrow.
Speaker 3: That's his choice to do that.
Speaker 5: All I can tell you is that I'm focused on
Speaker 5: going to see him sit with him as well as
Speaker 5: the other House members of the Ganga bait tomorrow, and
Speaker 5: I'm not in a position to say anything further from
Speaker 5: this podium at this time other than to make the
Speaker 5: broad point that this administration has gone further and in
Speaker 5: more creative, more strategic ways dealt with the declassification of
Speaker 5: intelligence in the national interest of the United States than
Speaker 5: any administration in history.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, as the mystery continue to began to leak
Speaker 2: out to everybody that this in fact, this threat not Iranian,
Speaker 2: not Chinese or any of that, It's Russian. And not
Speaker 2: only is it Russian, it involves space. So here was
Speaker 2: the details that was immediately broken after a background briefing
Speaker 2: and some other leaks were strategically placed to the media.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 6: They confirmed to me that this has to do with
Speaker 6: a threat related to space.
Speaker 4: We already have from our.
Speaker 6: Other sourcing that there has been reporting on the Hill
Speaker 6: that sources here have confirmed is in the ballpark, which
Speaker 6: is that it has to do with an emerging capability
Speaker 6: from Russia that would be of grave seriousness potentially.
Speaker 3: But that the threat is not immediate. Okay, so the
Speaker 3: threat is not immediate.
Speaker 2: The details on this are so ridiculous, and immediately the
Speaker 2: syop like alarms began to go off because it became
Speaker 2: starting to become very clear this is a huge stunt
Speaker 2: on behalf of Mike Turner. That all involves FAISA reauthorization,
Speaker 2: which is the ability basically to spy on you're and
Speaker 2: my communications under the guys spying on foreigners. So one
Speaker 2: of the ways that we know this is that some
Speaker 2: of the people who also were privy to the intelligence
Speaker 2: in terms of the way they described it. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. They say, a thing
Speaker 2: look like it's disturbing. They're like, well, it's a longer
Speaker 2: term concern, it's not a today thing. People are like, well,
Speaker 2: it's a serious issue, but it's not an immediate crisis.
Speaker 3: Still unclear what it is now.
Speaker 2: We do know now that this is apparently based on
Speaker 2: space based nuclear weapon concerns. And to be clear, this
Speaker 2: is not a weapon that has been launched. This is
Speaker 2: a weapon allegedly that is in development. It is a
Speaker 2: quote satellite killing weapon. Which if deployed, could destroy CRIY,
Speaker 2: civilian communications, and others. It is not believed to be
Speaker 2: some sort of weapon out of science fiction that could
Speaker 2: be launched from space through the atmosphere into Earth. It's
Speaker 2: like an anti satellite based device that does happen to
Speaker 2: be nuclear.
Speaker 3: But it is clear crystal that.
Speaker 2: Mike Turner, who is one of the most pro or
Speaker 2: Ukraine Republicans in the House and it has been very frustrated,
Speaker 2: also very very anti UFO transparency too, by the way,
Speaker 2: is one of these goods who is trying to incite
Speaker 2: a massive Sputnek level panic over this, both to push
Speaker 2: aid for Ukraine and to usher in new FISA reauthorization,
Speaker 2: especially like the like Russian space nukes. Really, if it's
Speaker 2: up there and we didn't know about it, okay, that's
Speaker 2: one thing, but we're tracking the development. Also, aerospace experts
Speaker 2: that I now follow for years are like, what is
Speaker 2: he talking about?
Speaker 3: Everyone here has known about this. It's declassified.
Speaker 2: In December of twenty twenty three, the Russians made some
Speaker 2: launch into space. People were openly talking about this. By
Speaker 2: the way, the weapons development and all of that. You
Speaker 2: think we don't have an X thirty seven B program
Speaker 2: that's been going on now for quite some time. So look, yes,
Speaker 2: is a concern. Sure, you know, it's one of those
Speaker 2: that's like ever present in all that. Is it clear immediate?
Speaker 2: Does it you know, require launching some literal panic you
Speaker 2: know here in Washington. No, absolutely not. It's just a
Speaker 2: clear gambit on behalf of Mike Turner.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean, anytime someone in this town comes out and
Speaker 1: is like there's a huge threat, I can't really tell
Speaker 1: you about it, but you should be very, very scared.
Speaker 1: You should really start to think about, Okay, what is
Speaker 1: their motivation here?
Speaker 4: What are they trying to accomplish?
Speaker 1: And there are two paces that are incredibly significant. Number
Speaker 1: one is, obviously there is this ongoing debate and we'll
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about where we are with
Speaker 1: this about the Ukraine and Israel funding bill that passed
Speaker 1: the Senate that looks like it's pretty much dead in
Speaker 1: the House, but people like Mike Turner very interested in
Speaker 1: getting that money both to Israel and especially also to
Speaker 1: Ukraine to continue our proxy war against Russia.
Speaker 4: But as you said, Sager, that's actually I.
Speaker 1: Don't think even the main action here these you know,
Speaker 1: hawk neo khon national security like obsessives have as a
Speaker 1: top priority making sure that the government is able to
Speaker 1: maintain their really unconstitutional ability to wiretap Americans on a
Speaker 1: warrantless bass, which they have obviously been doing for years
Speaker 1: now and been caught in all kinds of scandals with
Speaker 1: regards to what is called Section seven to ability of
Speaker 1: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is set to expire
Speaker 1: in April, and so that is actually their top top
Speaker 1: priority is making sure that they preserve that ability to
Speaker 1: spy on foreign nationals. Yes, but this is the sort
Speaker 1: of thing where Americans have gotten caught up in this,
Speaker 1: including like you know, Black Lives Matter activists and other protesters,
Speaker 1: including US senators and members of Congress. I mean, the
Speaker 1: abuse of this program has been legendary. We're talking hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of queries that are outside of the bounds
Speaker 1: of effectively the Constitution here. But they want to make
Speaker 1: sure that they can preserve that particular ability. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, as we move into talking about the Ukraine
Speaker 1: and Israebel in that fate, I was actually the red
Speaker 1: flags went up for me. I was reading a piece
Speaker 1: in Playbook, which is, you know, the DC Insider tip
Speaker 1: sheet rag where they said they may not actually these
Speaker 1: national security hawk types go to the mat over Ukraine
Speaker 1: because they're saving their firepower for this other faiza ability
Speaker 1: that really is their top priority right now. And so
Speaker 1: you know, making up some terrifying foreign threat, well that's
Speaker 1: exactly what's used to justify these unconstitutional power grabs at
Speaker 1: the executive branch level.
Speaker 4: So it fits perfectly together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the way that we know this and this
Speaker 2: is a huge panic behind the scenes. For example, here's
Speaker 2: some very choice words. So let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. This was flagged to me by one
Speaker 2: of my friends. Notice, just yesterday in the Washington Poets,
Speaker 2: the retiring head of the NSSA. He says, quote, I
Speaker 2: was head of the NSA in a world of threats.
Speaker 2: This is my biggest worry. I go, oh, what is it?
Speaker 7: Is it?
Speaker 3: You know, like Russia, China?
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, he says, I worry we would make
Speaker 2: ourselves blind to external threats such as the ones that
Speaker 2: I have named above. If Congress allows a critical intelligence
Speaker 2: Collection Authority Section seven oh two of the Foreign Intelligence
Speaker 2: Surveillance Act to expire in April, or renews it with
Speaker 2: crippling restrictions. Either move would be a self inflicted wound
Speaker 2: that our nation cannot afford. He says, I was at
Speaker 2: the Pentagon when people tried to crash on some Tember eleventh.
Speaker 2: As they found out through basically the FAIZA and its
Speaker 2: current form, the seven oh two authorization and more has
Speaker 2: all basically been a part of the Patriot Act infrastructure
Speaker 2: that was enacted immediately after nine to eleven. It was
Speaker 2: also a key part of some of the abuses that
Speaker 2: Edward Snowden revealed back in the day in twenty thirteen
Speaker 2: with his original leaks. There was some sort of reauthorization
Speaker 2: and changes to the program in twenty eighteen in response
Speaker 2: to some of the Russia Gate concerns that we saw previously,
Speaker 2: for example with Carter Page and many of the other
Speaker 2: things that you just discussed. But behind the scenes, this
Speaker 2: is the single most important priority other than Ukraine aid
Speaker 2: for these Russia hawks, because it's one of the ways
Speaker 2: that they allegedly spy on Russians. Now, as critics of
Speaker 2: the program, including Rand Paul and many you know, Republican
Speaker 2: more libertarian minded folks, would show you, is that it
Speaker 2: often allows for the mass collection of American data. And
Speaker 2: the perfect example is you or I. If we are
Speaker 2: communing as American citizens with a member of who is
Speaker 2: somebody who is not a US citizen who is outside
Speaker 2: of the country, our communications can be swept up in
Speaker 2: there and then further declassified, non anonymised and used to
Speaker 2: spy on us without obtaining a warrant through the normal
Speaker 2: procedure of which you would need to spy directly on
Speaker 2: an American citizen.
Speaker 3: It is a direct backdoor by.
Speaker 2: The NSA and others for a mass data collection of
Speaker 2: US citizens and has been directly abused by members of
Speaker 2: the Obama Bush Trump administration to spy on domestic political opponents.
Speaker 2: We have evident, direct evidence of all of us, and
Speaker 2: the fact that it's even a question is outrageous. In
Speaker 2: the year twenty twenty three, we're not living in nine
Speaker 2: to eleven hysteria anymore, which is part of why you
Speaker 2: got to have space nukes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you need a new hysteria. That's and that
Speaker 1: was the goal of this whole thing, Just to give
Speaker 1: you guys a little bit of a sense. The Brendan
Speaker 1: Center has been tracking all of the abuses of Section
Speaker 1: seven ZHO two. They say to give just a few examples,
Speaker 1: the FBI is conducted warrantless searches of Section seven oh
Speaker 1: two acquired information access communications of Black Lives Matter protesters,
Speaker 1: US government officials, journalists, political commentators in nineteen thousand donors
Speaker 1: to a single congressional campaign. The FBI conducted two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand of these backdoor searches in twenty twenty two alone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so this is and this is the top priority of
Speaker 1: the national and security hawks to make sure they can
Speaker 1: continue to spy on you and me and political activists
Speaker 1: and journalists and government and officials who they think are
Speaker 1: doing something untoward that.
Speaker 4: They don't like. And so it is outrageous.
Speaker 1: And it was so naked, this particular SiGe up that
Speaker 1: people immediately saw through what he was up to here
Speaker 1: with his you know, vague warnings of some amorphous threat
Speaker 1: that we should all be terrified over.
Speaker 3: Exactly right. So anyway, that's you can probably sleep easier.
Speaker 3: Everything is fine.
Speaker 2: Even if they do put a nuke in space, allegedly
Speaker 2: at some point in the future, it would be anti satellite.
Speaker 2: I I will tell you anti satellite is one of
Speaker 2: those things I enjoy reading about just because it's kind
Speaker 2: of fun about the idea of what everything looks like
Speaker 2: up there. We have plenty of things at our disposal,
Speaker 2: as I understand it, that we would be able to
Speaker 2: use against such a weapons platform and all the others.
Speaker 2: I am not worried about it, really at all.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to the next part.
Speaker 2: As you said, Crystal, about the fate of the Ukraine bill. Now,
Speaker 2: the pressure that is currently coming down on Speaker Mike
Speaker 2: Johnson is immense from all sides, including though by the way,
Speaker 2: on the Democrats, who are nearly unanimous in wanting to
Speaker 2: pass this combined bill for aid to Ukraine and to Israel.
Speaker 2: To give you a taste of what some of the
Speaker 2: criticism looks like from the Biden administration's favorite TV show,
Speaker 2: Morning Joe, this is the new line, is that you
Speaker 2: are the friend of Putin and an enemy of democracy,
Speaker 2: an enemy of freedom across the globe.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: What do you have Republican spiriting of Vladimir Putin. You
Speaker 8: have the Republican nominee, likely nominee, saying yes, Putin invade Europe,
Speaker 8: Russia invade Europe. You have all of these things happening
Speaker 8: at the same time, and it's it's not an accident.
Speaker 8: And and I've got to say even I am shocked
Speaker 8: that that Republicans on the Hill haven't stood up to
Speaker 8: Donald Trump saying that that Russia should invade NATO allies.
Speaker 8: But they haven't, which means again, this is a moment
Speaker 8: in time everybody has to stop and recognize that not
Speaker 8: only is American democracy on the line, but freedom across
Speaker 8: the globe on the line. Donald Trump is siding with she,
Speaker 8: Donald Trump is siding with Putin. Donald Trump is siding
Speaker 8: with Kim Jong un. These are the people that he
Speaker 8: wants to make alliances with, and he wants to turn
Speaker 8: his back on a free Europe.
Speaker 2: Turning our back on a free Europe enemy. I need
Speaker 2: to brain lobotomy after listening to something like that. But
Speaker 2: the crazy thing is is that this is not just
Speaker 2: you know, it's one thing if it's on Morning Joe,
Speaker 2: this is what Biden himself is saying. He's like, you
Speaker 2: are an enemy of freedom across the globe. You are
Speaker 2: a Putin puppet if you refuse to pass this. It's
Speaker 2: basically a Biden had to say too whenever he urged
Speaker 2: the passers of this bill.
Speaker 3: Very shortly after the morning Joe's segment, let's take a.
Speaker 9: Listen by margin of seventy to twenty nine to move
Speaker 9: forward with the bipartisan National Security Bill. Now, now it
Speaker 9: moves to the House, and I urged Speaker Johnson to
Speaker 9: bring it to the floor immediately, immediately. There's no question
Speaker 9: that the Senate bill was put on the floor and
Speaker 9: the House representatives it would pass, It would pass, and
Speaker 9: the Speaker knows that. So I called the Speaker to
Speaker 9: let the full House speak its mind and not allow
Speaker 9: a minority of most extreme voices in the House to
Speaker 9: block this bill even from being voted on, even from
Speaker 9: being voted on. This is a critical act for the
Speaker 9: House to move. It needs to move. The bill provides
Speaker 9: urgent funding for Ukraine. So we're going to keep defending
Speaker 9: itself against Putin's vicious vicious onslaught.
Speaker 3: Putin's vicious vicious onslaught.
Speaker 2: So this is what the line is now, crystal, And
Speaker 2: it does seem though that Jeffries, the House majority of
Speaker 2: House Minority leader is taking up these words.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Jeffries, Basically, the only thing they have at their disposal
Speaker 2: is the ability to try and hijack a tool called
Speaker 2: a discharge petition. A discharge petition effectively allows circumvention of
Speaker 2: the House Speaker and of the Rules Committee to bring
Speaker 2: a piece of legislation to the floor, most famously used
Speaker 2: in the case of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty four.
Speaker 4: I thought you're going to say legally blonde.
Speaker 3: Oh sorry, I apologize, I'm not familiar. Actually, is that
Speaker 3: legally b one one? Are you sure?
Speaker 2: I think you might be referring to legally blonde two,
Speaker 2: which has been panned by the critics.
Speaker 3: I am a great fan of legally blonde.
Speaker 2: One, but as we see here the House Minority Leader,
Speaker 2: the Democrats are trying and preparing to be able to
Speaker 2: use this tool.
Speaker 3: However, Crystal, people I spoke to who are.
Speaker 2: Very very anti Ukraine AID and who are working on
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill intimately involved in this, they're not worried about
Speaker 2: the discharged petition.
Speaker 3: So I'm not sure what you think.
Speaker 4: I'm a little worried.
Speaker 3: It's possible.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying they would definitely not use everything at
Speaker 2: their disposal to bring it about. It's just that procedurally,
Speaker 2: at a minimum, this takes forty two days to be
Speaker 2: able to get it there, and it would require a
Speaker 2: very decent amount of Republicans to buck the House Speaker
Speaker 2: and to openly put themselves up for target by the
Speaker 2: Republican base, by Donald Trump and others who are urging
Speaker 2: not to pass this bill.
Speaker 3: So I'm curious what you think as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope that analysis is correct. I'm really
Speaker 1: betting on Washington dysfunction on this one. I'm delighted that
Speaker 1: they scuttled the border plus Ukraine plus Israel version of
Speaker 1: this bill, and I am hoping that this one also fails.
Speaker 1: But this is some very potent kool aid that they
Speaker 1: are selling here in this town. I mean, think about
Speaker 1: the fact that in the Senate you had at least
Speaker 1: Chris van Holland and Elizabeth Warren. They have openly acknowledged
Speaker 1: Israel's committing war crimes, and yet they still voted for
Speaker 1: billions more to Israel because of Ukraine, because they feel
Speaker 1: so strongly about the fate of democracy around the world
Speaker 1: that you have to, you know, rush more money into
Speaker 1: what is now a failed and losing cause and is
Speaker 1: subjecting not us but the Ukrainian people to you know,
Speaker 1: endless misery with no end in sight, that's supposedly what
Speaker 1: this money is supposed to go to is you know,
Speaker 1: the fate of democracy around the world, when in reality,
Speaker 1: the fact that we have pursued this course in Ukraine
Speaker 1: has been an utter disaster for the Ukrainian people first
Speaker 1: and foremost. So that is why, because there is such
Speaker 1: a commitment to this issue that almost defies any sort
Speaker 1: of logic. It really is almost like a religious devotion
Speaker 1: at this point that I can't help but be concerned
Speaker 1: that they are going to find some way through, because
Speaker 1: you know, when it's healthcare money, or money to feed
Speaker 1: kids or like you know, homeless people or whatever, then
Speaker 1: all the there's a million obstacles, we can never get
Speaker 1: it through, et cetera. But it seems like when it's
Speaker 1: money for war, somehow they always freaking find a way.
Speaker 1: On the discharge petition piece, the way that this works
Speaker 1: you have to get a majority of the House to
Speaker 1: sign on to the discharge petition, so you would need
Speaker 1: basically all of the Democrats. I do think there are
Speaker 1: some Democrats who would not sign on, you know, squad
Speaker 1: members and other lefty type Democrats who wouldn't sign on
Speaker 1: because of Israel. And then but you know, then you
Speaker 1: have to cobble together some Republicans. Are there some Republicans
Speaker 1: that are committed enough to Ukraine to buck whatever Donald
Speaker 1: Trump wants and sign on to this. I'm not confident
Speaker 1: that there aren't the other thing that I was reading about,
Speaker 1: and I don't really understand this, guys, but allegedly there
Speaker 1: is some other discharge petition that got started on some
Speaker 1: other issue that already has two hundred and thirty six
Speaker 1: signatures that they could use as a starting point and
Speaker 1: then just have to add to that to get to
Speaker 1: a majority. And then they could swap out what it
Speaker 1: was originally supposed to be for and make it about this,
Speaker 1: which puts them a a lot closer to accomplishing their
Speaker 1: goal than they would be if they have to start
Speaker 1: from scratch. Again, the legislative mechanics are not my specialty.
Speaker 1: This is just what I read from some political analysts
Speaker 1: that said that this option was on.
Speaker 4: The table as well.
Speaker 1: Like I said, Zager, That's why I can't really rest
Speaker 1: easy believing that this is completely dead on arrival, because
Speaker 1: they always seem to find a way to fund these frickin' wars.
Speaker 4: When it comes down to it.
Speaker 2: I will not rest easy up, and we need several
Speaker 2: more weeks before I be officially I think this thing
Speaker 2: would be dead. Let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: just to give an idea though of why things are
Speaker 2: pretty tied up right now. So this is from Jake
Speaker 2: Sherman over at punch Bowl. They say Johnson has effectively
Speaker 2: said that bill is dead. The House is in this week,
Speaker 2: but it is out next and then has three days
Speaker 2: in session to deal with government funding which comes due
Speaker 2: on March first. Meanwhile, most Republicans are opposed to Ukraine funding.
Speaker 2: They are stuck on attaching HR two, which does not
Speaker 2: have a prayer of passing HR two. By the way,
Speaker 2: as a border legislation, discharge petition is also an option.
Speaker 2: But there are a lot of hurdles there, some that
Speaker 2: Dems will dat because of Israel funding, so some ours
Speaker 2: will be afraid to put their neck that is on
Speaker 2: the line. So I think that's a pretty good analysis.
Speaker 2: As you said, I wouldn't put a past them. I
Speaker 2: don't put anything.
Speaker 3: Past these people.
Speaker 4: Look, yeah, Johnson's also not really reliable here.
Speaker 2: The problem with Johnson is not even his reliability, Crystal,
Speaker 2: It's that he is weak and he does not have
Speaker 2: a total control of the caucus. A lot of Republicans
Speaker 2: right now are very pissed off at him because for
Speaker 2: allowing the expulsion of George Santos, the original failure of
Speaker 2: the Majorcist vote, the fact that the Israel.
Speaker 3: Bill was put up and then it was failed.
Speaker 2: Then he then gabbled in a failing vote before the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives. I know this all sounds like inside baseball, guys,
Speaker 2: but the reason it matters is because when you're weak
Speaker 2: and you don't have institutional control, and you lose control
Speaker 2: of the floor and all that, it opens the door
Speaker 2: for exact you said, chaos loves a vacuum, and with
Speaker 2: that vacuum, the Democrats or pro Ukraine Republicans or Russian
Speaker 2: space laser psyops and all of that could create a
Speaker 2: situation where they would pass something like this.
Speaker 1: Let's also not forget about the influence of the Israel
Speaker 1: lobby here in this time. I mean, that's why the
Speaker 1: vote was so overwhelming in the Senate. I saw, you know,
Speaker 1: the people who were in favor of this bill were
Speaker 1: urging a pack and these other associated groups to apply
Speaker 1: as much pressure as possible to try to get this
Speaker 1: bill through one way or another. And so yeah, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm hoping it's dead. The fact that people
Speaker 1: who want it to fail aren't nervous about its prospects
Speaker 1: and think that it is in fact dead, that's a
Speaker 1: good sign. But you have a lot of very powerful
Speaker 1: constituencies and very powerful ideologies that exist in this town
Speaker 1: which are used to getting their way, that want to
Speaker 1: see this aid go through. And so you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think that we can completely count it out at
Speaker 1: this point because of that, you know, array of powerful
Speaker 1: interests and interest with a lot of money too. I mean,
Speaker 1: don't forget that APAC funds huge amounts into these congressional campaigns,
Speaker 1: and you know a lot of these members are not
Speaker 1: going to want to get crosswise of a pack in
Speaker 1: the upcoming election season racing.
Speaker 3: It's all about the Benjamin's Yes, I am.
Speaker 1: You can say whatever the hell you want to say
Speaker 1: about that, but that's just reality in this town.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to RFK guys.
Speaker 2: So, as we have alluded to, this is going to
Speaker 2: be the last segment that we're going to be doing
Speaker 2: on our RFK focus group. The full focus group is
Speaker 2: going to post for our premium subscribers to get access
Speaker 2: to that.
Speaker 3: A more edited version will eventually.
Speaker 2: Post on all of our public platforms, but if you
Speaker 2: want to be able to watch it to support future
Speaker 2: work like this, which is very very expensive in order
Speaker 2: to put on Breakingpoints dot Com to be able to
Speaker 2: help us out. Let's get to the actual focus group itself, though,
Speaker 2: which is we learn a little bit about the people
Speaker 2: who participated, whether they had voted in the past for Trump,
Speaker 2: for Biden, or for third party, and who they might
Speaker 2: support in the future if RFK is not able to
Speaker 2: get on the ballot.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: Let's think back to how you voted last time. So
Speaker 10: what a show of hands if you voted for Biden
Speaker 10: last time? And then show of hands if you vote
Speaker 10: for Trump last time? Third party? Okay, so shadowing, Why
Speaker 10: why not Biden this time?
Speaker 3: His health?
Speaker 11: His age, I mean, he's he's I don't think he's
Speaker 11: capable to do another four years?
Speaker 3: Maybe a year, but not four.
Speaker 11: Why wouldn't I vote for him this time? I didn't
Speaker 11: want to vote for him the last time, so I
Speaker 11: didn't really I didn't really stand behind what he was
Speaker 11: talking about. I was more Trump, and like I said,
Speaker 11: I was persuaded to vote for Biden because he was Democratic.
Speaker 3: I just really didn't.
Speaker 12: I didn't like how to the kind.
Speaker 3: Ofy got crippled a little bit.
Speaker 11: To me, it's like they brought us up to bring
Speaker 11: us back down, and I just don't like it. Like
Speaker 11: everything has got risen up, like the way where you stay,
Speaker 11: everything you eat, the things you buy is just high.
Speaker 11: And it just doesn't make any sense now, you know.
Speaker 12: For me, Although I think he's very knowledgeable in politics
Speaker 12: from his past history, I just think, at this point,
Speaker 12: close to eighty, I have older parents and we deal
Speaker 12: with caregiving and different things and not saying that they
Speaker 12: aren't all there physically and mentally. But I'm more concerned
Speaker 12: about it taking his health, taking a toll, it taking
Speaker 12: a toll on him and not being able to make
Speaker 12: the best decisions that a younger candidate could.
Speaker 10: Is it the Democrats are going off of or is
Speaker 10: it Biden?
Speaker 3: It's Biden? For me, it's Biden.
Speaker 10: Trump voters tell me why not Trump this time?
Speaker 13: Even from Jay one, I thought Trump would be good
Speaker 13: for policy and getting things done. That's why I voted
Speaker 13: for him initially, and so I think he did that.
Speaker 13: But I'm Also with that came the personality. You know,
Speaker 13: he's known to be abrasive with all the lawsuits, with
Speaker 13: all this stuff, there's so much drama going on, So
Speaker 13: to me, it's a distraction. And even though I know
Speaker 13: he's an effective person and getting stuff done in the leadership,
Speaker 13: and but he just alienates people on the road, and
Speaker 13: he can create the divisiveness that we have in this
Speaker 13: country now.
Speaker 14: There's a lot of drama, and we don't we don't
Speaker 14: need the drama. I just feel like, between Kennedy and Trump,
Speaker 14: I'd actually be okay with either, but I would give
Speaker 14: Kennedy my vote because we really need to be for
Speaker 14: the people, and I don't think Trump was as informed
Speaker 14: as he needed to be.
Speaker 10: How likely would you be to change your vote from
Speaker 10: RFK to somebody else if people were saying to you, look,
Speaker 10: only one can win, and a vote for RFK Junior
Speaker 10: or a vote for any other third party candidate is,
Speaker 10: as they say sometimes say, don't waste a wasted vote.
Speaker 14: I really don't know how to answer that, because, like
Speaker 14: I said, whether it be Trump or Kennedy, I would
Speaker 14: be happier than it's anybody but Biden.
Speaker 7: I'm going to stay safe until the campaigns continue, the
Speaker 7: conversations continue, just to learn more about mister Kennedy and
Speaker 7: see how the rest of the candidates are behavior.
Speaker 14: And I'm going to do a lot more research and
Speaker 14: go from there.
Speaker 4: I can never say never.
Speaker 13: I'm a man of principal and so I'm firmly going
Speaker 13: for him right now. But you put a new dynamic
Speaker 13: in there saying, you know what, if it's going to
Speaker 13: be Biden, So that doesn't that complicates things for me?
Speaker 10: You your film ten movie?
Speaker 15: Maybe?
Speaker 13: No, No, I mean, if you're saying it's going to
Speaker 13: be either one or the two, it's either Trump or
Speaker 13: RFK Junior, or it's going to be Biden. I'm going
Speaker 13: to do what I can so it's not Biden.
Speaker 11: I'm still open to say the chances Biden still can
Speaker 11: redeem myself. You know, everybody's not perfect.
Speaker 3: I think this is what every election gets boiled down to,
Speaker 3: and everyone turns it into this it has to be
Speaker 3: one or the other. I think that's the problem. I'm
Speaker 3: with the bearded guy.
Speaker 2: I totally agree with him by interesting. But yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean a couple of things there. I love how all
Speaker 2: of them can see clearly they're like well, you know,
Speaker 2: with Trump, I thought X, Y, and Z, then this happened.
Speaker 3: I don't see it all that clearly.
Speaker 2: With Biden as well, she was like, well, I didn't
Speaker 2: particularly want to vote for him, and then I did,
Speaker 2: and I was pretty.
Speaker 3: Disappointed with the results, so I'm not going to vote
Speaker 3: for him.
Speaker 2: And same you know, with the the way they all
Speaker 2: feel about Kennedy is clearly a total rejection of the
Speaker 2: current status quo.
Speaker 3: They're very uncomfortable with. That said, if I was watching
Speaker 3: I it was Biden was watching.
Speaker 2: That clip, I would feel uncomfortable because, and this makes
Speaker 2: sense for a lot of people who are drifting away
Speaker 2: and they feel that Biden is infirmed, they can't vote
Speaker 2: for him.
Speaker 3: For them, that's already a choice.
Speaker 2: They're like, I'm not going to vote for Biden, So
Speaker 2: being forced back into voting for Biden is going to
Speaker 2: be difficult. Whereas Trump, I mean benefited from this when
Speaker 2: he was running against Hillary was he can capture the
Speaker 2: anti Hillary agenda. And don't get me wrong, Biden is
Speaker 2: definitely a beneficiary of this too. I just don't think
Speaker 2: it would manifest itself in the same way in an rfkjun.
Speaker 3: Your focus group.
Speaker 1: So just to recap very interesting the reasons that the
Speaker 1: previous Biden voters and the previous Trump voters moved off
Speaker 1: of those candidates. So it's, you know, I think, very
Speaker 1: consistent with what we see in the polling. Over whel
Speaker 1: With Biden, it's age, it's age. There's just like, I.
Speaker 4: Don't even know if he can do another term.
Speaker 1: And then you had the one lady also talking about
Speaker 1: and she talked in one of the previous segments we
Speaker 1: showed us well about inflation and economics and how she
Speaker 1: just feels like the economy has been really poor under
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. With Trump, it's the personality, the lawsuits, and
Speaker 1: the drama. I mean, that's what those two both talked about.
Speaker 1: Even though the woman in particular, I mean the one
Speaker 1: who said that listen, I just would be happy with
Speaker 1: anyone of them, and Biden, I'd be okay if Trump
Speaker 1: got back in there. I would wager that she at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, if it is coming down
Speaker 1: to Trump and Biden, is going to vote for Trump
Speaker 1: because she feels comfortable with him. But what she said
Speaker 1: is also you know, the drama, the divisiveness, and she
Speaker 1: felt like he wasn't as well informed as she wanted
Speaker 1: to see. And again, I mean, these are things the personality,
Speaker 1: the lawsuits, the drama that you see very much when
Speaker 1: it comes to reluctance to support Trump again is the
Speaker 1: sense that it's just like chaos. He's divisive, he's tearing
Speaker 1: the country apart, and those are some of his bigus
Speaker 1: liabilities with regards to when they're actually pressed on. Okay,
Speaker 1: if it really is coming down to the wire and
Speaker 1: it's not looking like it's going to be RFK, it's
Speaker 1: looking very much like it's going to be Trump or Biden, what.
Speaker 4: Are you going to do?
Speaker 1: Then you basically only had one guy who said, don't care,
Speaker 1: it's still with RFK Junior. Everyone else was like, mmm,
Speaker 1: that gets complicated for me.
Speaker 4: Mmmmm anyone but Biden.
Speaker 1: So if my vote, I can't, you know, cast a
Speaker 1: vote that I think is going to help Biden get
Speaker 1: back in there by taking it away from Trump, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And this is why you frequently, i mean basically routinely
Speaker 1: in American politics see that third party candidates pull better
Speaker 1: than they end up performing on election day because a
Speaker 1: lot of people do that calculus at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, and it's logical it's rational that because our
Speaker 1: system is so rigged against anyone outside of the major
Speaker 1: two parties, that they don't want.
Speaker 4: To feel like they're a spoiler.
Speaker 1: They don't want to feel they're qute unquote, throwing their
Speaker 1: vote away, and so when push comes to shove, they
Speaker 1: do pick whoever they see as a lesser of two evils.
Speaker 1: That's what Joe Biden campaign is really counting on, you know,
Speaker 1: That is what they're counting on, is that when it
Speaker 1: comes down.
Speaker 4: To it, the people who are with him before, who you.
Speaker 1: Know, absolutely hate Donald Trump for whatever reason, are going
Speaker 1: to realize that they have no other option than these
Speaker 1: two individuals, and so they got to suck it up
Speaker 1: once again and vote for Joe Biden. But Sager, I
Speaker 1: do agree with you that I think that is I
Speaker 1: think it will work to a certain extent.
Speaker 4: I think that's true.
Speaker 1: A good number of the people who are typical Democratic
Speaker 1: voters who are expressing a lot of disgust right now
Speaker 1: over Israel or his age, or a variety or the
Speaker 1: economy or variety of other issues. I do think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, many of them will come home.
Speaker 1: But he needs all of them to come home and
Speaker 1: They've used this argument a lot of times, and it
Speaker 1: is a different deal now where we've had four years
Speaker 1: of Trump and I thought it was horrible, but we
Speaker 1: did all survive to the end of it. The world
Speaker 1: didn't come to an end. So I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: it has the terrifying factor that it did. You know,
Speaker 1: once did and even in twenty sixteen, obviously it wasn't
Speaker 1: enough for it to work out, but also in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: you know, memories fade very quickly. At that moment, we
Speaker 1: had the clear and present example of like, this is
Speaker 1: what it's like right now to be under a Donald
Speaker 1: Trump presidency, and people were so discussed, they were just
Speaker 1: ready to move on. I think a lot of the
Speaker 1: visceral nature of that angst has faded over time, and
Speaker 1: Trump really benefits from that at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. I think Trump I
Speaker 2: could say, I could call it both ways. If we
Speaker 2: if we got to a point where Trump and the chaos,
Speaker 2: what do you hear from all these people like I
Speaker 2: can't handle this man, it's just difficult.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it doesn't seem all this.
Speaker 2: What if we're in the middle of a trial in
Speaker 2: a Supreme court, you know, high stakes gamble between the
Speaker 2: two about whether he's even going to be in prison
Speaker 2: or not, and let alone a convicted criminal.
Speaker 3: I could see it. I could definitely see a bunch
Speaker 3: of these people being like.
Speaker 2: All right, well, you know, I'm either going to sit
Speaker 2: it out or I'm going to vote for Biden or
Speaker 2: vote for RFK vice versa two whenever. Who knows what
Speaker 2: the situation is going to look like at the time.
Speaker 2: But it is clear though that it's real that the
Speaker 2: support for RFK. You know, I wouldn't say it's as
Speaker 2: sticky as you would want for a too party camp
Speaker 2: in a two party system obviously, but it's not bad either.
Speaker 3: You know, it's as good as it's got been for
Speaker 3: a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that is the there are the biggest
Speaker 1: challenge for him, and we're going to talk about this
Speaker 1: a little bit more in this you know, campaign drama
Speaker 1: piece that media put out. But the biggest thing for
Speaker 1: him is ballot access. And it's not fair because the
Speaker 1: system has been completely rigged. He's already facing lawsuits from
Speaker 1: the DNC. I guarantee you they're going to go after
Speaker 1: him every single state. I mean, they're just going to
Speaker 1: make it as difficult as possible for his name to
Speaker 1: even appear on the ballot.
Speaker 4: So that's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two is if you're going to defeat this trend
Speaker 1: of you know, pulling decently as just an alternative because
Speaker 1: people are so disgusted with these two, but them actually
Speaker 1: coming to the polls on election day and sticking with
Speaker 1: that commitment and not being scared into Ah. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, I just got to it's
Speaker 1: only going to be Biden or Trump, so I gotta
Speaker 1: go with one of the two of them.
Speaker 4: You are going to have to give people more of an.
Speaker 1: Affirmative like, no, I'm not just against these two actively
Speaker 1: for this guy for whatever the set of reasons is.
Speaker 1: And I think he has some of those diehard supporters,
Speaker 1: but not nearly enough certainly to win or even to
Speaker 1: really impact the outcome of the election, especially as it
Speaker 1: appears right now he's drawing pretty evenly from both candidates.
Speaker 1: So to me, those are kind of the two main
Speaker 1: challenges that he has coming upcoming, and really the ballot
Speaker 1: access one just looms so large in terms of what
Speaker 1: he'll be able to accressication.
Speaker 2: If the man can get on the ballot, then this
Speaker 2: is a whole different ballgame. But if he's not, and
Speaker 2: this is where, yeah, we wanted to discuss this for
Speaker 2: all of you.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: There was a bizarre report that came out from media
Speaker 2: where they are claiming that there's been a mass exodus
Speaker 2: of RFK junior campaign staffers. Basically they're like, oh, it's
Speaker 2: a campaign in disarray, arranging amateurs, leadership and all of that.
Speaker 2: I will say I had a couple of red flags
Speaker 2: that came to me immediately afterwards, which is, first of all,
Speaker 2: like this is not a traditional political outlet that breaks
Speaker 2: like real scoops and or stories that said they did
Speaker 2: correctly report media I back in the day that RFK
Speaker 2: was going to do third party, So possibly there's some there.
Speaker 2: They claim that there have been an exodus, but you know,
Speaker 2: when you look at it, they say it's twelve field
Speaker 2: staff and two mean staff who are alleging chaos on
Speaker 2: the ballot access initiative and quote unquote lavish spending. Most
Speaker 2: of the spending, though, has been concentrated at relatively lower
Speaker 2: level in terms of consulting.
Speaker 3: But maybe the one part.
Speaker 2: That we could take away from this is that people
Speaker 2: who were in the campaign, are coming away and are
Speaker 2: leaking at least to this report, and they're like, the
Speaker 2: ballot access is a problem.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: I went, like I said, on the Kennedy website, they
Speaker 2: have an entire ballot access page where they have it.
Speaker 2: And one thing that was definitely a red flag for me,
Speaker 2: for example, we both live in the state of Virginia,
Speaker 2: is they're like, well, it's forthcoming details and I was like, well,
Speaker 2: you guys need to get on this. You know, it's like,
Speaker 2: shouldn't be forthcoming. I even said previously, I'm like, hey,
Speaker 2: if you're involved, reach out to me. I actually walked
Speaker 2: past some rfkolunteers where I live and I was like, hey,
Speaker 2: is this for ballot access and they're like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: that's that's later. They're like thanks for your interest, though,
Speaker 2: but I was like, well, what are you doing here,
Speaker 2: Like what exactly is this? I'm like, you guys need
Speaker 2: to hit you know, hit the pavement. But first, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: It's like, look, bumper stickers are great, but you know
Speaker 2: that's not the first thing that we really need to
Speaker 2: get to.
Speaker 3: So that was my look. If there's any grain in
Speaker 3: this of truth or any of that he's still only
Speaker 3: on the ballot in one state. He's got to get
Speaker 3: on the ballot in forty nine more states. Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: a big, big lift.
Speaker 1: It is a It is a massive, massive lift. It
Speaker 1: will require an absolutely exceptional organization. It will require a
Speaker 1: massive amount of money not only to run the actual
Speaker 1: you know, ballot access campaign, but also to fund the
Speaker 1: lawsuits that have already started coming your way. And so,
Speaker 1: like you, Sager, you know, this is the typical like
Speaker 1: initial hatchet job that comes out. They do the same
Speaker 1: thing with Marianne. You see this all the time where
Speaker 1: it's all the staff is in chaos and we got
Speaker 1: this leak, and that leak from whatever disgruntles staff. For listen,
Speaker 1: if you're running a significant organization, someone is going to
Speaker 1: be bitchy and disgruntled. That's just like the reality, and
Speaker 1: they're going to be out for blood and you know,
Speaker 1: willing to leak whatever to some friendly and get their
Speaker 1: story out there. Throw whoever they're pissed off at under
Speaker 1: the bus. This is typical campaign stuff. So I always
Speaker 1: when you see these types of reports, you should take
Speaker 1: it with a lot of grains of salt. So that's
Speaker 1: my starting point that being said, they do have these
Speaker 1: two letters that they got from staffers of you know,
Speaker 1: that they sent to the campaign of why they were leaving.
Speaker 1: And the line that really sticks out above all others
Speaker 1: is this one that says, quote it bothers me every
Speaker 1: day that so many in the campaign can't see the
Speaker 1: iceberg that is dead ahead called ballot access. If that's true,
Speaker 1: that is a real problem. And again it's not fair, right,
Speaker 1: It's not fair that so much of the campaign has
Speaker 1: to be focused around that. It is anti democratic the
Speaker 1: way that our system has been set up and rigged
Speaker 1: by the two major parties, But it is the reality
Speaker 1: of the system that they are going to have to
Speaker 1: be able to navigate. This staffer who left goes on
Speaker 1: to say, sure, you're hiring national folks for these efforts,
Speaker 1: but what about the field where the vast, vast majority
Speaker 1: of the action happens. The logistics for these operations are
Speaker 1: already complicated, made even more ownerus and costly by the
Speaker 1: vault process. I don't know what that is, and very
Speaker 1: in every state, and somehow you expect these things can
Speaker 1: be worked out by mostly volunteers who will be probably
Speaker 1: overwhelmed with just the signature gathering.
Speaker 4: Good luck with that.
Speaker 1: So what this staffer at least is alleging in their
Speaker 1: exit letter was is that, you know, this is being
Speaker 1: run by a largely volunteer staff, They're going to be overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: It's insufficiently capitalized. The campaign doesn't have their eye on
Speaker 1: the ball with regards to this. And if that's true,
Speaker 1: that is a major major issue. And I do think
Speaker 1: that the large sums being spent, you know, going to consultants,
Speaker 1: that is a problem too. I will say again, you know,
Speaker 1: it's so hard when you're not one of like with
Speaker 1: the establishment ever of either party, because people.
Speaker 4: Don't want to work for you.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, if you are an experienced political
Speaker 1: operative and you go to work for you know, Dean
Speaker 1: Phillips or Marion or RFK Junior or whoever who is
Speaker 1: outside of Joe Biden or Donald Trump, you know you
Speaker 1: will never work and party politics again.
Speaker 3: You're done pint.
Speaker 1: So in terms of getting you know, seasoned professional operatives,
Speaker 1: you basically don't have any available. I mean they're you know,
Speaker 1: the list is practically zero of actual season campaign professionals
Speaker 1: that you can get. So who do you turn to?
Speaker 1: You got to go to people you know, maybe people
Speaker 1: from the business world, people you trust. You know, that's
Speaker 1: another big thing is Yeah, confidence is important, but also
Speaker 1: in this game, it's really important you have people around
Speaker 1: you that you actually trust, and so you can end
Speaker 1: up with some people who are less experienced a little
Speaker 1: more amateurish with regard to actual campaign operation. But that's
Speaker 1: basically all that's available to you.
Speaker 4: So this is also.
Speaker 1: Really not fair, and that's how you can also end
Speaker 1: up getting really scammed by consultants who overcharge you, who
Speaker 1: are just looking for a quick buck, who don't really
Speaker 1: care about what the future is going to hold for them.
Speaker 1: They're just, you know, got to get that cash now
Speaker 1: and worry about that later. That's how you can end
Speaker 1: up with, you know, staff upset over. One of the
Speaker 1: things they talk about here is someone who has brought
Speaker 1: in that they felt like didn't have the you know,
Speaker 1: adequate experience for the job that she was put into.
Speaker 1: But I actually really sympathize on all of those counts
Speaker 1: because the world of professional operatives with campaign experience is
Speaker 1: effectively completely closed off to you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very well said from somebody who has a lot
Speaker 2: more knowledge on this stuff than me. Will continue to
Speaker 2: track it just remains. Though the ballot access is a problem.
Speaker 2: Some of his people will, it seems, go elsewhere if
Speaker 2: they have to, so begin not giving them the option
Speaker 2: to do so seems to be pretty parable.
Speaker 4: Yeah, having your name on the ballot is mission critical.
Speaker 3: Here you go. Joining us now is Ryan Gerdsky.
Speaker 2: He's the author of the National Populist Newsletter, of which
Speaker 2: we have a link down in the description and encourage
Speaker 2: everybody subscribe.
Speaker 3: Thank you for joining us, sir, Thanks for having me
Speaker 3: so Ryan.
Speaker 2: The reason we booked you is because you always have
Speaker 2: unvarnished analysis, especially in terms of what Republicans are doing
Speaker 2: wrong and how they are winning votes. So what you
Speaker 2: wrote immediately after the results of Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and New
Speaker 2: York elections was this is why are we performing so badly.
Speaker 2: We lost high propensity, mostly college educated white voters. We
Speaker 2: gained lots of low propensity voters who don't show up.
Speaker 2: The weirdness around conservative culture, Hail Swift's a CIA Plan
Speaker 2: election was stolen, etc. Is only making these people run
Speaker 2: away more. It is hurting up and down the ballot
Speaker 2: almost everywhere we go. And the fact that these low
Speaker 2: propensity voters won't vote early is because they believe in
Speaker 2: nonsensical conspiracies about voting machines.
Speaker 3: People need to be aware.
Speaker 2: So Ryan, not only are you descriptively writing about the problem,
Speaker 2: but you also have.
Speaker 3: Some solutions and things in order to be able to
Speaker 3: move past this.
Speaker 2: So just give us your general reaction to those results
Speaker 2: in New York, building on top of what I just
Speaker 2: read there.
Speaker 16: So in New York, Mazi fill ups.
Speaker 3: The Republican.
Speaker 16: NASA County gop IS, which is NASA Keunny's in the
Speaker 16: third congressional district along the Queens is one of the
Speaker 16: most efficient and actually powerful local Republican parties in the country.
Speaker 16: They've done an amazing job winning Candida, winning elections for
Speaker 16: candidates up and down the ballot. The thing is is
Speaker 16: that to me, they got very cute with how they
Speaker 16: picked their endorsement process. They picked a woman, black Jewish IDF,
Speaker 16: former veteran, a mother of seven immigrant I mean they
Speaker 16: went through the checkboxes, but she had She was a
Speaker 16: registered Democrat who had close to no conservative beliefs I
Speaker 16: mean on immigration, on abortion, I mean, on any close
Speaker 16: to anything. I didn't hear her say any Republican or
Speaker 16: conservative speaking talking points, and she ran against a very
Speaker 16: long vettle. Tom Swazi has been in an elected office
Speaker 16: since nineteen ninety four. He's been here for a very
Speaker 16: very very long time. These short The reason that she
Speaker 16: overperformed Trump and overperformed even George Santos in twenty twenty,
Speaker 16: who ran against Swaw twenty was because Nassau County and
Speaker 16: that area of Queens is moving to the right. Nonetheless,
Speaker 16: and yet still she lost and she should and a
Speaker 16: better Republican would have been able to win. And it's
Speaker 16: not one specific thing. I mean, Mazi's did not campaign.
Speaker 16: She wouldn't campaign on Saturday, she wouldn't campaign in the evenings.
Speaker 16: She was multiple campaign events she didn't even show up to. Altogether,
Speaker 16: she was a bad candidate. But there is something larger
Speaker 16: going on. In Oklahoma, we had a special extp state
Speaker 16: Senate in a Republican plus twenty six seat that they
Speaker 16: won by five. In Pennsylvania there was a Democrat plus
Speaker 16: tennesseeat that we lost by like fifty. There is a
Speaker 16: problem right now, and the problem specifically is there were
Speaker 16: a lot of Republicans used to dominate special elections. We
Speaker 16: would absolutely dominate it just ten years ago, but we
Speaker 16: traded a hyperpensity college educated voters for a lot of
Speaker 16: non college educated voters of many different political persuasions who
Speaker 16: do not vote in most elections.
Speaker 3: They just don't.
Speaker 16: And the persuadable independent voter are looking at Republicans a
Speaker 16: lot and agreeing with them on immigration, on education, We're
Speaker 16: winning them on on a million different issues. We are
Speaker 16: winning them on. But yet they are looking at them
Speaker 16: and saying they're weird. Something is really really weird about them.
Speaker 16: They don't want to be around, and that is the
Speaker 16: vibe check is a very big problem.
Speaker 4: Let's talk a little bit more about that.
Speaker 1: This poll just came out about the alleged Taylor Swift, Nato, Soros,
Speaker 1: Pfizer si up.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So you've got eighteen percent of the public believes in
Speaker 1: this covert government effort for Taylor Swift to help Joe
Speaker 1: Biden win the presidential election. Seventy three percent say this
Speaker 1: is insane and it does not exist. Nine percent say
Speaker 1: they don't know. But also critically, Ryan, there was a
Speaker 1: large proportion of the public that knew about this insane
Speaker 1: conspiracy that obviously is overwhelmingly rejected by the public, but
Speaker 1: is believed by a significant proportion of the Republican base.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a lot too your instinct that
Speaker 1: just like normies who may you know, agree with Republicans
Speaker 1: on some issue and be open especially to like a
Speaker 1: more moderate Republican in Long Island or whatever, like, these
Speaker 1: people are just going off the deep end like this
Speaker 1: tailor swift conspiracy, you know, nonsense, and a whole host
Speaker 1: of other down the rabbit hole online conspiracy theories are
Speaker 1: just too much for me to swallow and associate with.
Speaker 16: Look, because the media, the establishment media, has failed so
Speaker 16: spectacularly at doing their job and presenting honest facts. There
Speaker 16: is a business model, a very substantial business model where
Speaker 16: if you can get ten thousand people or fifteen thousand
Speaker 16: people who like you, and we'll give you three dollars
Speaker 16: a month and support you, you have a very serious business.
Speaker 16: So you have insert you know, ex Republican conservative influencer
Speaker 16: name sitting there impeddling nonsense to like It's as if
Speaker 16: it's like pure heroine to their loyal people who believe
Speaker 16: they are the only arbiters of the truth, and they
Speaker 16: have to sell the most pure I mean, it has
Speaker 16: to go. Ten you got to go. You got to
Speaker 16: push that envelope every single time, because if you don't,
Speaker 16: somebody else will. That is very, very, very damaging, especially
Speaker 16: when so many of those thoughts are just free of facts.
Speaker 16: A lot of them are peddling, influenced to other campaigns
Speaker 16: in order to get more access to other people in
Speaker 16: hopes of getting you know, invited to the White House
Speaker 16: Christmas Party. It is an extremely toxic trait in our
Speaker 16: culture right now. It is especially toxic right now in
Speaker 16: Republican politics. And I don't know, I mean, it is
Speaker 16: the great irony of the Donald Trump campaign is it
Speaker 16: has never been more establishment. Within the inner circles of
Speaker 16: the Donald Trump campaign, it is the most professional has
Speaker 16: ever been. It is most establishment Republican has ever been.
Speaker 16: And the preferee, the people who hang out of my
Speaker 16: relat go to you know, get one picture with him,
Speaker 16: have never been crazier. And it is just the absolute, true,
Speaker 16: stranged dichotomy of Republican politics right now.
Speaker 2: That is such a good point, you know, Ryan, And
Speaker 2: I also saw you tweeting a lot about mail in
Speaker 2: voting and about early voting. If you could expand on that,
Speaker 2: I know there's a big war in the Republican party
Speaker 2: about that. But something that you have to acknowledge is
Speaker 2: the strength of a lot of mail in voters as
Speaker 2: long as it is allowed for Democrats. What are some
Speaker 2: of the thoughts on that, and then how Republicans should
Speaker 2: think about it as well.
Speaker 16: I mean Republicans used to dominate early voting because early
Speaker 16: voting was primarily the method that elderly people voted, in
Speaker 16: people seventy five and older who couldn't make it to
Speaker 16: the polls, and that obviously changed really during COVID. But
Speaker 16: there is no excuse why Republicans are losing the early
Speaker 16: in person ballot voting. I mean people can go to
Speaker 16: the polls for two weeks, three weeks whatever ahead of
Speaker 16: time and actually vote in person. I understand fears of
Speaker 16: early voting, and obviously, in the recent case in Connecticut,
Speaker 16: it was shown that early voting did result in some
Speaker 16: temperate out and some changing of the ballots or something
Speaker 16: like that. But there is I understand the fear, but
Speaker 16: there is no fear of in person early voting. If
Speaker 16: you are a two of four voter, that means you
Speaker 16: voted in two of the last four elections or one
Speaker 16: of the last four elections, there is a very high
Speaker 16: chance that you're not going to wake up on a
Speaker 16: Tuesday for a special election and say I got to
Speaker 16: get to vote someone like me.
Speaker 3: They will always I will always vote.
Speaker 16: I vote in every single I've never missed an election
Speaker 16: in my life. But that's the people that Republicans need
Speaker 16: to get out and go vote early. Are those one
Speaker 16: of four, of those two of fours, those people without
Speaker 16: the high perpensitive voting. And the way it breaks down
Speaker 16: in America is the people who will vote the most
Speaker 16: often are college educated whites who are increasingly liberal. Blacks
Speaker 16: are second, non college educated whites or third. Latinos and
Speaker 16: Asians are fourth and fifth. Well, who are Republicans getting
Speaker 16: with Asians and Latinos and white non college educated voters
Speaker 16: while losing college educated voters. So we are trading in
Speaker 16: hyperpensity voters for lower pensity voters. That is problematic and
Speaker 16: there is no and as long as this perpetual fear
Speaker 16: that every election is stolen's going around, we're not going
Speaker 16: to move the needle with a huge mass of people.
Speaker 16: There's millions and millions of people in that latter pool
Speaker 16: Republicans gain. You just got to get them to show up, Yes.
Speaker 1: So famously back in twenty sixteen, Chuck Schumer said, for
Speaker 1: every blue collar Democrat we lose in western PA, we
Speaker 1: will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia,
Speaker 1: And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Obviously didn't work out for Democrats in twenty sixteen, but
Speaker 1: it sounds like what you're arguing is basically like he
Speaker 1: was right. Over time, that is what happened. And you know,
Speaker 1: historically Republicans always had the turnout advantage because they tended
Speaker 1: to do better among wealthier, college educated people, and those
Speaker 1: were the people who are the more reliable voters. But
Speaker 1: that dynamic has now completely flipped, right.
Speaker 16: I mean, that's true, and that's why these special elections.
Speaker 16: I mean in twenty twenty three so far and all
Speaker 16: the special elections, and I think twenty twenty two that
Speaker 16: the average number of vote is D plus six from
Speaker 16: where it was in twenty twenty. The electorate is six
Speaker 16: more present Democrat than it was in twenty twenty. And
Speaker 16: that is not because everyone who was Republican changed their minds.
Speaker 16: It's because who was showing up to actually go vote
Speaker 16: in these elections in twenty twenty two. We Republicans in
Speaker 16: states like New York, in states like Florida where the
Speaker 16: issues were crime in COVID and the Republican independent vote.
Speaker 3: Was very, very strong.
Speaker 16: They had a very they had a very very uh
Speaker 16: you know, great performance in other places around the country
Speaker 16: when it was about either Donald Trump or abortion and
Speaker 16: the independent vote was weak, it had this had a
Speaker 16: negative impact. We've lost a lot of these races. But
Speaker 16: more importantly is the number of Republicans turning out the
Speaker 16: vote wasn't high enough because we were losing those high propensity,
Speaker 16: college educated people. That is a long term problem, but
Speaker 16: it's not it's not a problem that can't be fixed.
Speaker 16: It's not like, you know, Lee Zelden didn't get forty
Speaker 16: seven percent or forty six zo point five percent in
Speaker 16: New York State, or you know, Governor Ron de Standers
Speaker 16: didn't get fifty nine percent in Florida. There are places
Speaker 16: where people have made that impact on that in road.
Speaker 16: It's just the issues that they talk about, it's the
Speaker 16: vibe that they sit there and bring about, and it's
Speaker 16: the fact that they are, you know, really hitting voters
Speaker 16: where they're at rather than trying to take them on
Speaker 16: this you know, Merry go around into crazy Land, and
Speaker 16: I think that that really is. I mean, but there
Speaker 16: is a big difference between the Pennsylvania governor's election and
Speaker 16: the New York governor's election. New York had a closer election,
Speaker 16: you know, than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was to the left of
Speaker 16: not only I think not only just New York, but
Speaker 16: of California. And it wasn't because the electorate change. It's
Speaker 16: because the candidate's change. And that really does mean something.
Speaker 1: I think that matters more at the state level than
Speaker 1: it does for federal elections, which I think increasingly are
Speaker 1: more subject just to national trends than candidate quality is.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's how you get like an Andy Basheer
Speaker 1: that can win in Kentucky. That so you can get
Speaker 1: such an outsize result in a place like Pennsylvania or
Speaker 1: New York who's unique and well known in the state
Speaker 1: that can outperform in a governor's race. I think it
Speaker 1: is a little different at the federal level. But your
Speaker 1: points are all well taken. How do you think that
Speaker 1: it translates for twenty twenty four, because you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is basically the Democratic cope at this point is like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the polls look really bad for Joe Biden and eighty
Speaker 1: six percent of the country thinks he's too old and his.
Speaker 4: Approval ratings are trashed.
Speaker 1: How in these special elections we are consistently outperforming because
Speaker 1: people are just so disgusted with whatever it is that
Speaker 1: the Republicans are trying to sell them. Do you think
Speaker 1: that that logic works out for twenty twenty four or
Speaker 1: the dynamics of a special election different enough from a
Speaker 1: national presidential general election that the trend doesn't really hold up.
Speaker 3: I think they differ.
Speaker 16: I mean there is they definitely differ spostantially.
Speaker 3: There's big questions.
Speaker 16: I mean, minority turnout has been down in almost every
Speaker 16: one of these special elections. There is no indication of
Speaker 16: whether or not minority turnout, especially black turnout, will be
Speaker 16: where it was in twenty twenty. If it reflects twenty
Speaker 16: sixteen numbers, which was blacks for twelve percent of the
Speaker 16: national elector rather than thirteen percent, that one percent dip
Speaker 16: is enough to swing the entire country towards Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: The other question.
Speaker 16: Is is that does the white college education The white
Speaker 16: colleges vote will not mean enough if the millions upon
Speaker 16: millions of non college educated voters, both Hispanic, Asian and
Speaker 16: white come out in droves like they did for Trump
Speaker 16: only in twenty sixteen, but in twenty twenty. I mean,
Speaker 16: Trump a very high turn among those groups in twenty twenty.
Speaker 16: It just wasn't enough because he was losing independence and
Speaker 16: he was losing enough of non college educated voters to
Speaker 16: sit there and matter. But nonetheless it does. It's not
Speaker 16: I don't think. I don't think special elections reflect the
Speaker 16: presidential election, but they do reflect a changing issue where
Speaker 16: we will have issues in mid terms going forwards. We
Speaker 16: will have issues and specials going forwards. That is a
Speaker 16: serious series, long term problem that needs to be solved,
Speaker 16: and I don't think it's reflected with twenty twenty four yet.
Speaker 2: Really, well said Ryan, As we said, he's got the
Speaker 2: National Populous newsletter. Link is down in the description. Go
Speaker 2: subscribe to it and help him out. Thanks for joining us, man.
Speaker 4: Thanks Ryan, good to see you.
Speaker 1: Ye all right, we could not resist covering some of
Speaker 1: the continued fallout over John Stewart's return on Monday Night
Speaker 1: in what was very solid performance, but ultimately this hilarious
Speaker 1: thing about the jokes that John Stewart made is that
Speaker 1: all of it is really widely accepted by the marriag.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's obviously it is not controversial to say
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden is old and that people are concerned
Speaker 1: about it. And yet you know, liberals are acting like
Speaker 1: the sky is falling and Joe and John Stewart is
Speaker 1: some like, you know, absolute threat to democracy on the
Speaker 1: level of Vladimir Putin now at this point. So first
Speaker 1: I have to turn to our friends over at the
Speaker 1: View for their trenchant analysis of John Stewart in the
Speaker 1: threat that he represents the country. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to what they had to say.
Speaker 17: You have, on the one hand, you've got a Guya Biden,
Speaker 17: how old, the eighty one eighty one and so his stammers.
Speaker 17: He's had a stammer all his life. I think that
Speaker 17: that's part of the reason he sometimes looks a little doddering.
Speaker 17: He's trying to get the words out. The guy has
Speaker 17: accomplished a lot, a lot. I don't want to repeat
Speaker 17: all the things he's done for Americans already. On the
Speaker 17: other hand, you basically have had a seventy seven year
Speaker 17: old criminal who only cares about who only cares about
Speaker 17: getting out of jat.
Speaker 18: A difference between age and vitality. There's a difference between
Speaker 18: age and really being up on things and having that
Speaker 18: quickness of wit that Joy has.
Speaker 3: Let me just tell you.
Speaker 18: That Martha Stewart's eighty two. She's still cooking in front
Speaker 18: of people.
Speaker 3: She's growing Kenny Little. She's so exactly.
Speaker 18: Robert de Niro and Al Pacino are getting it in.
Speaker 18: They've got babies in their eighties. Jane n eighty six,
Speaker 18: Representative Mexine Waters eighty five, Bernie Sanders eighty two, Nancy
Speaker 18: Pelosi eighty three.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 18: They look like they know what they're doing.
Speaker 3: They have the wisdom, they.
Speaker 18: Have the history. The problem with this country is that
Speaker 18: we don't value people with their wisdom. We don't value seniors,
Speaker 18: we don't value up there.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm sick of this age.
Speaker 19: As I don't have a problem with Biden.
Speaker 4: I voted for Biden.
Speaker 19: I'm in anyone but Trump, but I was voting for
Speaker 19: Biden anyway. But I also am honest about the gaps
Speaker 19: I see people concerned with which I think you can
Speaker 19: have both things right now, and I think that it's
Speaker 19: voters are concerned, and by telling them they shouldn't be,
Speaker 19: or that they're following a Republican narrative by listening to it,
Speaker 19: you're literally saying, like, close your eyes to what you're seeing,
Speaker 19: or you're making them feel bad for raising something. And
Speaker 19: as John Stewart said in There, replace age with Vitality,
Speaker 19: he showed stammering in different points with each candidate and said,
Speaker 19: the only record they're breaking is the oldest one, is
Speaker 19: the record.
Speaker 3: They set four years ago.
Speaker 19: So it is a fair concern to say this, we
Speaker 19: ask people to keep their eyes open on January sixth,
Speaker 19: I don't think it's fair to tell them to close
Speaker 19: their eyes to what they're seeing.
Speaker 17: Okay, then don't close your eyes to the tape. The
Speaker 17: the rest of the tape that John Stewart showed, and.
Speaker 1: Then they go on to show the parts where he's
Speaker 1: showing Trump's forgetfullness.
Speaker 4: That's better. And I mean, I just want.
Speaker 1: To know what is the market for this, like for
Speaker 1: this absolute delusional view. Joy's saying, Oh, it's his stammer.
Speaker 1: He stammered, all is lighter. That's why he looks Are
Speaker 1: you kidding me? Eighty six percent of Americans say this
Speaker 1: man is tool. A majority of Democrats say, this man
Speaker 1: is too old, and you're acting like John Stewart is
Speaker 1: some like traitor to the cause because he acknowledged what
Speaker 1: is clearly apparent, and you know what he did go
Speaker 1: on to say, like, you know, oh, listen, it's a
Speaker 1: legitimate issue, especially because there is so much at stake
Speaker 1: with Trump on the ballot too, and his you know,
Speaker 1: potential criminal convictions and all of the indictments, et cetera.
Speaker 1: He even said that thing. So the panic over this
Speaker 1: and the cope over it, and the complete like other
Speaker 1: worldly bubble that they insist on inhabiting is just pretty incredible.
Speaker 2: I remember the two of us getting attacked for this
Speaker 2: back in twenty nineteen whenever we would go after Biden there.
Speaker 2: This is when the stammer fakery began, because there was
Speaker 2: this whole plantic article.
Speaker 3: It was like, who you go to stutter?
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, so he has a stutter that miraculously
Speaker 2: had as a child, went away for his entire professional life,
Speaker 2: and then suddenly reappeared whenever he was old or he's
Speaker 2: just really freaking old, you know, and then to use
Speaker 2: that as a defense about why we're not supposed to
Speaker 2: attack him ridiculous. One of my friends who actually has
Speaker 2: a stutter and now has spent a lot of time
Speaker 2: in speech therapy, he put out a whole threat on this.
Speaker 2: He's like, this is deeply insulting to those of us
Speaker 2: who actually have stutters. It is debilitary, and it could be
Speaker 2: really annoying. All these things that we've had to deal
Speaker 2: with for life. But Biden clearly is not suffering because
Speaker 2: of his stutter, Like, this is not something that is uh,
Speaker 2: this is not a result of the condition itself. It
Speaker 2: is driven entirely by age, and that is obvious to.
Speaker 3: Anyone with the brain.
Speaker 2: Realistically, what this is is that it's just about political correctness.
Speaker 2: It's about creating and opening the space such that we
Speaker 2: are not allowed to discuss this at all, even in
Speaker 2: the context of humor. But that's why Stuart's frankly anodyne
Speaker 2: observation that all of us see is funny, because we
Speaker 2: know that he's one of the only people who can
Speaker 2: say it in that type of space, which is then
Speaker 2: what invites the crackdown the criticism. I mean, Christal, you
Speaker 2: found this, but here we've got freaking Mary Trump.
Speaker 3: Who is the resistance what is a niece? Is that
Speaker 3: who she is?
Speaker 2: Niece of Donald Trump? She wrote a book, you know
Speaker 2: all this, why Trump is a threat and all of that.
Speaker 2: I'm big NBC fan favorite. I'm sure the boom er
Speaker 2: grandma's out there.
Speaker 3: I'll know who she is.
Speaker 2: But now she's saying, you know that mayor that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is no sorry, that John Stuart is responsible, it
Speaker 2: seems for Trump for Trump selection.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is incredible. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So she has a substack apparently, and wrote a whole
Speaker 1: piece about how John Stuart is a potential disaster for democracy.
Speaker 1: I did read this piece, guys, I couldn't resist, and.
Speaker 4: I'll share with you a little excerpt here.
Speaker 1: She says, not only is Stuart's both sides are the same,
Speaker 1: rhetoric not funny. It's a potential disaster for democracy. Stuart
Speaker 1: helped wipe out the motivation generated by Obama's two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight message of hope and change, motivation that led
Speaker 1: to record turnout in two thousand and eight, the damage
Speaker 1: done by his rally to Restore Sanity, a DC rally
Speaker 1: joke which inspired an entire generation to shrug off politics
Speaker 1: and ignore the dangers The right wing cannot be overstated.
Speaker 1: It was no small part responsible for helping Donald come
Speaker 1: to power. This rally we're looking at, is it twenty
Speaker 1: ten or twenty.
Speaker 3: Eleven, October of twenty ten. I tire, by the.
Speaker 1: Way, October of two thousand, a rally that he did
Speaker 1: in October of twenty ten, is apparently in no small
Speaker 1: part responsible for helping Donald Trump come to power, and
Speaker 1: he now represents a potential disaster for democracy because he
Speaker 1: dared to say what is plainly obvious to anyone with
Speaker 1: a functioning brain. Eighty six percent of Americans looking at
Speaker 1: this man and saying, you know what, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: about another four years, and you know what it.
Speaker 4: Is, really soccer.
Speaker 1: It is this cult like denial of reality that is
Speaker 1: mirrored on the right. I mean, they are like two
Speaker 1: sides of the same coin at this point. It's like
Speaker 1: anything I have to say, any inconvenient fact or reality
Speaker 1: that I have to deny in order to avoid giving
Speaker 1: the other side some talking point, I am going to
Speaker 1: do it, and I'm going to attack anyone who doesn't
Speaker 1: follow the rules of the game of just complete denial
Speaker 1: of the obvious realities in front of our faith.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's totally nuts, and it's also just
Speaker 2: gets back to the idea that you're not allowed to
Speaker 2: criticize people within your own side, and I think it
Speaker 2: really is insulting to people. There are a lot of
Speaker 2: people who think that Biden is too old and are
Speaker 2: going to vote for him.
Speaker 3: You know why, because I hate Trump. Now you can
Speaker 3: make fun of them.
Speaker 2: We could certainly discuss it here if you want, but
Speaker 2: you cannot criticize that because people are informed enough to
Speaker 2: discuss it, to rationalize it in their head, and to
Speaker 2: make the choice that they feel best.
Speaker 3: But here you can do advice versa.
Speaker 1: Go, yeah, well, I was just Here's the other thing
Speaker 1: is you could have had an open democratic primary process
Speaker 1: so that people weren't having to go like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: is this man going to drop dead before we even
Speaker 1: get to election day. If you thought Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: you think Donald Trump is such a threat to democracy,
Speaker 1: and I personally do not want to see Donald Trump
Speaker 1: back in the White House, you could have opened up
Speaker 1: the process so people had other alternatives of candidates who
Speaker 1: aren't in their eighties, of candidates who are able to
Speaker 1: formulate a sentence, of candidates who don't routinely tell stories
Speaker 1: about foreign leaders who died twenty years ago. Okay, thirty
Speaker 1: years ago, you could have done so. The people to
Speaker 1: blame the DNC and the Democratic Party establishment who decided
Speaker 1: they wanted to have an anointment of King Biden rather
Speaker 1: than actually give voters a choice so you had a
Speaker 1: better shot come November. Because the truth of the matter is,
Speaker 1: if you had a run on the mill Dean Phillips
Speaker 1: style generic Democrat, they would be in a much, much,
Speaker 1: much better position to win come November. And that was
Speaker 1: another thing that stuck out in that RFK junior focus
Speaker 1: group is the people who had said we voted for Biden,
Speaker 1: We're not voting for him this time. They were asked, okay,
Speaker 1: is this about Bidener's about the Democratic Party?
Speaker 4: No, no, no, it's about Biden. It's about Biden.
Speaker 1: And so all of the celebrations around the special election results,
Speaker 1: like what just happened in New York three, where people
Speaker 1: are saying, ah, good, thank goodness, I think we're going
Speaker 1: to be fine, et cetera.
Speaker 4: That was for like a generic Democrat.
Speaker 1: It may be a very different story when people are
Speaker 1: actually considering the person of Joe Biden, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: John Stewart who created these freaking dynamics, Mary Trump and Joy.
Speaker 4: And whoever else at the view. It was the.
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that forced the public into this horrific choice
Speaker 1: of you know, it's Joe Biden and that's the only
Speaker 1: option on the Democratic side.
Speaker 16: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, it's totally crazy, especially with the way that you
Speaker 2: have the media that then enforces within this you see
Speaker 2: why they get away with it. And when the vast
Speaker 2: majority of these Democrats trust the media, I'm talking about
Speaker 2: the Democratic base, it's very, very difficult to have an
Speaker 2: open and a real conversation. It's genuinely a tragedy because
Speaker 2: if they do lose or if.
Speaker 3: He dies, imagine, you know, what are we going to do?
Speaker 3: Are what is going to happen to this country?
Speaker 2: And it's an entirely foreseeable, predictable event that only you know,
Speaker 2: after a special counsel writes the obvious, are we even
Speaker 2: allowed to And now they're trying to get the tapes
Speaker 2: of that conversation not to come out. Oh that's another thing,
Speaker 2: you know, we put we won't have time probably to
Speaker 2: comfort it's not a big enough story and of itself.
Speaker 2: But you know how Biden said, he said, how in
Speaker 2: the hair. Hell, dare he ask me when my son died?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Well, it turns out, for people familiar with the transcript,
Speaker 2: he never asked him.
Speaker 3: The special counsel Biden brought up Bo's death and then
Speaker 3: then he couldn't remember, yeah, when he died. And I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: I don't want to sound mean.
Speaker 2: I really don't, but you're gasslighting the whole country yea,
Speaker 2: and forcing us to walk the plank with you.
Speaker 3: Dude, Yes, like that's the problem.
Speaker 1: And by the way, for the ladies at the view,
Speaker 1: I mean, did you ever even inform your audience that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden had opponents? Did you have any of them
Speaker 1: on your show?
Speaker 4: So, I mean you actually have direct culpability for.
Speaker 1: The fact that this is the choice facing the American
Speaker 1: people at this point. So, you know, don't look at
Speaker 1: don't put the blame on John Stewart for pointing out
Speaker 1: the absolute obvious. You know, do a little self reflection
Speaker 1: about your role in enforcement for Joe Biden that led
Speaker 1: us to this place that the majority of Americans are
Speaker 1: disgusted to be in. Absolutely, We've got some breaking news
Speaker 1: this morning that we wanted to bring to Israeli special
Speaker 1: forces are storming NASA Hospital in Communists in Gaza. This
Speaker 1: is the largest remaining functioning hospital in the entire Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: We can put some images that are coming out this morning.
Speaker 1: These are courtesy of Middle East Eye. You can see
Speaker 1: and by the way, this is very difficult to watch,
Speaker 1: but you can see some of the horror unfolding there
Speaker 1: in the hospital. I'm actually going to read the report
Speaker 1: here from New York Times. They say Israel sent troops
Speaker 1: into Nasar Medical Complex on Thursday in what it described
Speaker 1: as a quote limited operation against Hamas, raising concerns about
Speaker 1: the fate of hundreds of patients and medical workers and
Speaker 1: the many thousands of displaced Palestinians who had sought shelter
Speaker 1: there from the war. The raid came two days after
Speaker 1: Israel's military ordered displaced people to evacuate the hospital. Put
Speaker 1: a pin in that piece because I've got some news
Speaker 1: for you there as well. This is the largest hospital
Speaker 1: in southern Gaza and one of the last ones even
Speaker 1: functioning in the enclave. This, of course, as Israel has
Speaker 1: made targeting hospitals a real focus of this operation, something
Speaker 1: that was previously absolutely unheard of. Something was sparking earlier
Speaker 1: in this operation huge debates about whether this was justified.
Speaker 1: Of course, hospitals typically completely off limits in terms of
Speaker 1: the rules of war, not so in terms of Israeli
Speaker 1: operations in Gaza. They go on to say this came
Speaker 1: after warnings by health officials that military operation there could
Speaker 1: be catastrophic for civilians. A Gazin health ministry spokesman said
Speaker 1: the Israeli military demolished the southern wall of the complex,
Speaker 1: begun storming and overrunning the ambulance center in an area
Speaker 1: where displaced people have been living intense He said Israeli
Speaker 1: forces were attacking the hospital's orthopedic department and had killed
Speaker 1: one patient and injured several others. As far as the
Speaker 1: Israeli military, what they are saying is that these special
Speaker 1: forces soldiers are quote conducting a precise and limited operation
Speaker 1: inside NASA against Hamas, which it accused of hiding in
Speaker 1: the hospital among wounded civilians. Israel, which is said Hamas
Speaker 1: uses hospitals across Gaza as cover for military operations, that
Speaker 1: it had intelligence, including from released hostages, that Hamas had
Speaker 1: held captives at the hospital and that their bodies might
Speaker 1: be there. Israeli authorities, though also lowering expectations that they
Speaker 1: will actually be able to find and recover any of
Speaker 1: the bodies of those hostages. So take that justification for
Speaker 1: what it's worth. Of course, you know this comes in
Speaker 1: a broader context sagre of You initially had people pushed
Speaker 1: out of northern Gaza into Conunis. Con Unis became a
Speaker 1: real center of the population. Conunis has been under massive
Speaker 1: attack and bombardment from the Israelis.
Speaker 4: People have been pushed down to Rafa.
Speaker 1: We are still waiting to see what happens there, but
Speaker 1: already bombardment of Rafa As started as well. So you
Speaker 1: had thousands of Palestinians who had sheltered in this hospital,
Speaker 1: in this medical complex, thinking apparently wrongly, that hospitals may
Speaker 1: be a safer location to shelter, and now even this
Speaker 1: hospital also being targeted. One more thing with regard to
Speaker 1: the initial order to evacuate, because this is absolutely horrifying.
Speaker 1: Put this report from the intercept up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They did a good job on reporting this out. So
Speaker 1: the headline here is IDF sent in handcuffed prisoner to
Speaker 1: evacuate hospital, then killed him when he left. Basically the
Speaker 1: entirety of the story here is in the headline. They
Speaker 1: sent a Palestinian prisoner in in handcuffed I think basically
Speaker 1: zip tied handcuffs into this hospital to tell them that
Speaker 1: they had to leave.
Speaker 4: Or they would all be killed.
Speaker 1: And then on the way out, his mother, I believe,
Speaker 1: was there in the hospital begging him not to go
Speaker 1: back out, but he said, they threatened me if I
Speaker 1: don't leave the civilians here at this hospital hour at risk.
Speaker 1: He left and then the Israelis shot him and this
Speaker 1: was all documented by the intercept and by witnesses on
Speaker 1: the scene. So yet another scene of horror emerging out
Speaker 1: of the Gaza strip and hospital that had been serving
Speaker 1: as a sanctuary for many displaced Palestins.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the big pivting is the Israelis are already downplaying,
Speaker 2: as you said, some of the initial claims about why
Speaker 2: they're going into the hospital, and they haven't been They
Speaker 2: didn't exactly have the best track record in terms of
Speaker 2: what happened earlier in Gaza City, So they're going to
Speaker 2: have to show results if they want to continue to
Speaker 2: justify this. As you saw from the footage as well,
Speaker 2: you know, it's pretty terrifying about what exactly that looks like.
Speaker 2: And the question too, I believe you can correct me
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong, because it is the last remaining one.
Speaker 3: The question is is that it is.
Speaker 2: Going to be reprobably damaged that the can continue medical facility.
Speaker 2: This is the last bastion I guess of healthcare for
Speaker 2: doctors without borders for many others. It also is one
Speaker 2: of the easier ways when supplies were able to get through,
Speaker 2: to be able to get it to this hospital.
Speaker 3: So if it does shut down, it would obviously.
Speaker 2: Constitute complete, basically an absolute shutdown of all healthcare in
Speaker 2: the entire strip.
Speaker 3: So very terrifying. Yeah, in terms of what's happening right now.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and by the way, I should say, the doctors
Speaker 1: and hospital administrators absolutely deny the claims there be made
Speaker 1: here by the Israelis being used as justification for the
Speaker 1: stormy of a hospital, which again, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the news media has almost become accustomed to hospitals being
Speaker 1: targeted in this conflict. But this is very much outside
Speaker 1: of the norms of modern warfare. As I said previously,
Speaker 1: hospitals should be completely off limits and it is a
Speaker 1: war crime to target them except in the most exceptional
Speaker 1: of circumstances.
Speaker 4: And since we.
Speaker 1: Had sort of these, you know, debates early on, and
Speaker 1: there was this overwhelming propaganda campaign to justify some of
Speaker 1: the early hospital attacks. Some of the latter ones have
Speaker 1: gone barely without notice, not to mention the targeting of ambulances,
Speaker 1: the targeting of other healthcare clinics and facilities. And this
Speaker 1: comes of course as there's been a massive shortage of
Speaker 1: medical supplies as well, such that you've had children having
Speaker 1: to undergo amputations without anesthetic, women having to give birth
Speaker 1: and suffer through cesareans without anesthetic. I did see some
Speaker 1: videos online this morning that, you know, I can't verify,
Speaker 1: but would comport with the reality of what's unfolding. Women
Speaker 1: who have literally just given birth half an hour before
Speaker 1: being forced to evacuate.
Speaker 4: The hospital with their babies.
Speaker 1: You can, I mean, I can't actually even imagine what
Speaker 1: that would be like. At the same time as we're
Speaker 1: watching that, there are other significant developments.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen. Report from the
Speaker 4: Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: The US is reportedly probing some Israeli strikes that have
Speaker 1: killed civilians in Gaza and the possible use of white
Speaker 1: phosphorus in Lebanon. The investigation could result in new conditions
Speaker 1: being set on the delivery of US weapons to Israel.
Speaker 1: I would not hold my breath on that second part.
Speaker 1: They even go on to say in this report that
Speaker 1: the probes are not indicative of a broader policy shift,
Speaker 1: but Zager. They're basically looking at two separate incidents here,
Speaker 1: both of which we've reported on here on this show.
Speaker 1: One was that attack on the Jibalia refugee camp near
Speaker 1: Gaza City. It killed more than one hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: five people. According to US officials. Israel had said they
Speaker 1: were targeting a hamaska and in a tunnel under a
Speaker 1: high rise building.
Speaker 4: It appears they used a.
Speaker 1: Two thousand pound bomb in that strike on that refugee camp.
Speaker 1: That is why there were so many deaths and so
Speaker 1: many casualties. We're talking about huge numbers of women and
Speaker 1: children who were killed in that strike. The State Department
Speaker 1: reportedly probing basically to see whether or not this was
Speaker 1: a war crime. The other incident that they are investigating
Speaker 1: is one that the Washington posted expensive reporting on and
Speaker 1: we talked about here as well, and that was the
Speaker 1: use of white phosphorus in Lebanon in ways that are
Speaker 1: also inconsistent with the laws of war again. I would
Speaker 1: not raise your expectations that this is going to result
Speaker 1: in much, if anything. But you have a quote here
Speaker 1: from Sarah Jeger, former human rights advisor to the Pentagon's
Speaker 1: Joint chiefs of Staff, now serves as Washington director for
Speaker 1: Human Rights Watch. She called the continuing investigations a quote
Speaker 1: much needed step for the US, but also expressed, as
Speaker 1: she should, a lot of skepticism about the impact, saying,
Speaker 1: quote will it lead to anything? That's where I'm less
Speaker 1: confident about how great this thing is to be effective,
Speaker 1: she said, very senior US officials will need to take
Speaker 1: the finding seriously and act on them. This kind of
Speaker 1: trust of policymakers to do the right thing has a
Speaker 1: history of not working out.
Speaker 4: So well. Let's see.
Speaker 1: And I believe it was Matt Miller's State Department spokes
Speaker 1: but it might have been Jake Sullivan or Matt Miller,
Speaker 1: I can't remember. I get all these schools confused, but
Speaker 1: basically sort of downplayed this probe and what it might
Speaker 1: also mean from the podium.
Speaker 3: I have a quote here.
Speaker 2: He says the process is not intended to function as
Speaker 2: rapid response. Rather, it is designed to systematically assess civilian
Speaker 2: harm incidents and develop appropriate policy responses to reduce the
Speaker 2: risk of such incidents occurring in the future. I mean,
Speaker 2: the big question is like, look, I mean at a
Speaker 2: certain point, I almost just find this annoying because we
Speaker 2: reported on it months ago. Anybody with a brain can
Speaker 2: see that as obviously white phosphorus, not from the attack,
Speaker 2: but because we've been able to assess white phosphorus attacks
Speaker 2: previously in let's say Russia and in Syria with almost
Speaker 2: instantaneous results. But this has been I mean, how long
Speaker 2: has it been since White Foster attack. I remember covering.
Speaker 3: It in the early early days. It's been several months.
Speaker 2: So why is it that when Russia uses white phosphorus
Speaker 2: we can be like, ah, this is an obvious and
Speaker 2: clear use of white phosphorus munitions, where we don't even
Speaker 2: have technically like a ground ability or investigation or an
Speaker 2: ally there to be able to verify it. Same with
Speaker 2: the Syrians, like we can automatically say, oh, Asad used
Speaker 2: x exact chemical weapon, you know, whenever this happened. But
Speaker 2: here it's like five months later, whenever we're the ones
Speaker 2: who sold it to them, then it just disappears. Yeah,
Speaker 2: just laughable, you know, It's one of those where don't
Speaker 2: lie to our faces. And because then also what if
Speaker 2: you do conclude What if you do conclude that it
Speaker 2: was used.
Speaker 3: What are you going to do about it?
Speaker 2: Are you going to follow official US law the loss
Speaker 2: has You're not allowed to do that.
Speaker 3: You get cut off. You have a restriction.
Speaker 2: That's what literally what the State Department of the Leahylan
Speaker 2: and other things that ascribe for US military. Now the
Speaker 2: president can waive that, but then it's like, well, what
Speaker 2: are we even doing here? If we all know that
Speaker 2: you're probably not going to do it. It could be
Speaker 2: maybe a pretext crystal for in the future. They can
Speaker 2: cut it off whenever they want. But I mean, six
Speaker 2: months from now, is it really going to matter?
Speaker 1: I think it basically just gives you know, gouls like
Speaker 1: Matt Miller something to say at the POTO, Oh, we're
Speaker 1: investigating that, and then investigation can take months and months
Speaker 1: and months and never really come to a conclusion, or
Speaker 1: by the time there is.
Speaker 4: A conclusion, it's way too late for it to even.
Speaker 1: Matter, and they'll you know, tiss Israel does better in
Speaker 1: the future, but it'll have no real impact. Something that
Speaker 1: Ryan and others have been pressing the State Department people
Speaker 1: about has been you know, their go to justification for
Speaker 1: like the killing of Hint and the medics who were
Speaker 1: trying to rescue her, that six year old little girl
Speaker 1: that I did the monologue on. They'll you know, ask, okay,
Speaker 1: well what about this? What do you think about those?
Speaker 1: Have you talked about the Israelis about this? Isn't this
Speaker 1: a war crime?
Speaker 4: And oh, there's this.
Speaker 1: We've talked to Israelis that an investigation is ongoing. They've
Speaker 1: done this for months at this point about a whole
Speaker 1: variety of war crimes that have been reported out and
Speaker 1: are clear as day, and they always just push you, oh,
Speaker 1: an investigation is ongoing, And so they start following up like, well,
Speaker 1: what about that investigation, what are the results?
Speaker 4: What are we going to hear the results? And of
Speaker 4: course it's just a dodge.
Speaker 1: It's just a way to get out of the moment
Speaker 1: and pretend like they care at all, when obviously, by
Speaker 1: their actions they clearly do not. The other thing that
Speaker 1: they've been getting pressed on quite a bit is, hey,
Speaker 1: your whole strategy of giving Israel total and complete support
Speaker 1: and then just occasionally leaking to the press that you're
Speaker 1: very concerned about this or that.
Speaker 4: How is that going for you?
Speaker 1: They had to admit the other day, in many instances
Speaker 1: it's not going that well. And I think a case
Speaker 1: in point in that is on something that is so basic.
Speaker 1: It's insane that the supposed superpower, the United States of America,
Speaker 1: cannot even accomplish pressing the Israelis to deliver a shipment
Speaker 1: of flower that we reportedly made clear to them was
Speaker 1: important to us. The Israelis are blocking that shipment because
Speaker 1: they say it's going to UNRA. Of course, we help
Speaker 1: them with that sigh up by buying into the completely
Speaker 1: evidenced free claims that they leveled against UNRA, and we
Speaker 1: cut their funding. That led a whole cascade of countries
Speaker 1: around the world to cut their funding. So in any case,
Speaker 1: Jake Sullivan getting pressed about how the Israelis are blocking
Speaker 1: this shipment of flower to Gaza at a time when
Speaker 1: a majority of Palestinians there are absolutely starving, and Sydney McCain,
Speaker 1: head of World Food Program, is saying kids are now
Speaker 1: literally starving to death.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to how he responds, Well, it's why.
Speaker 5: We're asking the question on the aid coming through and
Speaker 5: you're right that flower has not moved the way that
Speaker 5: we had expected it would move. And we expect that
Speaker 5: Israel will follow through on its commitment to get that
Speaker 5: flower into Gaza. But we are asking the question, how
Speaker 5: do you do something like RAFA and make sure all
Speaker 5: those innocent people not only are protected physically but can
Speaker 5: have access to aid. That is precisely the point that
Speaker 5: we are pressing on quite actively.
Speaker 3: As we speak.
Speaker 1: That flower has not moved the way that we expected
Speaker 1: it to move. I also love that phrasing, like the
Speaker 1: flowers the flower's fault, like the flowers just not getting
Speaker 1: it together and moving where it's supposed to move. But
Speaker 1: think of how pathetic this is and how outrageous it is,
Speaker 1: even especially in the wake of the ICJ report that
Speaker 1: called on Israel to make sure they were improving the
Speaker 1: AID situation, that they were rushing more aid in and
Speaker 1: staid here they are completely blocking the shipment of flower
Speaker 1: that the US officials at least claimed to say that
Speaker 1: they care about getting in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just reminds me of the Bill Clinton behind
Speaker 2: the scenes quote whenever Netannah who was badgering him, trying
Speaker 2: to get him on the phone, and he said, quote,
Speaker 2: who's the fucking superpower here?
Speaker 3: This was behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: So I've never expected to praise Bill Clinton, but I
Speaker 2: guess here I am.
Speaker 3: Let's put this also up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Please d three the BBC News tear sheet, because this
Speaker 2: is just one of those that we need to watch
Speaker 2: very closely. There was a major air strike yesterday in Lebanon,
Speaker 2: Lebanese government claiming ten people were killed. This was retaliatory
Speaker 2: after Lebanon or Hesbola launched attacks inside of Israel, which
Speaker 2: it killed at least some members of the IDF. Israel's
Speaker 2: military said it was hitting quote Hesbola infrastructure in response
Speaker 2: to a deadly rocket attack on norther in Israel. Always
Speaker 2: just a reminder that as tensions and all these things
Speaker 2: ratchet up, this is probably the most strategically important place,
Speaker 2: you know, for where things could pop off. We've seen
Speaker 2: things like this happen in the past. But we also
Speaker 2: know that the Netanyahu government and the Defense Minister are
Speaker 2: chomping at the bit to be able to enter Lebanon
Speaker 2: or to mount some sort of attack, already calling it
Speaker 2: the Axis of Evil, saying we can do to Lebanon
Speaker 2: what we.
Speaker 3: Did to Gaza. They should watch out.
Speaker 2: They've been behind the scenes talks about some sort of
Speaker 2: negotiated ceasefire, but I mean, this is very obvious.
Speaker 3: You know that it hasn't happened. And it's also just
Speaker 3: a consistent.
Speaker 2: Reminder that any explosion of conflict between Lebanon and Israel
Speaker 2: would be ten to fifteen times more deadly than anything
Speaker 2: that's going on in Gaza.
Speaker 3: Gaza is a basically asometric conflict.
Speaker 2: Hamas has nothing we know one tenth or something of
Speaker 2: Hesbola's overall military strength. Hasbola is a very very strong
Speaker 2: military organization. I'm not saying they would win, but they
Speaker 2: would definitely be able to put up a fight and
Speaker 2: it would decimate the entire country.
Speaker 1: Haswill A leader, Hassan Sraala, has been warning Israel and
Speaker 1: Israeli leaders. This is in that piece that we just
Speaker 1: had up on the screen and a speech that launching
Speaker 1: a war against the group would result in a million
Speaker 1: evacuees from northern Israel. Right now, I think there's maybe
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand Israelis who have been evacuated from northern Israel.
Speaker 1: Quote to those who threaten us with the widening of
Speaker 1: the war, if you widen, we will too, he said,
Speaker 1: adding that those who think the resistance might be afraid
Speaker 1: are mistaken. Also vowed that Hezbela would only cease fire
Speaker 1: when the aggression stops, and there is a ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaker 4: And it is incredibly important to keep.
Speaker 1: This already widened war in perspective, because I actually NBC
Speaker 1: News did a great job putting this map together of
Speaker 1: the way that the conflict has spread, and when you
Speaker 1: see it, it really is astonishing the number of countries
Speaker 1: that have been pulled in at this point. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're talking about Lebanon, you're talking about Israel, obviously Israel, Gaza,
Speaker 1: you're talking about Assyria, you're talking about a Rock, You're
Speaker 1: talking about Iran, You're even talking about frigging Pakistan getting pulled.
Speaker 1: It's just a huge regional swath of course, Yemen, the
Speaker 1: Red Sea, and then you have US leaders pertend like, oh,
Speaker 1: our goal to keep this confined to Gaza is totally
Speaker 1: working out when we're bombing multiple countries over a single weekend,
Speaker 1: and when these strikes tit for tat strikes between Hesbela
Speaker 1: and Israel have been going on consistently since post October seventh,
Speaker 1: so we never want to lose sight of that. At
Speaker 1: the same time, you know, there was some I was
Speaker 1: pretty skeptical, but a little bit of renewed hope that
Speaker 1: potentially there may be some new ceasefire deal lasting potentially
Speaker 1: six weeks on the table. But it looks like Boebea's
Speaker 1: backing out of those talks completely.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Benjamin Netnyahu ordered the Israeli delegation not to
Speaker 1: return to Cairo. That's where the negotiations were ongoing for
Speaker 1: further negotiations for a hostage release deal with Hamas that
Speaker 1: were scheduled to take place in the Egyptian capital today.
Speaker 1: In light of the move, By the way, the families
Speaker 1: of hostages are absolutely furious. They said they intend to
Speaker 1: demonstrate in front of the Idea of headquarters in Tel
Speaker 1: Aviv in protest of quote the decision to sacrifice the
Speaker 1: lives of the hostages. And you know, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: a broken record on this. We've talked about a thousand times.
Speaker 1: Babe has no incentive to end this war. He's fearful
Speaker 1: that if there is some significant length of a ceasefire
Speaker 1: that'll be very difficult to go back to the overwhelming
Speaker 1: level of aggression that they have been using in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip previously. So he does not want to make
Speaker 1: a deal. The far right parts of his coalition are
Speaker 1: dead set against it and have basically threatened to completely
Speaker 1: blow up his government if he goes forward with any
Speaker 1: sort of significant deal with himas so that's why I've
Speaker 1: been skeptical that this would work out from the beginning.
Speaker 1: But you do have this counter domestic pressure of the
Speaker 1: families of hostages, and not just the families of hostages,
Speaker 1: but the majority of Israelis who want the primary goal
Speaker 1: of the war to be returning the hostages. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, short circuiting and pulling out completely of these
Speaker 1: negotiated talks, any sort, you know, really short circuiting any
Speaker 1: possibility that they're going to come to a deal in
Speaker 1: the short term could be very politically difficult for him
Speaker 1: to sustain. Domestically, obviously, the US has made clear that
Speaker 1: we want them to be involved in some of the ceasefire.
Speaker 4: They clearly don't give a shit about what we have
Speaker 4: to say.
Speaker 1: And since the Biden administration is completely unwilling to use
Speaker 1: any sort of actual leverage or pressure I don't think
Speaker 1: our stance on this is it's pretty much irrelevant. Whatever
Speaker 1: our stands are on this is so sager. Really, the
Speaker 1: only hope you have for pressure is coming from the
Speaker 1: Israeli domestic populace.
Speaker 2: I feel for them, I really do, especially the families
Speaker 2: and all of them, because it's just so difficult because
Speaker 2: you have a military operation being mounted in your name,
Speaker 2: you've only had two people be rescued, and then you
Speaker 2: have active attempts at this point where the government is
Speaker 2: antithetical to the overall aims. If really when you put
Speaker 2: when you pair it like that, and you look, you know,
Speaker 2: in all that to the future, the government is really
Speaker 2: not responding to the wills of the populace. And that's
Speaker 2: one of those where that's why I do find it
Speaker 2: outrageous in many respects. Is you know, we talk about
Speaker 2: Israel as a monolith.
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 2: You know, it may not necessarily align with some of
Speaker 2: the most propaalacity in people, but it's a nuanced country
Speaker 2: and they they really do want an actual ceasefire, or
Speaker 2: not a seasfire deal, but a hostage negotiation deal, and
Speaker 2: they probably would be willing to put up with the
Speaker 2: ceasefire at least for a prolonged period of time if
Speaker 2: it meant the release of all of their hostages.
Speaker 3: So they and the government do not agree on this.
Speaker 2: The government's position is a ceasefire for like maybe a
Speaker 2: portion of time before resumption of hostilities. I haven't seen
Speaker 2: enough polling though to confirm my suspicion, but basically, from
Speaker 2: what we've seen, I think a decent portion of the
Speaker 2: public would probably agree to at least a significant cease
Speaker 2: fire of several months in exchange for all of the
Speaker 2: hostages to be released.
Speaker 1: There was that poll and I'm going to get the
Speaker 1: enough numbers roughly correct, but don't quote me on the
Speaker 1: exact numbers here. But they asked, Israelis, is your top
Speaker 1: priority for this war bringing home the hostages or eradicating Hamas?
Speaker 1: And a majority said the top priority should be bringing
Speaker 1: home the hostages. And it was somewhere in the thirties,
Speaker 1: like I want to say, like thirty six percent that said,
Speaker 1: you know, the goal should be eradicating humas. But the
Speaker 1: reality of the net Yahoo coalition is, you know, it's
Speaker 1: extremely far right and very tied in with the most
Speaker 1: fringe elements within Israeli society, and that's why they're not
Speaker 1: only allowing, but encouraging these psycho demonstrators to block AID
Speaker 1: from going into the strip, you know. I mean this
Speaker 1: is being done with the tacit and sometimes explicit support
Speaker 1: of the Israeli government.
Speaker 4: So that is the type of ideology that you're dealing
Speaker 4: with here.
Speaker 3: There you go, Crystal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: Israeli liberal news outlet Haretz just published a piece for
Speaker 1: their Hebrew language audience that reaches breath taking new levels
Speaker 1: of dehumanization and tone deafness. Piece was highlighted and documented
Speaker 1: by a Twitter user called Gowan mac Quote. Haretz has
Speaker 1: published in Hebrew, not English, an incomprehensibly vile article in
Speaker 1: the style of a lifestyle cooking feature about israel soldiers
Speaker 1: finding and cooking with ingredients in the kitchens of Gosans
Speaker 1: who had to flee their homes and are now starving.
Speaker 1: I was also able to pull up the article and
Speaker 1: use Google Translate to verify the content is indeed as
Speaker 1: represented in this Twitter thread. Basically, for this feature, they
Speaker 1: interview several idea of soldiers about how they scrounge around
Speaker 1: in the bomb homes of gossens combine these pilfered goods
Speaker 1: with their own rations, and then prepare bountiful feasts that
Speaker 1: help them take a much needed mental break from all
Speaker 1: of that hard genocide work. It's replete with images of
Speaker 1: these thieving chefs and the culinary delights that they concocted
Speaker 1: in the family homes of terrorized Palestinians.
Speaker 4: Just take a look at this.
Speaker 1: Scrumptious dish that the article labors labels brushetta a la gaza.
Speaker 1: I guess the scent of smoking ruins, death and ambiance
Speaker 1: of utter devastation really brings out the flavor, doesn't it.
Speaker 4: Guys.
Speaker 1: Here we see some war bodies sharing a meal with
Speaker 1: the caption warm meal. We understood that it is possible
Speaker 1: to fight and take part in campaigns and yet eat well.
Speaker 1: And this became the story of our unit. How heartwarming
Speaker 1: will time away from rating hospitals and terrorized children to
Speaker 1: cherish a basic life necessity which you are currently denying
Speaker 1: to the entire Gaza population.
Speaker 4: The story of.
Speaker 1: Your unit being the elaborate meals you prepare as you
Speaker 1: impose on gossens, a story of a daily search for scraps,
Speaker 1: any concerns about the war crime laden context are shrugged
Speaker 1: off by both writer and soldiers. Aurets ask casually about
Speaker 1: quote the feelings of cooking and eating in Gaza family homes.
Speaker 1: The response at least pro Google translate quote There are
Speaker 1: mixed feelings, no doubt. After all, I use their tools
Speaker 1: in their house when they are not here. But on
Speaker 1: the other hand, we have to eat. In the end,
Speaker 1: the urge and desire to eat increases. It is important
Speaker 1: to clarify that these are abandoned houses, some of them
Speaker 1: destroyed or destined for demolition. And this is the way
Speaker 1: the idea fights in Gaza. Oh yes, we are well
Speaker 1: aware of how you fight in Gasa. Back in December,
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal reported that a full seventy percent
Speaker 1: of Gosen homes had either been damaged or destroyed, part
Speaker 1: of the complete destruction of civilian life that has been
Speaker 1: one of the actual primary goals of the Israelis reponse.
Speaker 1: That's part of the context in which this glossy lifestyle
Speaker 1: feature was produced, soldiers quartering and pilfering in the very
Speaker 1: homes they forced families out of through sheer terror. The
Speaker 1: other context is the mass famine that these soldiers are
Speaker 1: helping to impose on Gozzin's as they steal the food
Speaker 1: from their houses. In fact, we just learned this week
Speaker 1: from the head of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain,
Speaker 1: that children in Gaza are now actually dying of starvation.
Speaker 1: Here a Senator Chris man Holland revealing this horror on
Speaker 1: the Senate floor, just before, of course, still voting to
Speaker 1: fund the war criminals.
Speaker 15: Yesterday I began to hear reports of people who have
Speaker 15: actually starved to death in Gaza. So earlier today I
Speaker 15: asked the head of the World Fold Program, former American
Speaker 15: Ambassador Cindy McCain, about these reports. I sent her a
Speaker 15: note text message asking about reports that some children have
Speaker 15: now crossed the awful threshold from being on the verge
Speaker 15: of starvation to dying of starvation. She wrote back, and
Speaker 15: I quote.
Speaker 3: This is true.
Speaker 15: We are unable to get in enough food to keep
Speaker 15: people from the brink. Famine is imminent. I wish I
Speaker 15: had better news end quote.
Speaker 1: Now we knew that this was coming back. In December,
Speaker 1: the UN reported that half of Gazen's were at risk
Speaker 1: of starving. The entire population was going hungry. The chief
Speaker 1: economists at the UN World Food Program put it this
Speaker 1: way to the New Yorker's Isaac Chatner. If you look
Speaker 1: at the total numbers of starving people right now, eighty
Speaker 1: percent of the people, or four out of five people
Speaker 1: in famine or a catastrophic type of hunger are in
Speaker 1: Gaza right now.
Speaker 4: That report, of course, came before the US led the charge.
Speaker 1: To defund UNRA, the primary aid organization on the ground
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Also came before Israeli Minister Bezaliel Smotrich decided
Speaker 1: to use our acceptance of their evidence free attacks on
Speaker 1: UNRA to block critical shipments of flower were from reaching
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip. And it was before the most psychotic
Speaker 1: people in the world began blocking aid shipments from entering
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip with the tacit and at times explicit
Speaker 1: backing of the Israeli government, police and military. Here you
Speaker 1: can see a festive rave atmosphere with Israeli's dancing and
Speaker 1: celebrating while they endeavor to starve the neighboring Palestinian population
Speaker 1: to death. According to a Washington Post report on these protesters,
Speaker 1: every explosion in Gaza raises a cheer dead dead dead
Speaker 1: Arabs won camper shouts at a roaring volley of outgoing fire.
Speaker 1: Then she notes the presence of a reporter. Humus, she
Speaker 1: corrects herself. The protester allowed to continue for the same
Speaker 1: reason that illegal settlers allowed to violently steal Palestinian land.
Speaker 1: Their actions support official government policy, as you have Galant
Speaker 1: stated famously at the beginning of the siege, he announced
Speaker 1: a complete siege of Gaza. We are fighting human animals,
Speaker 1: and we are acting accordingly. At the pro starvation rave
Speaker 1: protesters shake hands with Idea of soldiers and absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: of the single police car on the scene. Per the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, these dancing pro starvation israelis really the perfect
Speaker 1: side dish to accompany the feasting of the occupying soldiers,
Speaker 1: because in between courses of their Instagram where the Brushetta
Speaker 1: a la Gaza Idea soldiers have done their part in
Speaker 1: making sure Gaza starvation is here to say, here you
Speaker 1: can see them destroying food warehouses in northern Gaza, an
Speaker 1: action documented by an IDF soldier who proudly posted his
Speaker 1: contributions to the famine war crime on social media. In
Speaker 1: addition to destroying homes and other civilian structures, the IDF
Speaker 1: has also made a point of raising gosen farmland, destroying
Speaker 1: greenhouses and olive groves so that Gaza's already limited food
Speaker 1: production capacity is further degraded for the long term, starvation
Speaker 1: now and starvation forever. Well, why focus on all of
Speaker 1: that ugliness when we could instead feast our eyes upon
Speaker 1: the gourmet treats these soldiers were able to scrape together.
Speaker 1: Behold their delight at stealing Gaza family provisions. Soldier Nadab says,
Speaker 1: the Gazen kitchen is rich in spices. In every house,
Speaker 1: you find a lot of mixed spices like you find
Speaker 1: in chops. There's lots of lentils, so we did a
Speaker 1: lot of cooking with lentils. In every house we were in,
Speaker 1: there were olives they had made, which we tasted. There
Speaker 1: is olive oil in every house and it helps diversify
Speaker 1: and make the food tasty. There is this spice sauce
Speaker 1: that is very good. Sometimes we come across special things.
Speaker 1: Suddenly we find garlic and we make pasta with garlic
Speaker 1: and tomato. I came across caramelasses which we added to porrige,
Speaker 1: and that was delicious, so lovely for them. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: Gossans who have survived the terror of bombardment and knock,
Speaker 1: but two point zero have told reporters that they have
Speaker 1: been reduced to eating grass. Now, Harats, it's not the
Speaker 1: worst Israeli news outlet. Actually, it's one of the best.
Speaker 1: They've done important, and they've done courageous reporting that we
Speaker 1: have oftentimes relied on that even Harats could casually publish.
Speaker 1: This appalling, repellent trash speaks to just how thoroughly Palestinians
Speaker 1: have been dehumanized, how blinded Israeli society is by apartheid
Speaker 1: in militarism, and how oblivious they are to the way
Speaker 1: the rest of the world views their actions with utter
Speaker 1: and complete revulsion and saga. I think it's a bit
Speaker 1: of a tell that they at least knew.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 4: All right, saga are we looking at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Perhaps the most irksome thing about the debate around Ukraine
Speaker 2: funding is how completely unmoored it is from reality. Ukraine,
Speaker 2: which is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth,
Speaker 2: is suddenly the frontline of democracy. We should support Ukraine
Speaker 2: also so that we don't have to fight a future
Speaker 2: war with Russia, or we must supply Ukraine now because
Speaker 2: they're right on the cusp of victory. Now. I've done
Speaker 2: multiple monologues about those first two propositions and why they're ridiculous.
Speaker 2: But let's really focus on the final part here. What
Speaker 2: exact difference would another sixty six billion dollars to Ukraine
Speaker 2: actually make on the ground. Let's focus on some major
Speaker 2: developments in the Ukrainian military to see who exactly that
Speaker 2: we are supplying. Just days before the Senate passed the
Speaker 2: Ukraine aid bill, President Zelenski fired the overwhelmingly popular head
Speaker 2: of the Ukrainian military Forces, General Valerie Zaluni. The critical
Speaker 2: difference between the two was Zeluni's crime of telling the truth.
Speaker 2: The split between the two happened after he was too
Speaker 2: frank in a recent Economist interview where he admitted that
Speaker 2: the war was a stalemate between Ukraine and Russia and
Speaker 2: that absence some major change in conditions on the ground,
Speaker 2: very little would change in the future. For this crime,
Speaker 2: Zelenski not only fired him and eliminated a man with
Speaker 2: a ninety two percent approval rating in the country who
Speaker 2: could plausibly have challenged him for leadership in the future
Speaker 2: if things went south. In his place, he has now
Speaker 2: put in a new top general named Alexander Sirski. Sirski's
Speaker 2: pedigree in Ukraine is this. He led a long time
Speaker 2: ago to successful counter offensive in the early days of
Speaker 2: the Ukraine War, but since has now earned a nickname
Speaker 2: inside the country by the armed forces. The people he
Speaker 2: now commands. That nickname is the Butcher. He has that
Speaker 2: nickname because he is the one responsible for the idiotic
Speaker 2: and murderous last stand in the city of Bachmat earlier
Speaker 2: last year. Sirski, who has educated at the military Academy
Speaker 2: in Moscow, has embraced fully Soviet style war of attrition
Speaker 2: tactics in a war which he put on full display
Speaker 2: in the Bachwent battle. The problem is that he forgot
Speaker 2: he does not have the Soviet industrial might at his back,
Speaker 2: and he wasted tens of billions of dollars of US weapons, ammunition,
Speaker 2: and perhaps most importantly, thousands of Ukrainian professional soldiers' lives,
Speaker 2: only to end up losing the entire battle. The so
Speaker 2: called Butcher shows us no signs that he's changing his tactics,
Speaker 2: which means this an extra sixty six billion to Ukraine
Speaker 2: is a check to this man to continue throwing Ukrainian
Speaker 2: lives into a meat grinder with no discernible goal. For
Speaker 2: a preview of what we could be funding if any
Speaker 2: dollars continue to flow into this country, look at what
Speaker 2: Sirski is doing right now. Ukraine is throwing its best
Speaker 2: troops into the city of Atvika in the hopes of
Speaker 2: staving off a so far successful Russian offensive. However, analysts
Speaker 2: are noting that loss has sustained so far by the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian forces in the battle.
Speaker 3: Indicate they are being billeted all together.
Speaker 2: The Ukrainians in barracks very tightly, despite frequently being targeted
Speaker 2: successfully by Russian forces. The surmised reason is dark they
Speaker 2: all have to be kept together to stop them from
Speaker 2: running away. In effect, they are prisoners of their state,
Speaker 2: being forced to defend the city in old school tactics,
Speaker 2: with no choice to.
Speaker 3: Flee of their own.
Speaker 2: Consider that at this point most of the able bodied
Speaker 2: patriotic men in Ukraine are either dead or maimed for life.
Speaker 2: The average age inside the Ukrainian military at this point
Speaker 2: is somewhere between forty and fifty years old.
Speaker 3: Consider that average means that there are many who are
Speaker 3: much older than that.
Speaker 2: Furthermore, multiple reports now indicate that Ukraine is resorting to
Speaker 2: literally kidnapping men off the street previously exempt from military
Speaker 2: forces and joining them to forcing them to join up.
Speaker 2: More So, it is clear the Ukrainian enthusiasm to fight
Speaker 2: is waning amongst the surviving able bodied men.
Speaker 3: In estimated six hundred.
Speaker 2: And fifty many thousand men of conscription age have fled
Speaker 2: the country illegally. I can personally attest through my own
Speaker 2: recent travels in Hungary and Austria. The streets are crawling
Speaker 2: with Ukrainians and it is an open secret that rich
Speaker 2: Ukrainian men have been living outside the country now in
Speaker 2: luxury for two years straight. They have no intention to
Speaker 2: go back and fight. What brings us to a final point,
Speaker 2: Ukraine does not have a major weapons and ammunition problem.
Speaker 2: It has a man power problem. Every dollar and bullet
Speaker 2: shipped East is going to prolong a conflict with the
Speaker 2: most predictable end of all time. The only question how
Speaker 2: much more bloodshed and how many more poor and mentally
Speaker 2: disabled people will be caught in the crossfire. In the meantime,
Speaker 2: the humanitarian thing to do is to stop military aid
Speaker 2: and pressure both sides to a negotiated solution. President Putin
Speaker 2: of Russia recently told Tucker Carlson that if aid does
Speaker 2: stop flowing to Ukraine, he would consider a peace deal
Speaker 2: with the United States.
Speaker 3: Maybe he's lying. There's only one way to find out, though.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately this was immediately shot down by the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: who seemed to believe that there is some rosy alternative
Speaker 2: ahead where the grim truth is now clear for us
Speaker 2: all to see. Ukraine needs to accept their victory is
Speaker 2: being able to survive with intact territory at all. The
Speaker 2: sooner that we relieve them of their delusions of grandeur,
Speaker 2: the sooner that we can restore peace not only to
Speaker 2: the world, but to save untold numbers of Ukrainian lives.
Speaker 3: I mean, Christal, it's stunning, like the Butcher.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, guys, thank you guy so much for watching.
Speaker 3: We really appreciate you.
Speaker 2: If you can support our work here too, breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: If there's any breaking news, we'll break it down for
Speaker 2: you over the weekend. Otherwise, we will see you all
Speaker 2: on Monday.