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 1: So we have some very worrying indications of a potentially
Speaker 1: massive escalation in Israel's war against Lebanon. But before we
Speaker 1: get to that, we also have some really striking video
Speaker 1: of Israel, for some reason, using a flaming medieval tree baschet.
Speaker 1: True betray bachet? Is that how you say it's our chet?
Speaker 1: For Trevishe It's like that. You'll see it in just
Speaker 1: a second. But for those who are just listening, it's
Speaker 1: like the catapult thing with like a flaming ball that
Speaker 1: you might associate with some you know, Monty Python movie,
Speaker 1: or like Vikings trying to storm a castle hundreds of
Speaker 1: years ago.
Speaker 4: Let's take a look at this.
Speaker 5: We see several Israeli soldiers hurling a flaming projectile over
Speaker 5: a concrete wall using the trebuchet, the type of wooden
Speaker 5: catapult used in the Middle Ages and even before that.
Speaker 5: What makes this unusual is that Israel takes pride in
Speaker 5: being a high tech nation. The Israeli military told us
Speaker 5: that the use of the trebuchet was an isolated incident
Speaker 5: aimed at clearing a thicket where his Bellah militants could
Speaker 5: hide near the border. But Israeli reserves we spoke to,
Speaker 5: told us that they saw it being used earlier in
Speaker 5: the war.
Speaker 1: All right, Zager, what can you tell us about the
Speaker 1: history of this weapon and why Israel might be using
Speaker 1: it now when, as this narrator points out, they have
Speaker 1: a lot of high tech weaponry.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Tony, you might be using now? I cannot answer
Speaker 2: that question. We've done some preliminary research here on the show.
Speaker 2: Catapults were certainly used in the First World War by
Speaker 2: Indian soldiers actually in the trenches and at the Battle
Speaker 2: of Gallipoli. There were a few that were issued to
Speaker 2: the British I guess the the Royal soldiers fighting for
Speaker 2: the King that were used. But at a hand level,
Speaker 2: the actual trebushe the thing the only thing I can find,
Speaker 2: and again this is back in the Nafghan research, is
Speaker 2: a trebushe usage at the Battle of Teno cheek Laan
Speaker 2: by Hernan Cortes's troops against the Aztecs.
Speaker 3: And that was in the fifteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: So I believe the trebuchet really went out of fashion
Speaker 2: as larger siege guns became popular, like big cannons. If
Speaker 2: you think about let's say, like the Ottomans marching on
Speaker 2: Vienna some of their major conquests and the major sixteen
Speaker 2: hundreds also in terms of the way the Ottomans were
Speaker 2: able to conquer con Stantinople, the larger cannons and siege
Speaker 2: guns basically replaced the usage of the trebuchet, which was
Speaker 2: really popular invented by the Chinese, I think with gunpowder,
Speaker 2: then used by the Mongols basically against the Chinese, spread
Speaker 2: across Europe by the Mongols. When several battles like Samar Khan,
Speaker 2: there's a few others people can go and look into.
Speaker 2: The farthest back that we can find, the real confirmed
Speaker 2: use is the Battle of Tenom chief Line, although probably
Speaker 2: somebody can fact check me and find some usage in
Speaker 2: the interim three hundred years.
Speaker 3: But yeah, there's no explanation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was there in twenty twenty four. There really
Speaker 2: is no explanation. This is but done by geeks at
Speaker 2: like re enactments. This is not something usually used in battle, right.
Speaker 1: So I guess since we already had the medieval siege
Speaker 1: in Gaza, they just wanted to get all the medieval
Speaker 1: esthetic and vibes going as well with this. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and move on to the news with
Speaker 1: regards to potential escalation in Lebanon of Israel's war against Hesblo.
Speaker 1: You can put this up on the screen so it
Speaker 1: appears this is Martaza. Hussein tweeted the sound by a
Speaker 1: set to green light a major Israeli war on Lebanon,
Speaker 1: the destruction from which is likely to send another wave
Speaker 1: of mass migration to Europe at a time this is
Speaker 1: already a crisis. Only France is trying to intervene, but
Speaker 1: they don't have capacity to stop it. He links to
Speaker 1: an article which I believe is in Haretz, talking about
Speaker 1: how Defense Minister you'll have Galant rules out joining an
Speaker 1: initiative promoted by Emmanuel macrona which France, the US and
Speaker 1: Israel would form a contact group to work on defusing
Speaker 1: escalating tensions with Hesbel on the northern border. Quote, as
Speaker 1: we fight a just war defending our people. France has
Speaker 1: adopted hostile policies against Israel.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: In doing so, France ignores the atrocities committed by Hamas
Speaker 1: against Israeli children, women and men. Israel will not be
Speaker 1: a party to the trilateral framework proposed by France.
Speaker 4: He writes.
Speaker 1: Let's go out to the next piece, because we have
Speaker 1: the IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari directly threatening, saying that Hezbela
Speaker 1: is quote bringing us to the brink of escalation. Here's
Speaker 1: the full quote. Hesbela's increasing aggression is bringing us to
Speaker 1: the break of what could be a wider escalation, one
Speaker 1: that could have devastating consequences for Lebanon and the entire region.
Speaker 4: That sounds very much like a threat.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say, when we say we will
Speaker 1: not let October seven happen again on any one of
Speaker 1: our borders, we mean it.
Speaker 4: One way or another.
Speaker 1: We will ensure this ethan secure return of Israeli to
Speaker 1: their homes in northern Israel that is not.
Speaker 4: Up for negotiation.
Speaker 1: So soccer as best I can tell, you have a
Speaker 1: very familiar dynamic playing out here, which is Biden administration
Speaker 1: continues to send envoys to the region to try to hey,
Speaker 1: let's not do this full, full war against Hezbola.
Speaker 4: This could be really bad.
Speaker 1: But Bibi Netanyahu, who now, by the way, this morning
Speaker 1: just officially dissolved the war cabinet after Benny Gantz exited,
Speaker 1: bib Netna who has every intention and every political motivation
Speaker 1: to keep going. And so even if the US sort
Speaker 1: of like meekly accepts at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they're not going to do anything which effectively serves as
Speaker 1: a green light for Israel, as it has in every
Speaker 1: other instance up to this point.
Speaker 3: Well, it's very troubling.
Speaker 2: As I always say, this would basically make the Gaza
Speaker 2: War look like child's play because Hesbola is an actual,
Speaker 2: very strong military force. I mean, it's effectively stronger than
Speaker 2: many nation states that are out there. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. As you allude to Crystal,
Speaker 2: the Israeli military say that they Hezbola is bringing them
Speaker 2: to the brink of escalation. But if you read further,
Speaker 2: there has been tit for tat action that they cite
Speaker 2: within this piece for basically the course of the entire war,
Speaker 2: all the way back from the very first week. Remember
Speaker 2: that huge portions and this is what they talk about
Speaker 2: in here of northern Israel remain evacuated. It's the largest
Speaker 2: internal evacuation in the history of the State of Israel.
Speaker 2: You also have a lot more deaths really per capita
Speaker 2: of the IDF as a result of Hezbola fire than
Speaker 2: anything compared to Hamas. Now, somehow, you know, there's been
Speaker 2: some sort of cap on the violence there between the
Speaker 2: two sides for now. Nousrella famously gave that speech, I
Speaker 2: believe it was in the early days of the war.
Speaker 2: He basically said, we're not going to be party to
Speaker 2: the war in Gaza. But the Israeli military is also
Speaker 2: using kind of the cover of all of this chaos
Speaker 2: and conflict to go and to annihilate Hesbola targets both
Speaker 2: in Lebanon and in Syria, which then invites some of
Speaker 2: the tit for tat escalation and it results a lot
Speaker 2: of Idea soldiers have actually died as a result of
Speaker 2: this spire. So it's only really a matter of time
Speaker 2: if we're going to continue to continue the strikes here
Speaker 2: in Lebanon to drive up the temperature that some sort
Speaker 2: of miscalculation is effectively inevitable in all of us. And
Speaker 2: it's clear too that it may not even be miscalculation
Speaker 2: on the Israeli side. The BB, you know, BB's party,
Speaker 2: they want this war. They want to use this as
Speaker 2: a final opportunity to erase all of Israel's so called
Speaker 2: threats here in the region, or at least, you know,
Speaker 2: with regards to Hesbola.
Speaker 3: They want to continue the war in the momentum.
Speaker 2: You could almost think of it like invading Iraq after
Speaker 2: what happened in nine to eleven. Honestly a perfect example
Speaker 2: political purposes using it as cover. But it could be
Speaker 2: only that in this case that this time the US
Speaker 2: could actually try and to keep this, you know, or
Speaker 2: to avoid this conflict. It doesn't seem like that all
Speaker 2: the stops are ready to be put there, and if
Speaker 2: that doesn't happen now, then it's very likely it'll just
Speaker 2: happen already.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, just as a reminder to people, Bella
Speaker 1: to take hostages was not involved in October seventh, and
Speaker 1: this conflict between Israel and Hasbla will not end until
Speaker 1: the Gaza onslaught is over, and US officials are acknowledging
Speaker 1: that as well. I mean, that is the core of
Speaker 1: the problem here. We're going to talk about the hoofs
Speaker 1: and the next block. That is the core of the
Speaker 1: issue there as well. It's the core of the you know, escalation.
Speaker 1: She has been very frightening vis a vis Iran as well,
Speaker 1: combined with direct Israeli you know, outrageous provocations with striking
Speaker 1: the Iranian embassy in Damascus. So not only is there
Speaker 1: this risk of a broader and even more deadly war,
Speaker 1: there's also the risk of the US getting pulled directly
Speaker 1: into this, which again is something that bbnta who very
Speaker 1: much wants, and I don't think anyone can feel confident
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden has the fortitude to reject or withstand,
Speaker 1: so all very very troubling indications and something to keep
Speaker 1: a close eye on. At the same point, Benny Gantz,
Speaker 1: who you know I mentioned before, was he was in
Speaker 1: the war cabinet. He just recently resigned over you know,
Speaker 1: his concerns about the lack of a hostage deal, the
Speaker 1: lack in particular of a plan for the quote unquote
Speaker 1: day after in Gaza and the fact that Bib Netanya,
Speaker 1: who is doing everything for his own political gain versus
Speaker 1: the interest of even you know, Israeli citizens. He's been
Speaker 1: giving some interviews putting a finer point on some of
Speaker 1: these some of these realities that he saw up close
Speaker 1: and personal serving in the War Cabinet.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: He confirmed that Bib blocked his own hostage deal, stating
Speaker 1: he approved a plan to return hostages and did nothing
Speaker 1: to promote it due to political considerations Netna who did
Speaker 1: not advance the matter strongly enough. So just to underscore again,
Speaker 1: Benny Ganz, who is no dove here, who you know
Speaker 1: very much supported the wars part of the war cabin
Speaker 1: has no issue with the level of civilian death in Mayhem,
Speaker 1: says that Bibi is is one of the key actors
Speaker 1: responsible for block a hostage yield that could bring those
Speaker 1: Israeli hostages home. So to hear from that from him
Speaker 1: very noteworthy. He also apparently refuted claims of being a
Speaker 1: mouthpiece for the Biden administration, saying, quote, I am not
Speaker 1: an envoy of the US government. Stop inventing such claims.
Speaker 1: He also expressed regret that Bibe didn't utilize his connections
Speaker 1: with the Americans, noting quote they in the US were
Speaker 1: impressed with how I.
Speaker 4: Am more militant than Netanya.
Speaker 1: Who, So you know, that's the nature of the debate there,
Speaker 1: him positioning himself is more warlike than BB Netna who himself.
Speaker 1: Reflecting on the day after a potential resolution, Gant said,
Speaker 1: Palestinian forces will receive international support. We told bib that
Speaker 1: we needed to deal with the day after because it
Speaker 1: is a complex matter that won't solve itself. The fact
Speaker 1: we didn't deal with it only delayed the security. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: a vacuum in chaos will be created and the soldiers
Speaker 1: will continue to fight, which, of course, for BB and
Speaker 1: others who want to forestall any sort of reckoning over
Speaker 1: their own security failures on October seventh, and BBE, who
Speaker 1: wants to also keep his own ass out of prison
Speaker 1: potential corruption charges. Continuing the war is of course the point,
Speaker 1: and the chaos and the need to you know, go
Speaker 1: back in only helps to serve BB Netnyahu even as
Speaker 1: it does not serve certainly, you know, it is disastrous
Speaker 1: for Palestinians and Gaza, disastrous for the world, and the
Speaker 1: potential escalation that we were just talking about Visa vi
Speaker 1: A run and Lebanon, et cetera. And also disastrous for
Speaker 1: Israelis and their current and future security situation and their
Speaker 1: goal which is overwhelmingly shared by the Israeli population of
Speaker 1: returning the hostages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's going to be the major political weapon
Speaker 2: against him, is that any acknowledgement bout people who are
Speaker 2: in the war cabinet, And now the war habit has
Speaker 2: been dissolved, We're like, yeah, he didn't do enough to
Speaker 2: free the hostages. That is just an absolute electoral, massive
Speaker 2: problem for him in any future election. But there has
Speaker 2: to be a future election, and that is something that
Speaker 2: he's working over.
Speaker 6: Time.
Speaker 2: A war would be very good for him, you know,
Speaker 2: can you stay, Oh, it's not the right time.
Speaker 3: We could talk about that after the war.
Speaker 2: It's day two hundred and fifty four of the war
Speaker 2: or whatever, two hundred fifty five, I guess now at
Speaker 2: this point, so at what point, at what point maybe
Speaker 2: are we allowed to discuss this? And he wants to
Speaker 2: make sure that point is as far away as possible.
Speaker 2: Every day he gets to live another day.
Speaker 1: Yes, So at the same time, we had to share
Speaker 1: with you some of the tenor of discourse on Hebrew
Speaker 1: language television on Israel's most watched news show, he can
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen because it's in Hebrew.
Speaker 4: Let me just read and by this. So this was
Speaker 4: confirmed by Herretz.
Speaker 1: And other Israeli outlets that this is what was actually said.
Speaker 1: This individual, who is a former LACUD MP, invokes Hitler
Speaker 1: to justify Gaza resettlement. He says, as Hitler said, I
Speaker 1: cannot live if one Jew is left. We can't live
Speaker 1: here if one Islamo Nazi remains in Gaza. So sagur,
Speaker 1: we now have an analyst here former LACUD, which is
Speaker 1: again Benjamin Netnahu's party, former LACUD, favorably invoking Hitler's ideology
Speaker 1: to justify.
Speaker 4: His view of what should be done in God. Like yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean it speaks for itself.
Speaker 2: True stranger than fiction, I guess you could say. And
Speaker 2: on the most popular news show also in the channel.
Speaker 2: This is what I always am shocked by with them,
Speaker 2: is like they really don't think that there are people
Speaker 2: who speak both languages and who are opposed to them
Speaker 2: and can't do hit a very basic translate. But yeah,
Speaker 2: apparently they think I mean, look at the same time,
Speaker 2: like they've mostly gotten away with whatever they want to
Speaker 2: so far, so why should they care about any supposed consequences.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's right. I mean, while we need to have
Speaker 1: like a national crisis. Every time there's a sign on
Speaker 1: a college campus that's you know, a little off putting
Speaker 1: to some community or another, and this guy goes on
Speaker 1: is literally like, hey, we should do to God. Though
Speaker 1: what Hitler did to the Jews, he had it right
Speaker 1: with that. It's like, what how do we get here?
Speaker 1: And I think it's not that they don't realize that
Speaker 1: we can hear them. It's that, as you said, there's
Speaker 1: been total impunity. None of this has been with any
Speaker 1: sort of real consequence, at least visa b the US,
Speaker 1: and second of all, or whatever domestic constituency this individual
Speaker 1: is trying to please.
Speaker 4: They probably agreed it.
Speaker 1: Probably yeah, I mean, he knows the audience he's talking to, so,
Speaker 1: you know, for his own domestic political purposes and to
Speaker 1: get invited back on what is apparently Israel's most watched
Speaker 1: news show. This is the type of outrageous insanity that
Speaker 1: you put out into the world. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: move on to the hoo Thies because we haven't talked
Speaker 1: about them for a while. But meanwhile, Hoofy action is
Speaker 1: ongoing with regard to attacking ships in the shipping lane.
Speaker 1: Lane's to try to, you know, put pressure in order
Speaker 1: to hopefully eventually end Israel's onslaugh onto Gaza.
Speaker 4: She doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction.
Speaker 1: News Nation actually did an interesting report talking about how
Speaker 1: significant a threat they've been, how effective they've been, as
Speaker 1: well as take a listen to what they found.
Speaker 6: The message from the United States Navy is clear, the
Speaker 6: whole world is underestimating. These are run backed, hoothy rebels
Speaker 6: in Yemen. They say that they are capable, they are
Speaker 6: well armed, and what is currently happening in the Red
Speaker 6: Sea and the Gulf of Aden is unprecedented and unlike
Speaker 6: anything they've seen before.
Speaker 3: How legitimate are their capabilities?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think people undersell the who these capability, This
Speaker 7: anti ship ballistic missile that is a game change. They're
Speaker 7: a legitimate terrorist organization and they conduct attacks almost daily
Speaker 7: out here.
Speaker 6: The Houthis have captured a ship, they have sunk a ship.
Speaker 6: They've also killed three sailors here in this region.
Speaker 1: They've got a lot of advanced weaponry that they've purchased
Speaker 1: or been delivered.
Speaker 4: From their friends in Iran, and they have no problem
Speaker 4: using it.
Speaker 3: I think our objective is to save lives, to put
Speaker 3: a very simple.
Speaker 6: So we just saw what's behind the store, which is
Speaker 6: the combat information centered From the second that one of
Speaker 6: those missiles has fired at this ship, there's a lot
Speaker 6: of decisions that need to be made, how to intercept,
Speaker 6: where to intercept, what kind of tools to be used.
Speaker 6: All of those decisions in some cases have to be
Speaker 6: made in a matter of seconds. You know that there
Speaker 6: are very legitimate adversaries.
Speaker 7: That are on the ground.
Speaker 6: What goes through your mind?
Speaker 8: I shot to you pretty much, just think about the
Speaker 8: mission itself launching into the pitch black and I at
Speaker 8: like two am going in there knowing that we were
Speaker 8: the tip to spear in the case you have.
Speaker 6: Nearly five thousand souls support here.
Speaker 3: What keeps you up at night?
Speaker 4: I'll tell you this, I keep the Hoothies up at night.
Speaker 1: So I Chine News Nation doing that report because here
Speaker 1: we are in an ongoing multi month long hot war
Speaker 1: effectively with the Hoofies, and it gets very little coverage
Speaker 1: and it does pose you know, grave us to our
Speaker 1: service members and also comes at a great costs. We
Speaker 1: tried to look for how much we've spent on this,
Speaker 1: and we have some dated numbers here which tells you
Speaker 1: how much interest the most of the process is taken
Speaker 1: in US.
Speaker 4: You can put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 4: from back in April.
Speaker 1: We had already spent a billion dollars in just in munitions,
Speaker 1: by the way, not even counting you know the cost
Speaker 1: of this mobilization countering the who they attacks. So you
Speaker 1: know yet another source of money, of risk of potential escalation.
Speaker 1: That all stems from our inability to exert any influence
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say inability, our unwillingness to exert any influence
Speaker 1: visa the Israel.
Speaker 2: Yes, it also that's Look, that's a billion dollars just
Speaker 2: in munitions. There's actually appropriated two point four extra billion
Speaker 2: just to cover the cost of replacing munitions. One issue
Speaker 2: I have with this is that just seems like you
Speaker 2: can snap your fingers and these munitions can just be replaced.
Speaker 2: This is extremely valuable technology, which we are of learning
Speaker 2: in the Ukraine conflict takes years to reproduced as a
Speaker 2: result of the dead industrial base here in the United States.
Speaker 2: So every time that we are firing a missile basically
Speaker 2: on behalf of the Israelis, we are taking one away
Speaker 2: from ourselves that could be used in a conflict which
Speaker 2: is actually relevant to our interests.
Speaker 3: Those over a billion dollars.
Speaker 2: By the way, the cost is approximately one point five
Speaker 2: million dollars per day to run the USS Eisenhower approximately,
Speaker 2: So just do the math. It's been out there for
Speaker 2: what couple hundred days? Well, that's a couple hundred mil.
Speaker 2: You got to pay, and think about all the maintenance costs,
Speaker 2: and you got to think about the opportunity cost too,
Speaker 2: of its deployment versus there versus maybe somewhere else. You
Speaker 2: could see here, we're basically paying for this entire aircraft carrier,
Speaker 2: which is designed to protect US commerce on the high seas,
Speaker 2: to protect another nation as it carries out another war.
Speaker 3: Americans should ask questions about that. Is that worth it?
Speaker 3: Do you think that it's worth paying for that?
Speaker 2: Do you think it's worth putting people in the position
Speaker 2: where they could potentially be hit by an anti ship missile.
Speaker 2: If your son or daughter works or is an enlisted
Speaker 2: member of the US Navy, I would say no. I
Speaker 2: don't think that's worth it at all. But nobody ever
Speaker 2: gets to have this conversation. Like you said, the Press
Speaker 2: News Nation. Good for them, they at least went out there.
Speaker 2: What else do you notice about the News Nation interview too,
Speaker 2: There's a high level of concern by the dudes on
Speaker 2: those ships and the women as well.
Speaker 3: They're like, this is not gone away.
Speaker 2: They're like, we're in this shit every single day and
Speaker 2: it's not good. And sure we've won so far, but
Speaker 2: they only need to win once for it to be
Speaker 2: a major asymmetric victory. Just don't forget about that. You know,
Speaker 2: props to them, and they're being put in a tough position.
Speaker 2: But that's my thing is that the policy leaders here
Speaker 2: in Washington don't ask any questions about this. They just
Speaker 2: assume it's fine, blank check. Let's not even think about what.
Speaker 3: It looks like.
Speaker 2: And then if something bad happens in the future, maybe
Speaker 2: we could talk about it then.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just is such a representation of how
Speaker 1: we are this, you know, floundering over extended empire led
Speaker 1: by a feeble old man who is bumbling from one
Speaker 1: self made crisis of weakness to another. And you know, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: it's not only the political leaders that don't really seem
Speaker 1: to ask any questions, with very few exceptions, it's also
Speaker 1: in fact they just further this direction. You know, they
Speaker 1: embrace it wholeheartedly. It's also the press that, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a rare report that we've seen on what
Speaker 1: is even going on here at this point, so you know,
Speaker 1: that serves to help keep the public in the dark.
Speaker 1: And nonetheless, in spite of those efforts, you still see
Speaker 1: the public very unhappy with the direction of our unconditional
Speaker 1: support of Israel. You know, certainly Biden's face, as we
Speaker 1: covered before, having a lot of issues with the direction,
Speaker 1: and an overall sentiment of there's always money for more
Speaker 1: munitions to bomb the Hufi's and protect Israel, there's always
Speaker 1: money to ship to Ukraine, and there's never any interest
Speaker 1: in actually delivering for us here at home. At the
Speaker 1: same time, as I was mentioning, you know the lawmakers
Speaker 1: who are just you know, totally invested in this direction,
Speaker 1: with only a few very notable and you know, brave dissenters.
Speaker 1: At this point, we have yet another push for some
Speaker 1: sort of codifying anti Semitism censorship bill, this one coming
Speaker 1: directly from Hakeem Jeffries, who, of course the leader of
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the House, he's calling for passage of
Speaker 1: the quote Countering Anti Semitism Act, and Michael Tracy, who
Speaker 1: does such a great job of digging into these bills
Speaker 1: and highlighting what they mean. He says this bill would
Speaker 1: create a new National Coordinator to Counter Anti Semitism within
Speaker 1: the Executive Office of the President, to among other things,
Speaker 1: quote counter the spread of anti Semitism online, i e.
Speaker 1: He says, government co or censorship, including to impose and
Speaker 1: this is the language from the bill Accountability for Individuals.
Speaker 1: So Hakeem Jeffries, who I'm sure has probably blanket support
Speaker 1: among the Republicans in the House as well, and overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority support from the Democrats, looking to once again take
Speaker 1: further steps to directly codify censorship when it comes to
Speaker 1: their definition of quote unquote anti Semitism. And we already
Speaker 1: know soccer because we've covered the definition that they're using here.
Speaker 1: It effectively bans criticism of the Israeli government and smears
Speaker 1: those who would be critical as being anti Semites.
Speaker 2: Yeah, scary stuff, very scary, especially whenever you combine it
Speaker 2: with what's happening let's go to the next part because
Speaker 2: what we see here, and this was surprising, It says,
Speaker 2: for the first time since nineteen seventy two, the NDAA
Speaker 2: would automatically register all males age eighteen to twenty six
Speaker 2: for selective service in the military. So for the past
Speaker 2: fifty two years, you're actually required to register on your own,
Speaker 2: but compliance reportedly had been lagging in terms of selective service.
Speaker 2: They're switching it to automatic registration, presumably after significant pressure
Speaker 2: from the military.
Speaker 3: You read into that what you will.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say it's some grand conspiracy or whatever,
Speaker 2: but you know, start to get a little nervous anytime
Speaker 2: we start to see things.
Speaker 3: Like this is really hey, what's going on? Why?
Speaker 2: And I can tell you why, which is that enlistment
Speaker 2: right now is an all time low in the US military.
Speaker 3: Young people do not want to enlist.
Speaker 2: They do not agree either with foreign policy, or they
Speaker 2: think the incentives are not even close to where they
Speaker 2: were or and honestly, this is sad, but most people
Speaker 2: are just way too fat to join the military and
Speaker 2: not physically fit. So you have a combination. It's like
Speaker 2: a poly crisis. And it's not me saying this. You
Speaker 2: can ask any individual service and look at their reports
Speaker 2: to Congress about enlistment.
Speaker 3: What do you do, well, you start to put pressure
Speaker 3: for selective service.
Speaker 2: And let's just say, the last time that we saw
Speaker 2: this in the nineteen sixties, it didn't go so well.
Speaker 3: We'll see how it sager.
Speaker 4: You'll love this.
Speaker 1: That was a Democrat who was sort of leading this
Speaker 1: charge to get this into the NBAA And.
Speaker 4: By the way, there isn't.
Speaker 1: The expectation is that the Senate has other issues with
Speaker 1: the NBA, not necessarily this one, but there's an expectation
Speaker 1: they're not going to take up this bill.
Speaker 4: Just to be clear, But you'll love this.
Speaker 1: Democrat who is pushing this uses social justice language to
Speaker 1: justify it. She says this will allow us to rededicate resources.
Speaker 1: Basically that means money towards readiness and mobilization rather than
Speaker 1: towards education and advertising campaigns driven to register people. And
Speaker 1: she says it will ensure any future military draft is
Speaker 1: fair and equitable.
Speaker 2: Oh good, Yes, that's that's exactly right. That's what we need.
Speaker 2: We need an equitable draft. I mean, if we're to
Speaker 2: have a draft, I'm in favor of an equitable draft.
Speaker 2: But I'd rather just have no draft, but.
Speaker 4: Not have a draft to how about that one?
Speaker 1: It's just all right, incredible, you can't make it up,
Speaker 1: as you said.
Speaker 3: Just wow.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, we got Brianna Joyed Gray standing by.
Speaker 2: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: We are very happy to be joined today by Brianna
Speaker 1: joy Gray, formerly of the Hill and currently most importantly
Speaker 1: host of the Bad Faith podcast, which everyone should subscribe to.
Speaker 1: But it's always great to see you.
Speaker 9: Always a pleasure, Chrystilton Sager, Good to see you.
Speaker 1: So, I know you've told this story a number of
Speaker 1: times at this point, but I would really like you
Speaker 1: to go back a little bit. We played on our
Speaker 1: show the you know, alleged eye rolling incident, along with
Speaker 1: additional parts of that interview so people could get more
Speaker 1: of a fullsome sense of it and what you were
Speaker 1: dealing with there, which I thought was an impossible situation.
Speaker 4: But I'd love it if you could go.
Speaker 1: Back a little bit because I think our audience are
Speaker 1: very interested in how these forces of censorship operate over
Speaker 1: time and the type of pressure that you've been under
Speaker 1: at the Hill, you know, escalating post October seven, but
Speaker 1: even before that.
Speaker 9: Perhaps, Yeah, that's a really good question, and I'm glad
Speaker 9: your focus there, because I do think that in the
Speaker 9: immediate aftermath of the firing and the kind of rationale
Speaker 9: that were presented for why it happened, the larger story
Speaker 9: of the fact that this has been going on for
Speaker 9: months and months, you know, lighter versions of censorships kind
Speaker 9: of the threat of the actual termination has been happening.
Speaker 9: You're right, before October seventh, there were retentions, but most
Speaker 9: certainly after October seventh. We all know that Katie Halper
Speaker 9: was let go from the Hill over year before October
Speaker 9: seventh for doing a radar in which she described Israel
Speaker 9: as an apartheid state and cited innumerable sources for that claim,
Speaker 9: including Bet Selim and other sources within Israel. And despite
Speaker 9: the fact that she's a Jewish woman citing Israeli sources
Speaker 9: for what is broadly considered to be a widely understood
Speaker 9: and accepted description in the international community. She was told
Speaker 9: that for non ideological reasons, right, they claimed it was
Speaker 9: for non ideological reasons, that there was something about the
Speaker 9: form the style of her radar that wasn't up to
Speaker 9: the Hills standards, and that that meant that she could
Speaker 9: never appear on the Hill again, not just as a
Speaker 9: guest host, but in any capacity. So obviously that makes
Speaker 9: no sense at all. And for me, the writing was
Speaker 9: on the wall, and when Katie and I talked about
Speaker 9: what I should do afterward and how I should conduct
Speaker 9: myself on the Hill afterward, it was very clear that
Speaker 9: the only justification for me staying there was to be
Speaker 9: a sort of a test case and to continue to
Speaker 9: press those buttons, in particularly the one about coverage, critical
Speaker 9: coverage of Israel, until what we ultimately knew was going
Speaker 9: to happen actually did manifest, which is that censorship would
Speaker 9: come into effect and after October seventh.
Speaker 4: I mean, I've mentioned.
Speaker 9: This in other places, but I think it's really important
Speaker 9: to note there were very clear instances of ideological censorship,
Speaker 9: for example saying that Norm Finkelstein could not come on
Speaker 9: the show, and there were softer versus the censorship, where
Speaker 9: frequently the language Israel block would be used to describe
Speaker 9: our Israel coverage for the day, the idea that all
Speaker 9: of the news that pertained what was going on in
Speaker 9: Israel and Gaza related to the crisis could be confined
Speaker 9: to one segment out of eight to ten that were
Speaker 9: filmed in a day. And when I push back on that, saying,
Speaker 9: we never describe it as like a Tucker Carlson block,
Speaker 9: or a COVID block, or a Joe Rogan block, or
Speaker 9: an economy block or Joe Biden block, any other of
Speaker 9: the topics that we cover. You know, if there's an
Speaker 9: appetite for it, we understand what the audience likes, and
Speaker 9: we understand the news value and will weigh those things
Speaker 9: and decide how to proceed accordingly. They said, oh no, no, no,
Speaker 9: it's not We're not really talking about an Israel block.
Speaker 9: I swear, But again and again that phraseology would come up,
Speaker 9: and everyone's speaking of eye rolls.
Speaker 4: Everybody in the.
Speaker 9: Room would roll their eyes whenever I proposed topics that
Speaker 9: were related to Gaza.
Speaker 2: See, this is very interesting, and just so for clarity purposes,
Speaker 2: Hill Is transferred ownership after Crystal and I left there.
Speaker 2: So some of this sounds familiar. Some of this is
Speaker 2: a little bit more explicit. So you're telling us even
Speaker 2: though your name is behind you. It's like Rising with
Speaker 2: Breanna and Robbie that they are explicitly programming and telling
Speaker 2: you who you can have on the show, who you
Speaker 2: can have on the show and explicitly defining blocks like,
Speaker 2: for example, people who are watching our show, those what
Speaker 2: we would refer to as blocks binos. The only people
Speaker 2: who decided her Crystal, me and the editorial team. But
Speaker 2: for you, you were actually being told and pigeonholed where
Speaker 2: things were.
Speaker 3: That's what was happening. Yeah, in the scenes.
Speaker 4: Part of the issue was that the editorial team had changed.
Speaker 9: So let's say six months ago, the end of last
Speaker 9: year beginning of this year, we had a different producer
Speaker 9: who was lovely and supportive and really knew how to
Speaker 9: run a good show. And there were these problems existed
Speaker 9: more in terms of, you know, Robby and I would
Speaker 9: disagree on screen, but to the extent that whatever pressures
Speaker 9: from you know, higher up, were filtering down. She did
Speaker 9: a really good job of sort of being the bulwark
Speaker 9: against that sort of editorial pressure. Eventually, though, that pressure
Speaker 9: became so great, and the pressure on mini staffers became
Speaker 9: so great that between January and the time that I left,
Speaker 9: everybody was basically either pushed out or fired. So there
Speaker 9: were legacy guys that worked in the control room, you know,
Speaker 9: did sound intech that you two both know that were
Speaker 9: there in January, and we're not there by the time
Speaker 9: that I left. We took a photograph in January when
Speaker 9: I think an intern was leaving, and Robbie and I
Speaker 9: remarked months later that zero people in that photograph were
Speaker 9: still employed at The Hill except for the.
Speaker 4: Two of us.
Speaker 9: So there was a big staff change that I think
Speaker 9: also made it so that the pressures were more acute,
Speaker 9: precisely because the new producer was hired, but they said
Speaker 9: was it was described as to have more editorial control
Speaker 9: over the show.
Speaker 4: You know, I might not be frasing that exactly, but more.
Speaker 9: Editorial input and to bring Rising in line with the
Speaker 9: Hill kind of writing side more generally speaking, which, as
Speaker 9: you might remember, I mean there was there's always been
Speaker 9: this tension between The Hill as a new written news
Speaker 9: source in the tone of it, and the very kind
Speaker 9: of opinion driven show of Rising. And it always has
Speaker 9: felt like there was almost an embarrassment by the Hill
Speaker 9: to have this show that was successful but very tonally
Speaker 9: different than the kind of news they put out over
Speaker 9: at the Hill. And it seemed like the more they
Speaker 9: ratcheted up their attempts to bring Rising into conformity at
Speaker 9: the same time that I think my coverage of Gaza
Speaker 9: and Israel became particularly a thorn in their side.
Speaker 1: Well, some of those pieces, even though there's new management
Speaker 1: now very familiar to us. And you know, obviously we
Speaker 1: launched the show Rising Dagera and I am part of
Speaker 1: what was important to us in our worldview, as we
Speaker 1: did position it as a place where you could have
Speaker 1: dissenting voices and opinions that weren't heard other places. And
Speaker 1: The Hill has sought both to profit off of that
Speaker 1: brand as a free speech platform, but also to correll
Speaker 1: you in particular, but obviously Katie Helper, I'm sure others
Speaker 1: as well into what is actually you know, a comfortable
Speaker 1: lane for them. And you know, I think that's worth spelling,
Speaker 1: and I love to hear you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more about how that operated and if there were other
Speaker 1: topics where you felt similar pressure other guests that were
Speaker 1: similarly banned. But the other thing that I think is
Speaker 1: worth noting for people here is that, you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at the Hills Channel, your segments on Israel
Speaker 1: were frequently some of the highest performers, So there was
Speaker 1: a you know, there were forces operating here. There was
Speaker 1: an upset here that went beyond you know, the quote
Speaker 1: unquote ratings, which from that perspective, it was your coverage
Speaker 1: was very successful. It was one of the things that
Speaker 1: people were most interested in hearing from Rising at this
Speaker 1: point in the show's history. So I'd love your sense
Speaker 1: of Okay, So how where does that pressure come from?
Speaker 1: Did you face similar pressure on other issues or was
Speaker 1: it really sort of unique to this one nation state
Speaker 1: and one conflict.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think that's such an important point because, look, you
Speaker 9: are obviously you you are the blueprints right for what
Speaker 9: we were doing. You know that there are it's a
Speaker 9: right left show. There are obviously topics that you're more
Speaker 9: excited about, Crystal from a leftist perspective, and Sager more
Speaker 9: that you're excited about from right leading perspective, and the
Speaker 9: same is true for us. And there are topics that
Speaker 9: you know, I'm not wild about talking about because frankly,
Speaker 9: as a leftist, I feel like there are distractions from
Speaker 9: the material issues that are more core to my political project.
Speaker 9: But I understand that it's a show and the audience
Speaker 9: has its own tastes, and I understand even though I
Speaker 9: don't think it's maybe the most important thing in the world.
Speaker 4: If you know, if if Joe.
Speaker 9: Rogan and Tucker Carlson are in a room together somewhere
Speaker 9: at Davos, then those are all the key words that
Speaker 9: are going to light up the scoreboard, and that we're
Speaker 9: going to cover it. It's not that big a deal,
Speaker 9: and you just go along with it and you get
Speaker 9: a little your stuff.
Speaker 4: I get a little my stuff.
Speaker 9: That's the compromise, particularly because I know that some of
Speaker 9: that stuff really really does well. You know, I'm not
Speaker 9: I'm not going to sit here and ignore the reality
Speaker 9: that they're ready a business and I am benefiting from
Speaker 9: the ability to be on this platform and to say
Speaker 9: what I want to say what I want to say it.
Speaker 4: But then there's, you know, there's the give and take.
Speaker 9: What was so frustrating for me, in particular, was that
Speaker 9: the things that are of interest to me were frequently
Speaker 9: not the big ticket winners. Right me, covering some Starbucks
Speaker 9: labor dispute isn't necessarily going to get us, you know,
Speaker 9: two hundred thousand views. But when it came to Israel Palestine,
Speaker 9: for once, my kind of ideological interest happened to align
Speaker 9: where the audience's ideological interests were and Suddenly all the
Speaker 9: arguments that I had been confronted with about why we
Speaker 9: need to cover X, Y, and Z issue because it's
Speaker 9: good for business went out the window, and they seem
Speaker 9: to be working at cross purposes with their.
Speaker 4: Own economic agenda.
Speaker 9: And this went even further because there are you know,
Speaker 9: some other shows at the Hill that are less successful.
Speaker 9: This is no slight to anybody who's working there. I
Speaker 9: encourage those shows to keep, you know, working at it
Speaker 9: and trying to be successful.
Speaker 4: That's fine. But we were constantly.
Speaker 9: Being told that there were limited resources to hire staff
Speaker 9: that had been let go or who had left because
Speaker 9: how hard it was to work there with their little
Speaker 9: staff support. Right, It's like a self fulfilling prophecy. People leave,
Speaker 9: you don't hire a new staff, it becomes even more
Speaker 9: difficult for the old staff, the remaining staff to keep
Speaker 9: up with content. They had higher expectations on them without
Speaker 9: higher pay, and so then they leave, and it was
Speaker 9: a cycle that was building over time. We were told
Speaker 9: we couldn't hire a new staff at the same time
Speaker 9: that we saw other shows that weren't as successful just
Speaker 9: objectively and weren't bringing in the money being staffed up
Speaker 9: and resources being devoted to them in a way that
Speaker 9: didn't seem like it made very much sense.
Speaker 4: And what it always felt like to us was that because.
Speaker 9: Of the embarrassment around Rising, they were hoping that one
Speaker 9: of the more kind of typical staid news shows would
Speaker 9: become more successful and ultimately they would be justified and
Speaker 9: cutting ties with Rising. I do wonder sometimes if they
Speaker 9: really even care about the success of the show, if
Speaker 9: they're secretly hoping that doing things like firing Katie, firing me,
Speaker 9: firing Kim will kill the show, because then they have
Speaker 9: a justification for not just trashing what is so obviously
Speaker 9: a valuable property. And the one other point to the
Speaker 9: editorial control aspect of it. I was told when I
Speaker 9: joined the show that no matter what, the radars were sacrisanct, right,
Speaker 9: the video essays were sacrisanct, And in fact, about a
Speaker 9: year ago I had agreed to do go from three
Speaker 9: days a week to four if I didn't have to
Speaker 9: do radars because they're very time consuming.
Speaker 4: I said, fine trade off. Yeah, that's a fine trade off.
Speaker 9: But as they started trying to censor the Israel coverage,
Speaker 9: I went back to doing a lot of radars because
Speaker 9: I felt like that was the only way I could
Speaker 9: get more about what was going on in Gaza into
Speaker 9: the lineup every day, right. I didn't want to, but
Speaker 9: I felt frankly compelled to. At that point, I started
Speaker 9: getting pushed back from the new producer as to what
Speaker 9: was even going into my radar, and that really became
Speaker 9: a tipping point in the source of a lot of
Speaker 9: behind the scenes arguing, where it seemed like every single
Speaker 9: thing that happened on the show off scene, not even
Speaker 9: to mention what was happening on screen with Robbie, was
Speaker 9: so contentious and so stressful that it made it very, very,
Speaker 9: very difficult to put on a show.
Speaker 3: That's crazy. Yeah, I mean I've heard very similar things, Brianna.
Speaker 3: It's not just about you.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of stuff I've been hearing from behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, like you just said, about censorship, about meddling,
Speaker 2: about some of the control and I think, look, this
Speaker 2: could be tedious and almost inside baseball, but I think
Speaker 2: that people want to hear this because this is what's
Speaker 2: actually happening. This is why Chrystal and I left just
Speaker 2: by the way, but it's also this is how every
Speaker 2: network news show operates. This is just more in the open,
Speaker 2: because Brianna, you are somebody who also has an alternative path.
Speaker 2: You can speak out about this without suffering genuine repercussion.
Speaker 2: So what does it feel like now, you know, to
Speaker 2: be on the other sides, you feel more liberated?
Speaker 3: Are you happier? And how are you thinking about the.
Speaker 4: I mean, I will say I am very lucky in
Speaker 4: the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 9: But it's also true that I got hit with them
Speaker 9: hundreds of spam emails addressed to Patreon.
Speaker 4: They were sent to my.
Speaker 9: Bad faith account, I think unwittingly, but addressed to Patreon
Speaker 9: with this form letter begging Patreon to kick me off
Speaker 9: of the platform, right, And we have seen that kind
Speaker 9: of censorship from some of these kind of host platforms
Speaker 9: in the past, depending on what the ideological availance of
Speaker 9: the complaint is. So it is concerning that unless you're
Speaker 9: fully independent with your own infrastructure the way that you
Speaker 9: guys have, that there are still ways for people to
Speaker 9: attempt to try to deplatform. You don't know if that's
Speaker 9: the right word in this context, but you're not entirely safe.
Speaker 4: I'd also say that, I.
Speaker 9: Mean, I sat down with Don Lemon at some point
Speaker 9: last week and He revealed on the course of that
Speaker 9: interview that he's had other people from you know, I
Speaker 9: guess CNN, the you know, the mainstream millio where he
Speaker 9: operated for so many years, reach out and tell him
Speaker 9: that they've never felt more constrained and never felt more
Speaker 9: afraid about talking about an issue than they have about
Speaker 9: Israel Palestine post October seventh, and that they find themselves
Speaker 9: going over their segments afterward, wondering if they said the
Speaker 9: wrong thing, and going through it with a fine tooth
Speaker 9: calm because they're feeling, at these legacy news outlets an
Speaker 9: incredible amount of pressure not to say something that's too
Speaker 9: critical of Israel.
Speaker 4: So to your point, Zager.
Speaker 9: Like, absolutely, it's this is par for the course for
Speaker 9: your average news outlet, and it's why I think genuinely
Speaker 9: independent outlets like yours are so important. But yes, I
Speaker 9: am very grateful to continue to be able to do
Speaker 9: what I've been doing for years long before Rising, which
Speaker 9: is my own podcast, my own show Bad Faith, And
Speaker 9: I'm frankly looking forward to having a little bit more
Speaker 9: space to focus on the podcast and to also focus
Speaker 9: on writing and some other more creative things that have
Speaker 9: sat by the wayside because rising was just so time consuming.
Speaker 1: I have zero doubt you're going to continue to be
Speaker 1: phenomenally successful. I know you probably can you way happier
Speaker 1: to if our experience is any guide. So you may
Speaker 1: look back at this and say, you know what, in
Speaker 1: the end, this is the best thing that ever happened
Speaker 1: to me. But you know, we've followed, and you follow
Speaker 1: all of these stories of censorship across the country. I mean,
Speaker 1: it does really seem like this is the number one
Speaker 1: issue on which cancel culture, censorship, deplatforming is the greatest threat,
Speaker 1: not to mention, all of these bills and resolutions that
Speaker 1: are passing through Congress to effectively codify and embrace that
Speaker 1: censorship on both sides of the Aisle. We just I'm
Speaker 1: sure you also saw this. This Israeli holocaust scholar who
Speaker 1: is now ros Ziegel, who is now being denied his
Speaker 1: position because he was critical and is calling Israel's assault
Speaker 1: on Gaza a genocide, which, by the way, the ICJ
Speaker 1: is investigating. Numerous other scholars have called it that as well.
Speaker 1: It is in fact the majority position of Biden voters
Speaker 1: that what Israel is doing in Gaza constant to the genocide.
Speaker 4: So in some ways.
Speaker 1: Even though you're going to be fine because you have
Speaker 1: a platform, you're phenomenally talented, and we're going to make
Speaker 1: sure you know, to support you in all the ways
Speaker 1: we can as well, there are going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of other people out there who are perhaps more
Speaker 1: junior in their career, perhaps don't have that established platform,
Speaker 1: you know, and self censor because they see what happened
Speaker 1: to you. They see what happens to these professors Meddi Hassan,
Speaker 1: other media personalities Katie Helper who have paid a cost
Speaker 1: for being outspoken on this specific issue.
Speaker 9: Yes, in March Lmont Hill years ago. I mean so ironic.
Speaker 9: This has been going on for a really long time.
Speaker 9: All we're seeing is a kind of exponential example of
Speaker 9: ex social growth, the number of examples that have the
Speaker 9: come out since October seventh, And I think in some
Speaker 9: ways the crackdown is opening up the eyes of a
Speaker 9: lot of people who really didn't realize how much of
Speaker 9: a red line is this issue is right, it doesn't
Speaker 9: have a red line, but talking about this in American
Speaker 9: politics is absolutely a red line. I think it's frankly
Speaker 9: having a radicalizing effect that is going in the opposite
Speaker 9: direction of the Hasbara, which is to say, I mean,
Speaker 9: you know, even you know, as much as Robby and
Speaker 9: I debated this, I mean, what is Robbie to take
Speaker 9: away from the idea that this is the issue that
Speaker 9: ultimately got me forced off the show? Does that change
Speaker 9: your perspective as someone who has defended Israel about the
Speaker 9: incongruity of Israel's position that it's a democracy and that
Speaker 9: it respects free speech and it's the only democracy in
Speaker 9: the Middle East to see the Allied kind of social
Speaker 9: media forces, the reporting about the Israeli government branch that
Speaker 9: has officially launched this propaganda campaign to influence US lawmakers
Speaker 9: and to create a culture online that being critical of
Speaker 9: Israel is bad for business.
Speaker 4: I mean, how can that not influence you.
Speaker 9: To be increasingly critical of Israel going forward and increasingly
Speaker 9: skeptical of why it is that all of that is
Speaker 9: necessary to continue to have the dominance and influence that
Speaker 9: they've had in American politics for generations.
Speaker 1: Well, Breed, tell people where they can follow you and
Speaker 1: how they can support you, and any ideas you're going
Speaker 1: to continue, obviously working on the podcast and building that
Speaker 1: now any other projects that you've got in the works,
Speaker 1: you want to keep people.
Speaker 9: I don't want to commit to anything just yet.
Speaker 4: That's fair because I don't want to.
Speaker 9: I don't want to, you know, my mouth to proceede
Speaker 9: my actual ability to double dad and make make the
Speaker 9: content that I have planned. But you can follow everything
Speaker 9: that I'll be doing. I'll be announcing new stuff on
Speaker 9: my podcast. You can watch free episodes on YouTube at
Speaker 9: bad Faith YouTube, and you can subscribe at patreon dot
Speaker 9: com slash bad Faith Podcast to get an additional episode
Speaker 9: I drop on Mondays today is an episode with Jeffrey Sachs,
Speaker 9: which is very good and I highly recommend. And free
Speaker 9: clips of the premium Patreon episodes are also put on
Speaker 9: bad Faith YouTube, so be sure to go there and
Speaker 9: subscribe and follow the channel so you can get those
Speaker 9: as well.
Speaker 3: All right in the description, so there you go.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, Brianna, so great to see you, and
Speaker 1: as I said, I know you're you're gonna do well
Speaker 1: and I'm excited for this next chapter for you.
Speaker 4: Thank you both. I really appreciate it our pleasure.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, thank you so much for watching. As
Speaker 2: we said, we'll have links to the description for Brianna
Speaker 2: down in the bottom. Otherwise, Crystal, you'll be back in
Speaker 2: the studio tomorrow and we'll see you then.