Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have for Saul?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do many things percolating here in Washington, DC.
Speaker 1: We're going to start off by taking a look at
Speaker 1: this gigantic foreign aid package they are trying to shove
Speaker 1: down all of our throats, the very latest, and what
Speaker 1: its prospects are for passage or failure. Just really great
Speaker 1: stuff there. We also have new developments in terms of
Speaker 1: the political fallout in Arizona, specifically over that eighteen hundreds
Speaker 1: era abortion ban, how Republicans are reacting to it, the
Speaker 1: chances that that changes the Senate prospects. A lot going
Speaker 1: on there. We've got a new report that detail's torture
Speaker 1: of Palestinian detainees and how the US is responding to that.
Speaker 1: We also have some blockbuster testimony yesterday in two separate
Speaker 1: hearings from Boeing whistleblowers who are making some stunning and
Speaker 1: frankly terrifying allegations against that company. So we'll break that
Speaker 1: down for you. Also have some big news at Volkswagen.
Speaker 1: Once again, workers are voting on whether or not they
Speaker 1: want to join the UAW. This could be a huge
Speaker 1: deal in terms of unionizing foreign automakers in the United States,
Speaker 1: and the UAW seems to feel pretty good about how
Speaker 1: it's going to go this time around, so we'll break
Speaker 1: that down for you. Stunning developments also with Bob Menendez.
Speaker 1: You remember he's been indicted for some pretty wild corruption
Speaker 1: allegations involving gold bars and many other things. We're getting
Speaker 1: a sneak peek at what his planned defense is and
Speaker 1: basically he's going to throw his own wife under the bus.
Speaker 1: Really just just a stand up guy there, really really
Speaker 1: great guy. Unbelievable. And we've got a first look at
Speaker 1: some of the Trump jurors who have been selected in
Speaker 1: that hush money trial up in New York City. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean It's just interesting to think about how anyone
Speaker 1: of this country at this point could be unbiased about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I don't envy them this task that is
Speaker 1: set before them, but you know, we'll take a look
Speaker 1: at who they are and what that may indicate about
Speaker 1: how this trial is going to.
Speaker 2: Go for them.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: We will get into all of that before we get
Speaker 2: to that, though. Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing
Speaker 2: to the show. We finally got to show off our
Speaker 2: nice gold plaq right million plaque. So instead of the
Speaker 2: normal pitch, how about this. Why don't you guys help
Speaker 2: us grow our YouTube channel. Subscribe to the show. If
Speaker 2: you're listening to this on the podcast, one of the
Speaker 2: best things that you can do is give us a
Speaker 2: five star review or send an episode one of your
Speaker 2: favorite episodes to a friend. That's one of the best
Speaker 2: word of mouth. That's the best advertising that exists. We
Speaker 2: don't spend a.
Speaker 3: Dollar on that. Or if you can help us out
Speaker 3: breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: And by the way, thanks everybody checked out Sager's moderation
Speaker 1: on The Bigdom eight last night. I watched it was
Speaker 1: fun best. You did a great job. It's not an
Speaker 1: easy task with so many people. First, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of people. It's a lot of people, and you know,
Speaker 1: all of them big personalities, and all of you did
Speaker 1: an excellent job, you know, being neutral and controlling things
Speaker 1: and keeping it more or less.
Speaker 2: We streamed it on our channel. It was a zero
Speaker 2: heady debate on Israel. It was Dave Smith, jenk Uger
Speaker 2: versus Dennis Praeger and Batcha or I can never say
Speaker 2: your fun I'm gonna go with batya botya anyway, so
Speaker 2: you can watch it. We haven't streamed on our channel.
Speaker 2: I think we may release it as a podcast. Maybe
Speaker 2: any reflections, Well, I'll tell.
Speaker 3: You what it was interesting. I thought that the exchanges.
Speaker 2: Were the real thing that I took away from it
Speaker 2: is that sometimes even when we're quote unquote debating, is
Speaker 2: that even trying to define the clarity the terms was very,
Speaker 2: very difficult because the resolution was about how Israel should
Speaker 2: respond after October seventh. And I actually thought one of
Speaker 2: the key differences was that Dave and Jank, I mean,
Speaker 2: they're not defined just by October seventh.
Speaker 3: They were trying to go to.
Speaker 2: The bigger picture context where they were talking about occupation.
Speaker 3: They were talking about Gaza.
Speaker 2: They were talking about the formation of Israel, about what
Speaker 2: the future needs to look like, peace deal, whereas the
Speaker 2: other two were not as engaged on that question necessarily,
Speaker 2: And so that is part of the problem with quote
Speaker 2: unquote debating this and how much context you're even allowed
Speaker 2: to bring in. But it was two hours, which I still,
Speaker 2: I honestly didn't even think was long enough.
Speaker 3: It probably need to go to it.
Speaker 1: Flew by, yeah, I mean, especially with that number of
Speaker 1: people and all of them having a lot to say.
Speaker 1: But I thought everybody behaved themselves. Well, I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: I thought David chanked and fantastic. You're not gonna be
Speaker 1: surprised to learn. But you know, I enjoyed the exchanges,
Speaker 1: and it's just interesting to see at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's difficult to defend the things that people
Speaker 1: are seeing on the ground, So how are some of
Speaker 1: the war equipped Israel supporters going about mounting that defense
Speaker 1: at this point? Is always interesting.
Speaker 3: Take a look, Yeah, watch it for yourself. You can
Speaker 3: hear it.
Speaker 2: I try my best. Let them all speak, So take look.
Speaker 2: It's on our channel and we'll release it sometime later.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and talk about foreign aid,
Speaker 2: which is very germane to the topic.
Speaker 3: Now I get to actually voice.
Speaker 1: My opinions that for me would have been hard. There's
Speaker 1: no way I have kept the mouse the.
Speaker 2: Way my tongue a couple of times make sure that
Speaker 2: the camera wasn't on me, and I was like, wow,
Speaker 2: that's that's wild thing. You know, it's not me saying it.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and begin with Speaker Mike Johnson, who,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, is currently undertaking one of the greatest
Speaker 2: betrayals of his own caucus in quite a long time.
Speaker 3: And I will get into some of the historical context.
Speaker 2: This is a man who came into his job after
Speaker 2: the whole speaker fracas when Kevin McCarthy is kicked out.
Speaker 2: The right flank says that they're okay with him. He
Speaker 2: starts getting wishy washy on Ukraine Aid. He's like, yeah, maybe,
Speaker 2: and then the start the Hawks start to go after him,
Speaker 2: and then we start to see some signs Crystal. We
Speaker 2: start to see a little bit of rhetoric about oh,
Speaker 2: we got to stand up to Russia and we're like, okay,
Speaker 2: that's well, what does that mean? And then we see
Speaker 2: him flip flop on Faiza, and when he flip flops,
Speaker 2: he says, well, if you hadn't gotten the classified briefing
Speaker 2: I'd gotten, then you would flip flop too. That's how
Speaker 2: you always know. That's how you know that the ICEE,
Speaker 2: the intelligence community that got the little knife in you,
Speaker 2: and the starting to twist and the money starts coming in.
Speaker 2: Now you're responsible for fundraising, and now all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: this man, who had a very different record on Ukraine
Speaker 2: whenever he was a normal congressman, is starting to talk
Speaker 2: like he's Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty two. Perfect example. Actually,
Speaker 2: honestly worse than nineteen eighty two. The level of grandeur
Speaker 2: you have to have to say what he said, which
Speaker 2: we're about to play for you, is insane.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: We are an unprecedented times. Okay, we're in dangerous times.
Speaker 4: This has been articulated here around the world and here
Speaker 4: at home. We need steady leadership, We need steady hands
Speaker 4: at the wheel. Look, I regard myself as a as
Speaker 4: a wartime speaker.
Speaker 3: I mean, in a literal sense, we are.
Speaker 4: I knew that when I took the gabble, I didn't
Speaker 4: anticipate that this would be an easy path. Former speaker
Speaker 4: Nuke gingridg posted a couple of days ago on his
Speaker 4: social media that this is the hardest challenge that's face
Speaker 4: to speaker probably in the history of the country and
Speaker 4: the moment we're in right now. He said, arguably maybe
Speaker 4: comparable to the Civil War, but maybe worse.
Speaker 2: Right, maybe comparable to the Civil War, Yeah, or maybe worse.
Speaker 2: You're just like Schuyler Coofax. My dude, that's exactly what
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: It's practically Abraham Lincoln.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, definitely, Sam Reeburn and all those other guys
Speaker 2: during the Great Depression and during the World War Two,
Speaker 2: they never face anything like who do you think you are?
Speaker 2: Wartime speaker? America is not at war except if you
Speaker 2: were one of these people. Now apparently we are. Now,
Speaker 2: Oh it's we're fighting in Ukraine. We're the ones who
Speaker 2: are fighting in Israel. That is one of the best
Speaker 2: views into the minds of these grules that I've ever seen. America,
Speaker 2: which is not at war, shouldn't be either involved in
Speaker 2: either of these conflicts. And look at the level of
Speaker 2: passion the way that this man talks to Crystal about
Speaker 2: two foreign nations and the way that he sees his
Speaker 2: role in propping this up. And some of the details
Speaker 2: here on this package are out, I mean just outrageous.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there, please on the screen,
Speaker 2: and I'm just gonna read you, guys. The top line
Speaker 2: numbers the legislation that Speaker Johnson is pushing sixty billion
Speaker 2: dollars for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: We've gotten through this.
Speaker 2: This completely depletes US military assets, US military stockpiles. It
Speaker 2: is a gift to the military industrial complex. It will
Speaker 2: not change a single iota on the ground in Ukraine
Speaker 2: except allowing the government to kidnap more people who are
Speaker 2: mentally disabled and physically disabled and throw them at a
Speaker 2: Russian bullet.
Speaker 3: Even with this, the Russians will.
Speaker 2: Still outproduce and outmatch the Ukrainians whenever it comes to ammunition.
Speaker 2: Two twenty six billion dollars for Israel and humanitarian aid
Speaker 2: for civilians in Gaza. Now, who wants to guess the
Speaker 2: ratio of military to civilian aid there? Crystol Right, okay,
Speaker 2: and then finally quote unquote eight billion for the Indo
Speaker 2: Pacific as a real time, so insulted by this because
Speaker 2: it's actually a stack of the least priority for American
Speaker 2: interest gets the most money, the middle priority for American
Speaker 2: interest gets the second most amount of money, and the
Speaker 2: region of the world, which matters the single most of
Speaker 2: the US economy gets the least amount of money. And
Speaker 2: then that doesn't even bly the question of what the
Speaker 2: hell is all this money going to do?
Speaker 3: Anyway. I mean, this is strategic insand yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean with the Israel piece, it's once again, you
Speaker 1: guys have probably seen these photos where there's literal bombs
Speaker 1: dropping on Gaza as these little pitoly food packages are
Speaker 1: dropping as well. You know, it just makes me sick,
Speaker 1: and it is so tired and cliche at this point,
Speaker 1: but I cannot help a note. They move heaven and frickin' earth. Yes,
Speaker 1: when it comes to making sure the military industrial complex
Speaker 1: is fed, making sure a pack is fed, making sure
Speaker 1: we keep these conflicts going endlessly because there is so
Speaker 1: much money at stake, they will come together in a
Speaker 1: bipartisan way. Joe Biden, writing an op ed backing the
Speaker 1: Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, they will do whatever they need
Speaker 1: to do from a legislative perspective, using all these procedural
Speaker 1: tricks of the trade to try to steamroll this thing through.
Speaker 1: When it comes to forever war, when it comes to healthcare,
Speaker 1: lifting the minimum wage, dealing with homelessness, any other domestic priority,
Speaker 1: we can't. Sorry, it's not our priority. We tried, it's
Speaker 1: too hard, We're divided, et cetera, et cetera. It is disgusting.
Speaker 1: It's such an emblem of just how rotten and corrupt
Speaker 1: and out of touch and what a bubble these people
Speaker 1: are in and how misplaced their priorities are in the
Speaker 1: most corrupt way imaginal.
Speaker 2: That is very well said in Look, this is sometimes
Speaker 2: a trite thing, but it's April eighteen. How many of
Speaker 2: us are self employed and just had to pay our
Speaker 2: taxes on April fifteenth, had to wire the irs, had
Speaker 2: money taken out of our bank accounts.
Speaker 3: For what and this look what's going on, And this
Speaker 3: is what we are.
Speaker 2: Paying for billions and billions of dollars, not a single
Speaker 2: change iota of change on the ground in Ukraine doing nothing.
Speaker 2: We are funding the deaths of not even young Ukrainian
Speaker 2: men at this point, middle aged Ukrainians. I hope we
Speaker 2: will enjoy the pictures of Ukrainian grandfathers who are missing
Speaker 2: their limbs, and that the young men who are partying
Speaker 2: in Vienna and in Budapest and all across of Central Europe,
Speaker 2: while we're the ones who are paying for the ammunition.
Speaker 2: So that the people who are too poor, too dumb
Speaker 2: to stay in the country and who don't even want
Speaker 2: to fight are the ones who are thrown into this
Speaker 2: on the Israel packages.
Speaker 3: So what are we paying for? Exactly?
Speaker 2: So we are assuming all of the costs of Israel's
Speaker 2: military actions abroad, and now they're about to go and
Speaker 2: strike Iran. Whose military do you think is going to
Speaker 2: be funding that bill? And like I said too, Taiwan,
Speaker 2: Indo Pacific, these are regions of the country, Japan and others.
Speaker 2: They actually of the world. They matter, they actually matter.
Speaker 2: They're actually being short changed in terms of what would
Speaker 2: genuinely be militarily useful to them for these conflicts which
Speaker 2: mean nothing to all of us. And the craziest part
Speaker 2: is this is a total uniparty takeover. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen, speaker, Mike Johnson's plan relies
Speaker 2: entirely on Democrats. Let me be very clear here, this
Speaker 2: is a GOP and democratic plan to let this go through.
Speaker 2: It's a little bit convoluted, so please stick with me. Basically,
Speaker 2: what Speaker Johnson has done is he's taking these four packages.
Speaker 2: It's going to be Ukraine, it's going to be Israel,
Speaker 2: Indo Pacific, and there's a fourth bill which is not
Speaker 2: yet out, which is some pay for some of Okay,
Speaker 2: So let's let's just be very clear here. It's they're
Speaker 2: not together. They're going to pass them each individually. What
Speaker 2: he is doing is sending them to the House Rules Committee.
Speaker 2: The House Rules Committee, by tradition decades of procedure, basically
Speaker 2: says that the ruling party is the one who is
Speaker 2: supposed to pass the rule to allow the advance of
Speaker 2: the vote. Okay, well, currently the Rules Committee. One of
Speaker 2: the deals that was struck within the Republican Party was
Speaker 2: that the Rules Committee would have powerful members of the
Speaker 2: Freedom Caucus and others who would nix the Ukraine aid
Speaker 2: in even the Israelid in some cases here that would
Speaker 2: be of their makeup. What Johnson is doing is explicitly
Speaker 2: screwing over his own party members, working with Democrats and
Speaker 2: Haakim Jeffries to advance this foreign aid to the floor
Speaker 2: and then allow votes where both parties and this is
Speaker 2: another very key thing I want to make clear.
Speaker 3: What with Ukraine.
Speaker 2: For example, a sizeable part of the GOP caucus is
Speaker 2: going to vote against Ukraine AID. A sizeable part of
Speaker 2: the Democratic caucus is going to vote against Israel AID.
Speaker 2: What they're doing is a corrupt bargain where they both
Speaker 2: work for each other, and then they allow majority votes
Speaker 2: to come together, and then they throw the little Taiwan
Speaker 2: Pitdley thing on the third. There is an excellent scholar
Speaker 2: of congressional procedure, Josh Huter, and he wrote this this morning.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna read it to you. Quote.
Speaker 2: He says, rather than simply allow members to sign a
Speaker 2: discharge petition or vote for a parliamentary question or other maneuver,
Speaker 2: Johnson has raised the specter of forming a procedural coalition
Speaker 2: with Democrats to overrun GOP opposition, potentially the most grievous
Speaker 2: betrayal of partisan politics in the modern era. This is
Speaker 2: a step further than the sins of John Bahner and
Speaker 2: Paul Ryan, who will run out of office just for
Speaker 2: using Democrats to pass spending bills. Johnson will now work
Speaker 2: with Democrats to snuff out opposition from his GOP colleagues,
Speaker 2: reverse that as well. Democrats do not bail out Republicans
Speaker 2: when they don't have votes on the rule. They are
Speaker 2: doing it for this one instance, Crystal, so they can
Speaker 2: fund Ukraine, and so they can fund Israel. We are
Speaker 2: this is a color revolution, This is a uniparty war
Speaker 2: exception takeover of all of our governmental procedure so we
Speaker 2: can send eighty billion.
Speaker 3: Dollars to foreign countries.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, your.
Speaker 1: Tax dollars going to put a gun in the hand
Speaker 1: of a mentally disabled Ukrainian who doesn't want to fight,
Speaker 1: thank you, and to bomb babies. It really does make
Speaker 1: me very sympathetic to our libertarian brothers and sisters. So, David,
Speaker 1: I mean felt this way about taxes before when I
Speaker 1: sent in my tax check, where you know, normally I
Speaker 1: don't mind paying my taxes, I don't mind paying my
Speaker 1: fair share whatsoever. But when it's so naked, this is
Speaker 1: going to fund more bombs to be dropped on a
Speaker 1: refugee camp, or more bullets to massacre gosins who are
Speaker 1: seeking aid desperately trying to get flour. No, it's it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: And if the American people had a say in this,
Speaker 1: they would say no. But you have so much corrupting
Speaker 1: influence of money. You have, yes, the deep State using
Speaker 1: all of their scare tactics to try to force some
Speaker 1: sort of unanimity. Whatever that they did to Mike Johnson
Speaker 1: got him to flip on a dime. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: really think with him part of it too is he
Speaker 1: is so fervently ideologically and religiously committed to Israel that
Speaker 1: in order to get the Israel Aid through, which is
Speaker 1: so important to him, he was basically willing to do
Speaker 1: whatever else he needed to do. And this is what
Speaker 1: the whatever else looks like. So since you had him
Speaker 1: on Israel, it only took a little turn of the
Speaker 1: screw to get him on Faiza apparently, and to get
Speaker 1: him on Ukraine as well. And now you know this
Speaker 1: is where we are.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean Dave Smith and Jank both yesterday.
Speaker 2: Jank in particular, he's like, if a single American goes
Speaker 2: to fight in this war, I'm going to stop paying
Speaker 2: taxes and I'm going to rally the people. By the way, Jank,
Speaker 2: I will be in the streets with you. Dave made
Speaker 2: a joke as a libertarian, He's like, Hey, why don't
Speaker 2: we all just start now?
Speaker 3: I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I am very rarely the you know, online libertarian poster.
Speaker 2: I am so hopin mad about this one, because once again,
Speaker 2: if we were sticking with the way that our government
Speaker 2: functions anytime, let's say, what are our services, Crystal that
Speaker 2: you or I or any others. Let's everybody just take
Speaker 2: a moment and think about a service in your life
Speaker 2: that's a healthcare maybe something like that, where you would
Speaker 2: like the federal government to move heaven and earth to
Speaker 2: make it easier for you. Maybe buying a house, your wage,
Speaker 2: how that we're working conditions, getting married tax credits.
Speaker 3: I could go on forever. They are not doing any
Speaker 3: of that for you.
Speaker 2: They're doing it for a foreign country, and they're using
Speaker 2: our money to do it, and they won't even use
Speaker 2: our money to actually pay for anything inside of this country.
Speaker 2: It genuinely makes me sick.
Speaker 1: Any Israel is a wealthy, advanced nay talk about it
Speaker 1: all the time. They have universal health care. We don't.
Speaker 1: They do, and we're sending billions to them. It's just
Speaker 1: it's so it's preposterous on that level, and then it's
Speaker 1: so outrageously im moral on the level of what we've
Speaker 1: seen unfold. And you hear the Biden administration, you know,
Speaker 1: worried about civilian life, etc. Etc. You can't take them
Speaker 1: seriously when this is their number one priority. We can
Speaker 1: actually put up there. The other thing that's astonishing is
Speaker 1: some of the arguments that they're making in front of this.
Speaker 1: Put a five this Wall Street Journal tear sheet up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is the Biden op ed that
Speaker 1: he published here, Moment of truth on Ukraine and Israel.
Speaker 1: Both countries urgently need usaid to defend themselves against brazen
Speaker 1: adversaries that seek their annihilation. One of the arguments that
Speaker 1: he makes here is directly about how this will help
Speaker 1: to fund and finance the American war machine military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: He says, if Congress passes military aid for Ukraine and Israel,
Speaker 1: we won't write blank checks. We'd send military equipment from
Speaker 1: our own stockpiles, then use the money authorized by Congress
Speaker 1: and replenish those stockpiles by buying from American suppliers. Oh
Speaker 1: Boeing raytheon, They'll be so happy, and includes Patriot missiles
Speaker 1: made in Arizona, Javelin missiles may now Alabama, artillery shells
Speaker 1: made in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas. It's just astonishing to
Speaker 1: me that they are affirmatively leaning into the pitch that
Speaker 1: guess what, guys, this is going to go to our
Speaker 1: great military industrial complex suppliers. So it's not like the
Speaker 1: money even leaves within like fifty miles of where we
Speaker 1: sit right now. It's so naked and it's so incredibly
Speaker 1: manipulative and disgusting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, by the way, a quote just came across my dad.
Speaker 2: I love this from Mike Johnson. Here's why you decided
Speaker 2: to flip flop. Listen to this quote.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: I really believe the intel and the briefings that we've gotten.
Speaker 2: I believe she, Vladimir Putin and Iron are the axis
Speaker 2: of evil.
Speaker 1: Oh jeez, they are in court. Jesus Christ. What year
Speaker 1: are we a Yeah?
Speaker 2: What year? I feel live? Jumonji meme? What year is it?
Speaker 2: What year is it? It's in nineteen seventy two. This
Speaker 2: is madness. It's complete madness. We have a video here
Speaker 2: of some of the House Republicans who rightfully are furious
Speaker 2: about this. They were interviewed by CNN's mon Roju Let's
Speaker 2: take a listen for.
Speaker 5: Hours last night and proposed different paths for the speaker.
Speaker 5: That would have avoided the abjects surrender represented by his
Speaker 5: strategic choice here. There's no other way to describe it.
Speaker 5: It's surrender. It's disappointing. I won't support it. It's disappointing.
Speaker 5: It's completely detached from what our base wants, what our
Speaker 5: voters want.
Speaker 6: This strategy is not to try I think the strategy
Speaker 6: is to fall on East Sword.
Speaker 7: So when I asked a Congressman Chip Roy about whether
Speaker 7: or not it was time for him to oust Mike
Speaker 7: Johnson from the speakership, and he said that this is
Speaker 7: you said. He went right up to the line, Dana
Speaker 7: and didn't go across there that line, perhaps because he
Speaker 7: needs to talk with the speaker, which is happening right
Speaker 7: now now. The question is will the numbers add up
Speaker 7: to Aliston from the speakership because Democrats, as you mentioned,
Speaker 7: could step been to save him because of what he's
Speaker 7: doing here on Ukraine. So this is a different situation
Speaker 7: than the fall when Karthy was ousted from the speakership,
Speaker 7: But no doubt about it, Mike Johnson opening up a
Speaker 7: revolt on the far right with his conference with this move.
Speaker 2: Here, So yeah, I mean screwing over your own party
Speaker 2: it's just incredible. And finally we have the word from Speaker.
Speaker 2: Johnson himself went on CNN's Jake Tapper Show, of all
Speaker 2: places to make the case for this.
Speaker 3: Just listen to his own words. Look at the way
Speaker 3: that this man talks right now.
Speaker 2: And let's also not leave Trump out of this, because,
Speaker 2: as Ryan and I covered, he was singularly important in
Speaker 2: making sure that this happened. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: Look, we know what the timetable is. We know the
Speaker 4: urgency in Ukraine and in Israel, and we're going to
Speaker 4: stand by Israel, our close ally and dear friend, and
Speaker 4: we were going to stand for freedom and make sure
Speaker 4: that Vladimir Putin doesn't march through Europe. These are important responsibilities.
Speaker 4: A strong America is good for the entire world. Since
Speaker 4: World War Two, really, really the responsibility for the free
Speaker 4: world has been shifted onto our shoulders, and we accept
Speaker 4: that role. We're an exceptional nation. We're the greatest nation
Speaker 4: on the planet, and we have to act like and
Speaker 4: we have to project to Putin and g and Iran
Speaker 4: and North Korea and anybody else that we will defend freedom.
Speaker 4: It doesn't mean boots on the ground. We're not the
Speaker 4: world's policeman. But we're going to do the right thing.
Speaker 4: And I did tell the President the plan on all
Speaker 4: of this, and I think he clearly understands why we're
Speaker 4: running display and why we.
Speaker 8: Need to do this.
Speaker 4: I think this sets up the next election, the next administration,
Speaker 4: the next president, and I believe he's going to win
Speaker 4: in a better position.
Speaker 3: So Trump endorsed the plan, spoke with Mike Johnson.
Speaker 2: He's an idiot. So when he hears from Lindsay Graham,
Speaker 2: where he hits from Lindsay Graham, it's a loan.
Speaker 3: Trump is like a love loans, Let's do it.
Speaker 2: And so now we're doing a fake loan to the
Speaker 2: most corrupt government on the planet. The AID actually allows
Speaker 2: you to cancel the AID, to cancel the loan, if
Speaker 2: you're the president.
Speaker 3: What do you think Biden's going to do on day one?
Speaker 3: After this passes, We're never gonna.
Speaker 1: We're never get paid back, whether it's technically dead or alone.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's not going to have Yeah, I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I never want to hear from a single soul ever
Speaker 1: again that Trump is some anti war president. It's always
Speaker 1: been preposterous. If you looked at his record last time around.
Speaker 1: I mean he was actually very hawkish towards Russia. In
Speaker 1: spite of the rhetoric and the Russia Gate, you know,
Speaker 1: phenomenon and obsession and derangement and whatever, it was, actually
Speaker 1: in his policy quite hawkish towards Russia. He was consistently
Speaker 1: rolled by the deep state, by the intel community in
Speaker 1: the same way that Mike Johnson is here and you know,
Speaker 1: standing right beside Mike Johnson on the same thing. The
Speaker 1: last thing I want to make clear to people is
Speaker 1: there are really two reasons why this is happening right
Speaker 1: now as far as I can see. Number one is
Speaker 1: Israel's provocation viz a vi Iran bombing their embassy and
Speaker 1: then the inevitable retaliation. That is part of what gave
Speaker 1: this thing momentum right now. So once again bb playing
Speaker 1: us like a fiddle, getting his way, getting the a
Speaker 1: that has been hung up until now. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: And number two is what you just heard there, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump giving it the go ahead and you know, putting
Speaker 1: his hands on this and saying basically, yes, this has
Speaker 1: my blessing. He's incredibly influential with the Republican Caucus. They
Speaker 1: basically follow his lead on many things, and so I
Speaker 1: think the fact that it had his buy in was
Speaker 1: essential to creating this moment. Sotta write a question for you,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, is this a fade, a complete
Speaker 1: or is there any chance that Democrats don't want to
Speaker 1: go along that they're nervous Because I know there's some
Speaker 1: nervousness from some Democrats about our if we pass the
Speaker 1: rule that puts this in their hands. We don't know
Speaker 1: if we're going to get the humanitarian aid that we
Speaker 1: need to pretend like we care about civilians being massacred
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Do you think there's any chance that this
Speaker 1: gets blocked?
Speaker 2: There is, So there's several things. The vote is going
Speaker 2: to happen on Saturday night. It's a long time from
Speaker 2: now till Saturday. Somehow shenanigans. It's possible that the motion
Speaker 2: to vacate comes up that would require the whole speakership thing. However,
Speaker 2: there's been some indications currently the Democrats, at least some Democrats,
Speaker 2: would save Mike Johnson's speakership just to make sure that
Speaker 2: there is no more chaos in the House. Josh Gottheimer
Speaker 2: in particular, wants to fund Israel. That's right, you guessed it,
Speaker 2: and that's one of the reasons why he's.
Speaker 1: Decided to do that, Guy Moscowitz.
Speaker 2: So these individuals there, look, I mean, there is enough
Speaker 2: room here to work with where I would say it
Speaker 2: is likelier than not. This is based upon the sources
Speaker 2: that I've spoken to. Keep in mind my sources, at
Speaker 2: least the people will talk to me. These are the
Speaker 2: people who don't want this stuff to pass. So when
Speaker 2: they tell me, I know it's actually likely on this one,
Speaker 2: I believe them because their analysis of the situation and
Speaker 2: the coalitions and all of that involved are that because
Speaker 2: you've got the Dems willing to work on Ukraine and
Speaker 2: the Republicans willing to work so hard on Israel that
Speaker 2: it is allowing the corrupt bargain to go through without
Speaker 2: enough objection. You've also basically bought off the progressives with
Speaker 2: this pitily humanitarian aid and giving them enough, say the
Speaker 2: Congressional Progressive Caucus and others, a decent portion of them
Speaker 2: are going to vote for it because does include humanitarian
Speaker 2: aid for Gaza, and also that gives an out to
Speaker 2: the Senate Democrats should that whenever this moves over to
Speaker 2: the Senate, even the people like Chris van Holland and
Speaker 2: all others they've indicated they would vote for Israel aid
Speaker 2: and one of the ways they can do it is, yeah,
Speaker 2: it sends weapons, would send humanitarian aid too, which is
Speaker 2: there is something sick right about paying for the wounds
Speaker 2: of the people who are are people who are wounded
Speaker 2: by bombs that are also sing yeah, you.
Speaker 1: Bomb, and then you send them a loaf of bread.
Speaker 1: The other thing is the problem in Gaza in terms
Speaker 1: of the humanitarian situation isn't a lack of availability of aid.
Speaker 1: There's hundreds of trucks that are still backed up at
Speaker 1: the borders. The problem is our great ally Israel blocking
Speaker 1: food and fuel and water from being able to come in.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of indications that in spite
Speaker 1: of their claims that they're improving the humanitarian situation, that
Speaker 1: they're certainly not living up to the pledges that they
Speaker 1: made and what's getting in is still wildly insufficient. So
Speaker 1: you know, the humanitarian aid is ass covering so that
Speaker 1: people like Chris van Holland, who has made a big
Speaker 1: show of saying some really important things with regard to Gaza,
Speaker 1: can point to that to justify shipping more bombs to
Speaker 1: massacre women, children. I mean, some of the reports coming
Speaker 1: out about this is the largest cohort of children who
Speaker 1: have had amputations that we've ever seen. Are going to
Speaker 1: be made for life, the trauma that they're going to experience,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna ship more bombs to create more death, destruction, annihilation, trauma,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But don't worry, we'll send you a loaf
Speaker 1: of bread as well. That'll make it better.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Look, it's total chaos, and it is.
Speaker 2: It is certainly possible that this may not pass, but
Speaker 2: right now I would bet on it passing. And honestly,
Speaker 2: I should have never gotten my hopes up. We only
Speaker 2: got a three month reprieve. I should have known that
Speaker 2: they will.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: They always win in the end, every time, the military
Speaker 2: industrial complex, the neo cons. No matter what you or
Speaker 2: I think, no matter the fact that the vast majority
Speaker 2: of the American people are not for any of this
Speaker 2: aid to Ukraine and to Israel, it doesn't matter. And
Speaker 2: it's just up days after tax Day, just a little
Speaker 2: bit too on the nose.
Speaker 3: Let's move on.
Speaker 2: Let's talk a little bit about Israel, as we just
Speaker 2: talked about, and where some of this money may be going,
Speaker 2: and who's going to be funding and what exactly they're
Speaker 2: going to do about it. So here we have Benjamin
Speaker 2: Netanyahu who is speaking about the striking Iran in retaliation.
Speaker 2: We can go ahead and play it, and I'm going
Speaker 2: to read they say they also have some objections. I
Speaker 2: appreciate it, but I want to clarify. He says that
Speaker 2: we will make our own decisions. He's talking here about
Speaker 2: the United States. He says, the State of Israel will
Speaker 2: do everything necessary to defend itself. Today, the Cabinet will
Speaker 2: approve a plan to rebuild the settlements of the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 2: We will invest a very low some of shekels to
Speaker 2: make the settlements of Gaza available to generations. We will
Speaker 2: invest in housing, infrastructure, education and employment. So he's talking
Speaker 2: there about two things. He's talking about striking Iran, the
Speaker 2: State of Israel, we will do whatever we want to do.
Speaker 2: And he's also talking about using money, US money, presumably right,
Speaker 2: some of these shekels, where do you think exactly they're
Speaker 2: coming from.
Speaker 3: Shechel, by the way, is the currency of the State
Speaker 3: of Israel.
Speaker 2: In case people didn't know that, using that to build
Speaker 2: settlements in the Godstrap and complete contravention of US policy.
Speaker 2: And we will get to some of the changes in
Speaker 2: US policy and all that in a little bit. But
Speaker 2: this comes as the entire world, the Western world, is
Speaker 2: trying to descend upon Israel, begging them, please, please don't
Speaker 2: get us into a war with Iran, and yet they
Speaker 2: continue to walk away, being told by their benefit, being
Speaker 2: told straight to the face of their own benefactors, that
Speaker 2: they are.
Speaker 3: Going to do it. Anyway.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: from the Times of Israel. You could take it. You've
Speaker 2: got After meeting with President Herzog of Israel, David Cameron,
Speaker 2: the UK Foreign Minister says, quote it is now clear
Speaker 2: that Israel will respond to the Iran attack. The British
Speaker 2: Foreign Minister quote, Hope's retaliation will not further escalating tensions,
Speaker 2: calls for the G seven to sanction Iran, and the
Speaker 2: visiting German Foreign Minister also says all parties must act
Speaker 2: prudently and responsibility. So you have Tony Blinken, who is
Speaker 2: pressuring them President Biden here, You've got the freaking British
Speaker 2: Foreign Minister, a huge supporter of the State of Israel.
Speaker 2: You've got the German Foreign Minister, all of these people
Speaker 2: descending there. Apparently Prime Minister Netanyau even put a call
Speaker 2: off for several hours with the Prime Minister of the UK,
Speaker 2: where the Prime Minister was like, hey, man, like, maybe
Speaker 2: just keep us out of this one, because it would
Speaker 2: just be easier for all of us if we didn't
Speaker 2: have to shoot down missiles for you. And yet that's
Speaker 2: not what this is. A government acting in complete impunity.
Speaker 2: We've seen this many many times. But again, let's just
Speaker 2: play it for the whole world, for all of us,
Speaker 2: since we're the ones who are funding this.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. You know, things were getting a
Speaker 1: little out for Nan Yahoo. There was a little bit
Speaker 1: of scrutiny about what was going on in Gaza. The
Speaker 1: Americans were going to increasingly uncomfortable. It was becoming increasingly untenable.
Speaker 1: How much has the horrific annihilation and humanitarian disaster, the
Speaker 1: famine in northern Gaza, how much has that fallen out
Speaker 1: of the news As everybody starts beating the war drums
Speaker 1: and getting all hyped up about this conflict with Iran.
Speaker 1: There were these reports acer I don't know if you
Speaker 1: buy these or not, because it was from a like
Speaker 1: not totally certain news source that the US back channeled Iran.
Speaker 1: Was like, how much you let Israel do a little
Speaker 1: bit of a retaliatory attack and just let it be?
Speaker 1: Like can you imagine if we were directly attack? Can
Speaker 1: you imagine if our embassy was attacked how we would respond? Yesterday,
Speaker 1: Emily and I played this exchange with Matt Miller. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw Matt Lee pressing him on
Speaker 1: all right, because their dodge is well, we don't know
Speaker 1: if it was really a consulate building that Israel hit.
Speaker 1: We're investigating, we haven't really figured that out yet. That's
Speaker 1: their dodge to avoid condemning Israel for starting this whole
Speaker 1: terrifying chain of escalation that risks dragging us directly into
Speaker 1: conflict with Iran, even though I genuinely think that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration actually wants to avoid this direct conflict, but
Speaker 1: they haven't done a single thing to try to forestall
Speaker 1: that eventuality. So yeah, BB and Israel they act like,
Speaker 1: you know, toddlers who haven't been disciplined, who know they
Speaker 1: can get away with whatever the hell they want to
Speaker 1: get away with, because they always do. Because we'll do
Speaker 1: things like, you know, pretend we're having an investigation into
Speaker 1: whether or not they really hit an embassy. Trust me,
Speaker 1: if they didn't hit an embassy or consulate building, we
Speaker 1: would have said it right away. The fact that we're
Speaker 1: out here pretending like we've got to do some months
Speaker 1: long investigation to figure that out tells you everything you
Speaker 1: need to know about what actually unfolded here. But we
Speaker 1: will deny my reality. We will lie, we will cover up,
Speaker 1: and we will continue moving heaven and earth to ship
Speaker 1: them their bombs, to continue doing whatever the hell they
Speaker 1: want to do. Our interest and the safety of our
Speaker 1: service members and our people be damned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is America last, its finest. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Just I want to reiterate
Speaker 2: again how many world leaders are quote urging restraint. You
Speaker 2: again have the war cabinet and the far right who
Speaker 2: are all saying that we need to have swift action.
Speaker 2: But then you have basically every leader of a G
Speaker 2: seven nation who is urging restraint, who is even rhetorically
Speaker 2: backing up Israel, but is reaching out and urging caution
Speaker 2: and not to have retaliation. It is just virtual certainty
Speaker 2: this is going to lead for some sort of tit
Speaker 2: for tat escalation. The United States will be involved. We
Speaker 2: already know that because we already were involved. We shot
Speaker 2: down the majority of the missiles. If there is more
Speaker 2: of an escalation then will be even more involved in
Speaker 2: shooting that down.
Speaker 1: And BB has one of the BOBE has wanted this decades,
Speaker 1: urged us to.
Speaker 3: Do this for years.
Speaker 2: Yesterday on the zero Hedge Debate, we played a clip
Speaker 2: of him advocating for the overthrow of the Iranian regime
Speaker 2: in two thousand and two before Congress. This is on tape.
Speaker 2: It's literally right there out in the open. He has
Speaker 2: urged every president from George W. Bush onward to overthrow
Speaker 2: the Iranian regime and to bomb Iran. He tried to
Speaker 2: get Trump to do it. He tried to get Obama
Speaker 2: to do it. There's a whole interesting Atlantic series. You
Speaker 2: guys can go read it if you want. Jeffrey Goldberg
Speaker 2: sat there and let BB spout a bs about why
Speaker 2: America should go to war. He came to our soil
Speaker 2: against our own president of the United States and spoke
Speaker 2: against the Iran deal.
Speaker 3: He tried to get up. He tried to get George W.
Speaker 2: Bush, As I said, multiple times after Iraq, and he
Speaker 2: had many supporters in the cabinet. The only thing that
Speaker 2: saved us from going to war with Iran is that
Speaker 2: the Iraq War was such a disaster, because if it
Speaker 2: had gone even remotely well, then he could have convinced
Speaker 2: Condoleeza Rice and all these other idiots to do that
Speaker 2: as well. Absolutely, let's just keep in mind exactly who
Speaker 2: we're dealing with. He says all these things out in
Speaker 2: the opening. It feels totally comfortable. Yeah, any last things
Speaker 2: for the movie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, even though it's utterly psychotic, Like I
Speaker 1: genuinely can't wrap my head around the psychopathy that it
Speaker 1: requires to just like casually flirt with this gigantic war.
Speaker 1: You can see why he did it, because now the
Speaker 1: frame of conversation isn't oh my god, here's a baby
Speaker 1: who you're starving to death in Gaza. Now the frame
Speaker 1: of conversation is freaking Mike Johnson out there talking about
Speaker 1: the access of evil. That's much stronger ground for bb
Speaker 1: net Yahu with the political class here, certainly with the
Speaker 1: Democrats who are in power here. And you know, frankly,
Speaker 1: it's just a much better conversation for him to take
Speaker 1: the focus off the suffering of Palestinians at their hands
Speaker 1: and at our hands. That completely shifts the frame in
Speaker 1: a way that is much more favorable for him. And also,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, it's not an accident that
Speaker 1: this is right at the moment when there was Haretz
Speaker 1: op ed saying listen, we got to face it. This
Speaker 1: has been a disaster. We have lost on every reasonable
Speaker 1: metric of success in Gaza. So he also has to
Speaker 1: shift the frame domestically to some other victory that he
Speaker 1: can chase after. So the logic of it is sick,
Speaker 1: but you can see exactly how he made this calculation
Speaker 1: and decided to thrust all of us into this incredible chaos.
Speaker 2: All right, let's move on to Arizona. This is very,
Speaker 2: very impactful in terms of the electoral news. So just
Speaker 2: yesterday there was major breaking in terms of after the
Speaker 2: Arizona Supreme Court upheld a Civil War era law which
Speaker 2: banned abortion across the board in the entire state. There
Speaker 2: has been now an intra GOP fight on whether to
Speaker 2: try and repeal that law or not.
Speaker 3: Well, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Just yesterday, the state Senate introduced a bill to repeal
Speaker 2: that abortion band. And by the way, by repeal, I
Speaker 2: just mean adding for rape incests and.
Speaker 3: The life of the mother.
Speaker 2: But the House actually blocked the effort to do so,
Speaker 2: showing that the House Republican leadership quote shows no signs
Speaker 2: of relenting despite pressure from prominent Republicans, including Trump, to
Speaker 2: toss the ban that many voters quote view as extreme
Speaker 2: and archaic.
Speaker 3: I think that that's a reasonable way to put it.
Speaker 2: Well, the House Republican Leader, the House Speaker, the House
Speaker 2: Legislature was controlled by the Republicans in Arizona. They just
Speaker 2: seem content on throwing this entire election. And it is
Speaker 2: astounding because this is a position that is not held
Speaker 2: by even a majority of the minority I guess of
Speaker 2: the people who are pro life, and yet that's the
Speaker 2: current law on the books in a critical battleground state.
Speaker 2: What's even more astounding to me is how the politicians
Speaker 2: there are navigating it. So Carrie Lake, somebody who is
Speaker 2: the Arizona Senate candidate, previously on tape saying she was
Speaker 2: completely fine with the ban. Then after the ban came out,
Speaker 2: she said, well, yeah, we should have some sort of repeal.
Speaker 2: We need to come sort of a consensus, but I
Speaker 2: support exceptions for the life and the mother. Well here
Speaker 2: she is just yesterday in an interview in local Arizona
Speaker 2: media where now she's changing her tune a little bit.
Speaker 2: She does support the band. She says something else, which
Speaker 2: you'll listen out for him. We'll flag it after we listen.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: Can you explain your shift on abortion from civil war
Speaker 9: law to now.
Speaker 6: No federal ban on abortion, because I believe that, truly,
Speaker 6: that's something that people do want to hear from what
Speaker 6: we've heard this past.
Speaker 10: Well, first of all, I've never shifted from the no
Speaker 10: federal ban. You know, if you're my age or older,
Speaker 10: you've been on this planet for more than fifty years.
Speaker 10: Roby Wade was was the law of the land, even
Speaker 10: though both sides knew it was unconstitutional, and the Supreme
Speaker 10: Court struck that down and brought the decision back to
Speaker 10: the state. So we're going to have fifty different state laws.
Speaker 10: So we need to find some common sense approach. I'm
Speaker 10: never going to apologize for wanting to say babies and
Speaker 10: being pro life, but I also realize the world that
Speaker 10: we're living in, even if we have a restrictive law here,
Speaker 10: you can go three hours that way, three hours that way,
Speaker 10: and you're gonna be able to have an abortion. We
Speaker 10: have to start working in the minds and hearts of women.
Speaker 2: Yeah. One of the ways to win over the minds
Speaker 2: and hearts of women, Crystal is to say, yeah, I know,
Speaker 2: in our state, the state that you live in, and
Speaker 2: that you pay taxes in voting, I know, I know,
Speaker 2: that's really tough. And that's why it's okay that you
Speaker 2: have to get into a car and you can drive
Speaker 2: three hours that way or three hours that way. Also,
Speaker 2: depending on where you live in Arizona, it may be
Speaker 2: several hours. And also you may have to get on
Speaker 2: a plane. So it's actually gonna cost you some money
Speaker 2: as opposed to being able to pursue what you want
Speaker 2: to do in your own home state. That sounds really
Speaker 2: comforting to a lot of the voters who are concerned
Speaker 2: about this.
Speaker 3: What are these people? Are they living in an alternative reality?
Speaker 2: Right? Well?
Speaker 3: What is happening here? Am I losing my mind here?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the line is basically, oh, it's no big
Speaker 1: deal because you can just like go over state lines
Speaker 1: and still do the same thing. She's framing it in
Speaker 1: terms of like, that's a bad thing, but the subtimes
Speaker 1: here is like, yeah, don't freak out, because you know
Speaker 1: there are other states around that aren't using eighteen sixty
Speaker 1: four laws passed by settler pedophiles, that you can avail
Speaker 1: yourself of the rights that you previously enjoyed in our state,
Speaker 1: you know, just to help people understand why the Republicans
Speaker 1: in the House in Arizona may have made what seems
Speaker 1: on its face to be this sort of like politically
Speaker 1: insane decision of making sure that this law stays as
Speaker 1: it is on the books. And it's because of the
Speaker 1: power of organized minority groups, and this is what is
Speaker 1: long driven abortion politics really, and in particular, you know
Speaker 1: you have it is especially now a minority position to
Speaker 1: have this effectively absolute ban. But for people that vote
Speaker 1: on that issue in the Republican Party in particular, they
Speaker 1: are the ones who support such things. So if you're
Speaker 1: doing the calculus of like, I don't want to face
Speaker 1: a Republican primary next time around, if you have a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are organized that hold this fringe
Speaker 1: view in terms of the American people, that can end
Speaker 1: up being a real political threat to you. And you
Speaker 1: know the other thing is you're gonna have to deal
Speaker 1: with the situation that Carrie Lake is dealing with of
Speaker 1: wait a second, voters looking at you and going, wait
Speaker 1: a second. Previously you said you love the S band.
Speaker 1: Previously you said you believed in you know, heartbeat bills
Speaker 1: and fetal personhood and all this stuff. So why the change?
Speaker 1: Why suddenly is there this incredible world flip flop? And
Speaker 1: listen to be fair to that position. If you are
Speaker 1: a person who genuinely believes that abortion is murder, if
Speaker 1: that's your principal position, then this like leave it up
Speaker 1: to the states, and it's cool if they have murder
Speaker 1: in California. And actually I want to allow a little
Speaker 1: bit more murder here in Arizona because I'm doing this
Speaker 1: political calculus and it doesn't look good to me, Like
Speaker 1: I think it's fair for people who hold that moral
Speaker 1: position and believed you when you were all all in
Speaker 1: with them when there were no consequences, are disgusted with
Speaker 1: the flip flop?
Speaker 3: No, it should be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you're very pro life, you should be repulsed
Speaker 2: also by people who are basically willing to use you
Speaker 2: as upon And if your pro choice. You should just
Speaker 2: look at this and be like, Wow, this is freaking crazy. Yeah, electorally,
Speaker 2: we already know what's going to happen here Lo and behold,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: What do we got?
Speaker 2: A key change in the way that the Arizona Senate
Speaker 2: race is being rated in terms of which way it's
Speaker 2: going to go, it has now gone from toss up
Speaker 2: to Lean's Democratic, and in terms of the House rating,
Speaker 2: same thing in the Arizona sixth district, Lean's Republican to
Speaker 2: toss up so est safe seat, easy seat one that
Speaker 2: you're supposed to be a checkbox Leans Republican.
Speaker 3: It's Arizona, for God's sake, right, Nope, not anymore.
Speaker 2: And now Carrie Lake, i mean carry had all kinds
Speaker 2: of problems already with stop the steal, with abortion, healthcare,
Speaker 2: we can all go on forever. So it's her highlight
Speaker 2: reel was going to be a problem for her no
Speaker 2: matter what, especially in a state where we've had multiple
Speaker 2: races now both presidential and statewide, where Democrats did better
Speaker 2: than expected. But this is just the gift to Democrats.
Speaker 2: This is the greatest gift you could ever get. You
Speaker 2: have one of the most extreme abortion laws in the
Speaker 2: whole country. And now you got a lady who used
Speaker 2: to support it is on tape and now is like
Speaker 2: kind of wishy washy on where things could go.
Speaker 3: Good luck.
Speaker 2: You know, Republicans, you know you're taking some of the
Speaker 2: best headwinds in a presidential election and you're just throwing
Speaker 2: it away on an issue where you're not even going
Speaker 2: to win in the first place, I've seen.
Speaker 3: Somebody, actually, I think it was Mike Cernovich you said this.
Speaker 2: He was like, hey, pro lifers, I'm not sure if
Speaker 2: you know this, but there's actually been a net increase
Speaker 2: in abortion in the United States since Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 2: So you guys are drawing your red lines and saying
Speaker 2: you won't vote for Trump and causing all these problems electorally.
Speaker 2: And not only are you going to cause future electoral losses,
Speaker 2: you didn't even win the fight, you know that you
Speaker 2: allegedly set out to do. So it's just been it's
Speaker 2: just ridiculous all the way around.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and just so you know, it's not an accident
Speaker 1: that these ratings changes come right now. The Cook Political
Speaker 1: actually pointed specifically to this eighteen sixty four abortion ban
Speaker 1: and also the fact, by the way, remember there's likely
Speaker 1: to be a ballot initiative on the ballot in November
Speaker 1: that will allow voters to repeal that ban, which is
Speaker 1: very motivating obviously for people who are even remotely on
Speaker 1: the pro choice side of the ledger. And also the fact,
Speaker 1: and this is something we'll have to cover another time,
Speaker 1: that Republican fundraising is dramatically lagging behind Democratic fundraising. And
Speaker 1: that's actually not just an Arizona phenomenon. That's almost across
Speaker 1: the board. And you know, there could be a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons for that. I think Donald Trump is a
Speaker 1: big reason for He is like just sucked dry the
Speaker 1: Republican donor base. There's also a report that he's now
Speaker 1: demanding any Republican candidate that uses his name in a
Speaker 1: fundraising pitch, he's demanding that they give him a five
Speaker 1: percent kickback of whatever they raise off of it. So
Speaker 1: I mean, he's sort of single handedly undermining Republicans' ability
Speaker 1: to fundraise. And I also think that abortion plays into
Speaker 1: the fundraising piece too here, because it's very motivating issue
Speaker 1: for Democratic aligned individuals and specifically donors and Republicans are
Speaker 1: kind of like demoralized around the way that all of
Speaker 1: this has unfolded. Just to show you to this data
Speaker 1: for Progress poll demonstrating just how unpopular the Arizona abortion
Speaker 1: ban actually is, they ask the question, let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. So sixty six percent of voters
Speaker 1: two thirds of the country disapprove of the Arizona Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's near total ban on abortion. And that includes eighty
Speaker 1: two percent of Democrats, sixty six percent of Independence and
Speaker 1: Republicans even basically split fifty to fifty. Forty nine percent
Speaker 1: of Republicans even disapprove of that ban. So just to
Speaker 1: give you a sense of just how toxic this particular
Speaker 1: iteration of abortion bans really is. And you know, Republicans
Speaker 1: can't really run away from it at this point because
Speaker 1: they spent so many years establishing them in this very
Speaker 1: hard line position that you can't try to pull a
Speaker 1: Kerry Lake and just you know, do a one to
Speaker 1: eighty and pretend like you didn't say the things that
Speaker 1: you said in the past, because we can all roll
Speaker 1: the tape.
Speaker 2: You're exactly right, Crystal, And just by the way, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of more messaging from Republicans sees not exactly
Speaker 2: helpful here, we have Senator Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
Speaker 2: where she says that Griswold versus Connecticut is constitutionally unsound. Griswold,
Speaker 2: for those of you who don't know, is the one
Speaker 2: that legalized birth control.
Speaker 11: Let's take a listen constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold versus Connecticut,
Speaker 11: Kila versus City of New London, and n FIB versus
Speaker 11: Sibilius confused Tennesseeans and left Congress wondering who gave the
Speaker 11: court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances?
Speaker 3: Okay, good luck.
Speaker 2: Now we're against the case that legalized birth control, all right,
Speaker 2: unless you got are literally going to pass a law
Speaker 2: almost immediately after so that gets repealed.
Speaker 3: I don't even know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how's that gone with IVF? I know, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean the Republicans are blocking at the federal level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's at least a pro life case for IVF.
Speaker 1: Right, Absolutely, more babies if your family values you want
Speaker 1: more babies, like IVF is an important part of that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, you can see, you know, even when they
Speaker 1: recognize this is politically disastrous, like in Arizona, Kerry Lake
Speaker 1: trying to backtrack Donald Trump like, oh, of course we
Speaker 1: support IVF et cetera, et cetera. When it comes down
Speaker 1: to how they actually vote, they just can't do it
Speaker 1: because there's still so much influence from the very organized
Speaker 1: pro life crowd, which has been able over decades. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: you have to give it to them in terms of
Speaker 1: their sticktuitiveness, in terms of their determination, in terms of
Speaker 1: like the savvy tactics that they used, but to basically
Speaker 1: force a minority fringe position on the entire country. And
Speaker 1: the part that they failed on though, was having any
Speaker 1: sort of plan for what happens next. So in that way,
Speaker 1: they really are the dog that caught the car with
Speaker 1: regards to Roe being overturned and the Dobs decision, And
Speaker 1: it's it's wild, wildwist out.
Speaker 2: There, that's all I'll say, exactly right.
Speaker 1: So we don't want to lose sight of some of
Speaker 1: the updates that are coming out of Israel, including a
Speaker 1: bombshell doing report from UNRA. Now, as we head into
Speaker 1: the segment, I just want you to keep in mind
Speaker 1: as a context that our government just officially certified that
Speaker 1: they have no evidence Israel is violating international humanitarian law. Okay,
Speaker 1: keep that in mind as we move forward. Let's put
Speaker 1: this latest report from UNRA on detainees Palestinine detainees being
Speaker 1: held by Israel being tortured. This matches up, by the way,
Speaker 1: with a number of prior media accounts, but I want
Speaker 1: to give you some of the specifics here because they
Speaker 1: really matter. So first of all, let me read a
Speaker 1: little bit from this report. They say ill treatment of
Speaker 1: detainees was reported to have occurred primarily while in the
Speaker 1: barracks and to have intensified in advance of interrogation sessions.
Speaker 1: This included being subjected to beatings while made to lie
Speaker 1: on a thin mattress on top of rubble for hours
Speaker 1: without food, water, or access to a toilet, with their
Speaker 1: legs and hands bound with plastic ties. As a side note,
Speaker 1: there are doctors who came out and said that amputations
Speaker 1: of limbs because of handcuffing procedures was commonplace in these facilities.
Speaker 1: The report goes on to say several detainees reported being
Speaker 1: forced into cages and attacked by dogs. Some release detainees,
Speaker 1: including a childhead dog bite wounds on their body. Detainees
Speaker 1: were threatened with prolonged detention, injury or the killing of
Speaker 1: family members if they did not provide requested information. One
Speaker 1: detainee said, and this is difficult to hear, so warning there,
Speaker 1: but this is their quote. They made me sit on
Speaker 1: something like a hot metal stick and it felt like
Speaker 1: I have burns in the anus. The soldiers hit me
Speaker 1: with their shoes on my chest and use something like
Speaker 1: a metal stick that had a small nail on the side.
Speaker 1: They asked us to drink from the toilet and made
Speaker 1: the dogs attack us. There were people who were detained
Speaker 1: and killed, maybe nine of them. One of them died
Speaker 1: after they put the electric stick up his anus. He
Speaker 1: got so sick we saw worms coming out of his
Speaker 1: body and then he died. That was an adult male
Speaker 1: detainee who was aged forty one years. There have been
Speaker 1: thousands of Palestinians that we know who have been detained
Speaker 1: by the Israelis since October seventh. In addition, in Sager,
Speaker 1: this is very significant to the US and our policy
Speaker 1: because you'll recall we led the charge in terms of
Speaker 1: defunding UNRA ANRA being the number one aid organization on
Speaker 1: the ground in Gaza. That is part of what has
Speaker 1: contributed to these disastrous humanitarian conditions and turning, including mass
Speaker 1: epidemic of starvation and children literally star sarving to death.
Speaker 1: So we led the charge on that our Congress has
Speaker 1: now passed legislation that requires we continue the defunding of
Speaker 1: UNRA through at least twenty twenty five WILL. And this
Speaker 1: was all based on these allegations that some Unrestaffed members
Speaker 1: participated in some way, some small number of unrestaff members
Speaker 1: this was the allegation participate in some way alongside HAMAS
Speaker 1: on October seven.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: In addition, what this report says is that unrestaff members
Speaker 1: reported being interrogated about the work performed by UNRA and
Speaker 1: the specific functions they perform on behalf of UNRA. They
Speaker 1: also reported being subjected to threats and coercion while in
Speaker 1: detention and being pressured to make forced confessions against the agency,
Speaker 1: including that the agency has affiliations with HAMAS and the
Speaker 1: Unrestaffed took part in the October seventh attacks against Israel.
Speaker 1: So what this report indicates is that those supposed confessions
Speaker 1: were obtained under torture. This, again, Sager, is something that
Speaker 1: had been previously reported in the press, but confirmation here
Speaker 1: coming from a un body of the outright torture being
Speaker 1: committed routinely against Palestinian detainees being held by Israel. We
Speaker 1: got some statement from the State Department of like, you know,
Speaker 1: we want to answers from Israel. I'm sure we'll never
Speaker 1: get those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it's ironic, right, And it's also one of
Speaker 2: those interesting point that Dave brought up last night at
Speaker 2: the zero Hedge debate is he kept saying, like, one
Speaker 2: of the reasons that we're able to have hostage swaps
Speaker 2: is He's like, because Israel has a bunch of hostages,
Speaker 2: excuse me, prisoners, And it was one of those things
Speaker 2: where I was thinking, like, yeah, you know what, that
Speaker 2: really doesn't get a lot more attention about who exactly
Speaker 2: some of these prisoners are and in terms of the
Speaker 2: way not only that they're treated, but in terms of
Speaker 2: the way that they're like disparately viewed. And I think
Speaker 2: that that is part of the issue overall with US policy.
Speaker 2: We focused a lot on one group, we completely obscure
Speaker 2: the actions of another group. And the real issue from
Speaker 2: what I really, you know, came home to me yesterday
Speaker 2: is that for the pro Israel side, moral relativism itself
Speaker 2: is the enemy and that enemy of that, and I
Speaker 2: understand that to a certain extent. But the issue is
Speaker 2: that whenever we're talking here, specifically about the government, a
Speaker 2: third party actor allegedly for the US and our disparate
Speaker 2: treatment in the way that we view one group and
Speaker 2: not the other group, I think that's where everything just
Speaker 2: completely falls apart, because we're not even talking about our
Speaker 2: interests here, we're just like blindly supporting, yeah, another group.
Speaker 1: Well, there's just a blanket assumption that if it's the
Speaker 1: actions of israelis if they do something wrong, which comes
Speaker 1: with a lot well, I don't know who said that,
Speaker 1: and we need proof and whatever, and maybe it's just
Speaker 1: Hamas made this up or you're antisemitic, that's why you're
Speaker 1: saying this. But if they, in some rare instance did
Speaker 1: something wrong, it was always with the best of intentions.
Speaker 1: Whereas if it was a Palestinian and certainly if it
Speaker 1: was Hamas that did something wrong, well the worst possible
Speaker 1: intentions are assumed. And so you can you know, some
Speaker 1: of the comments that were made with a straight face
Speaker 1: about like, well, Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians. It's like,
Speaker 1: have you been watching the same war that we have,
Speaker 1: where they literally announce a complete siege that definitionly targets
Speaker 1: literally every civilian in the Gaza strip. Not to mention
Speaker 1: the revelations that just came out about this AI software
Speaker 1: Where's Daddy, where they're intentionally waiting for militants to go
Speaker 1: home so that they are killed alongside their wives, children,
Speaker 1: other relatives, any other civilian who happens to be around.
Speaker 1: There's something else that is very disturbing about the way
Speaker 1: that Israelis have talked about and conducted this assault, which
Speaker 1: is they've just made the blanket assumption that any man
Speaker 1: who is even proximately fighting age is a terrorist. And
Speaker 1: that's been sort of accepted by the media. And I
Speaker 1: get it in terms of when we're looking at how
Speaker 1: many people have been killed, you know for sure if
Speaker 1: it's a woman or a child, Okay, there's a civilian,
Speaker 1: so we'll count them. And then you just sort of
Speaker 1: assume then that every man who's being slaughtered deserved to
Speaker 1: be killed, or deserved to be detained and tortured and
Speaker 1: had a metal rod shoved up their ass. There's like
Speaker 1: an actual war on men and assumption that they are
Speaker 1: inherently guilty if they happen to be a fighting age
Speaker 1: that I find to be very deeply, deeply disturbing. At
Speaker 1: the same time, we're getting another bombshell report about our
Speaker 1: own government, which again remember the context of the segment,
Speaker 1: just certified so that we can continue to ship Israel
Speaker 1: weapons that Israel is not violating international humanitarian law or
Speaker 1: committing war crimes. Okay, put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So Secretary of State Tony blaken is sitting on staff
Speaker 1: recommendations to sanction certain Israeli military units which were linked
Speaker 1: to killings or rapes. This is a pro public a report.
Speaker 1: Let me read you a little bit of this. A
Speaker 1: special State Department panel recommended months ago that Tony Blinkeln
Speaker 1: disqualified multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving US
Speaker 1: AID after reviewing allegations they committed serious human rights abuses,
Speaker 1: but Blinkn has failed to act on the proposal in
Speaker 1: the face of growing international criticisms of the Israeli military's
Speaker 1: conduct in Gaza. The incidents under review mostly took place
Speaker 1: in the West Bank and occurred before October seventh. They
Speaker 1: include reports of extra judicial killings by the Israeli Border
Speaker 1: police an incident in which a battalion gagged, handcuffed, and
Speaker 1: left an elderly Palestinian American man for dead. And an
Speaker 1: allegation that interrogators tortured and raped a teenager who had
Speaker 1: been accused of throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. And part
Speaker 1: of that torture was attempting to obtain a confession from
Speaker 1: this teenager who they allegedly raped with an object and
Speaker 1: tortured in a variety of other ways. So let me
Speaker 1: just underscore for you. Number one, this was before October seventh.
Speaker 1: So this idea that everything was all hunky dory and
Speaker 1: peaceful and there was a ceasefire and whatever before October seventh,
Speaker 1: clearly nonsense. This was the Westmink. This wasn't even Gaza.
Speaker 1: So you can't do buttoms with any of this. And
Speaker 1: second of all, when the State Department came out and
Speaker 1: said we have no evidence that they've committed human rights abuses,
Speaker 1: it's a lie. It's just a lie. Your own your
Speaker 1: own state department panel told you they were committing human
Speaker 1: rights abuses. You have the report, it's sitting in your
Speaker 1: briefcase or in your desk, or in your email file
Speaker 1: or wherever you have it. So when you say we
Speaker 1: have no evidence of that, you are just directly bold
Speaker 1: faced lying, which isn't a surprise, but it's still important
Speaker 1: to have this direct confirmation from pro public.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, well, the reason why it matters,
Speaker 2: I think, just to reiterate, is that if you find
Speaker 2: them officially in violation, then you can't give them any
Speaker 2: aid because of the Leahy Law. We have laws on
Speaker 2: the books that are designed specifically for this purpose as
Speaker 2: but I will also say they have always found a way.
Speaker 2: And like I said, one of the first stories that
Speaker 2: I chased hard here in Washington is that the US
Speaker 2: government had direct evidence that the Afghan military, who we
Speaker 2: were funding very similar cases, were raping little boys straight up,
Speaker 2: and that our money was directly supporting the warlords who
Speaker 2: were participating in this. And in fact, one of the
Speaker 2: sources that I had told me that in some cases
Speaker 2: US military equipment humbies and others provided to the Afghans
Speaker 2: are actually being used to transport some of these children.
Speaker 2: And what ended up having all of this, by the way,
Speaker 2: is sitting in a vault. It's in Congress. They just
Speaker 2: won't let you and I see it there's an unclassified
Speaker 2: version that was eventually some of it was released, some
Speaker 2: of it was leaked to the Washington Post. But because
Speaker 2: if they released those findings, we would have to shut
Speaker 2: off the whole war in Afghanistan. And this was while
Speaker 2: we were still involved in that. So what do you
Speaker 2: think they did? They just classified the entire thing, and
Speaker 2: then they also started doing all kinds of other things
Speaker 2: where certain casualty numbers and others would ended up being released.
Speaker 2: That's when we could tell how badly the Afghan military
Speaker 2: was doing. So what they would do is they would
Speaker 2: just classify the number of dead for the first time
Speaker 2: in nineteen years or whatever of our experience in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: And this is textbook the ways that you get around
Speaker 2: laws like this, and it is just this is the
Speaker 2: real deep state right here.
Speaker 3: This is the deep state.
Speaker 1: You know. There have been a few State Department officials
Speaker 1: employees who have resigned out of horror at the Biden
Speaker 1: administration's policy vis of the Israel. And one of the
Speaker 1: things they point to is that Israel gets this special treatment.
Speaker 1: You know, if it was another country, certainly anyone who
Speaker 1: was remotely adversarial. Okay, we've got our process we had
Speaker 1: our panel. This panel specifically is exists to look at
Speaker 1: potential human rights abuses with regards to Israel specifically, Like,
Speaker 1: that's the whole point in the panel. Any other country
Speaker 1: has that panel, they make their recommendations, actions are generally taken.
Speaker 1: You're making a good point about how there are other
Speaker 1: exceptions as well, but that Israel is treated unlike other nation,
Speaker 1: And it really turns on the head, you know, the
Speaker 1: thing that gets thrown at people who are especially trying
Speaker 1: to support Palestinian rights, or who are deeply concerned about
Speaker 1: this conflict, or or saying, hey, I'm going to vote
Speaker 1: based on Joe Biden's facilitation of the slaughter of Palestinians.
Speaker 1: Here is why are you singling out Israel? Why are
Speaker 1: you just picking on Israel? And it really turns that
Speaker 1: on its head, because what you can see is actually
Speaker 1: the US government singles out Israel time and time again
Speaker 1: for special treatment and allows our own you know, our
Speaker 1: own government to flout laws put in place to constrain
Speaker 1: behavior and to make sure that we aren't shipping the
Speaker 1: bombs that get dropped on refugee camps as one example.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to Israel, all of that gets buried,
Speaker 1: it gets pushed aside. There is a special procedure that's
Speaker 1: different from when it comes to other countries, and so
Speaker 1: you see it very clearly in this instance. I'm curious
Speaker 1: to see how Matt Miller or whoever's at the podium
Speaker 1: today in the State Department briefing, if they have one,
Speaker 1: how they deal with this latest very inconvenient fact. It'll
Speaker 1: be some version of like, we're investigating, we are investigating.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen the rapport. We'll look into it, we'll
Speaker 1: get back to you. We take it seriously, of course,
Speaker 1: but they're always investigating and they're never coming to any
Speaker 1: conclusions when it comes to Israel.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's right.
Speaker 1: All right. Let's go ahead to another important issue that
Speaker 1: we did not want to miss, which is yesterday they're
Speaker 1: actually two separate Senate hearings into what the hell is
Speaker 1: going on over at Boeing. There were two different Boeing
Speaker 1: whistleblowers who raised extraordinary concerns about what they reportedly saw
Speaker 1: when they were in Boeing's employ Here is a snippet
Speaker 1: of one of the whistleblowers. This is Ed Pearson, who says,
Speaker 1: in no uncertain terms, Boeing is engaged in a criminal
Speaker 1: cover up with regard to safety violations. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: Boeing routinely states that their airplanes meet or exceed all
Speaker 12: safety standards. This is untrue and misrepresents the safety of
Speaker 12: the airplanes. The company illegally removed thousands of quality control
Speaker 12: inspections on individual airplanes without the FA's knowledge and without
Speaker 12: the knowledge of the airlines. Although many of these inspections
Speaker 12: have been reinstated, hundreds of airplanes have left Boeing factories
Speaker 12: without those thousands of inspections. My last point is that
Speaker 12: Department of Justice and FBI relied on the slanted results
Speaker 12: of the first Max accident investigation to develop an illegal
Speaker 12: and unjust deferred prosecution agreement. The NTSP chair reiterated Congress
Speaker 12: last week that Boeing has said there are no records
Speaker 12: documenting the removal of the Alaska Airlines store. I'm not
Speaker 12: going to sugarcoat this. This is a criminal cover up.
Speaker 12: Records do in fact exists. I know this because I've
Speaker 12: personally passed him to the FBI.
Speaker 1: Now, I want to underscore what he's saying right there,
Speaker 1: because these hearings are of course directly about that Alaska
Speaker 1: Airlines door plug which came out in mid flight, terrifying.
Speaker 1: Thank god, no one was injured, you know, really, by
Speaker 1: the grace of God, it could have been that everyone
Speaker 1: on board that aircraft was deceased. And in the context
Speaker 1: of that investigation, Boeing said, oh, some of these safety records.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened to him. We misplaced them. Oops. Oops,
Speaker 1: just an honest mistake here, And he's saying very directly, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you didn't misplace them. Those records existed. And I know,
Speaker 1: and I'm calling this a criminal cover up directly because
Speaker 1: I handed those records to the federal government. So an
Speaker 1: extraordinary claim their sager. There was another whistleblower, Sam Salapor,
Speaker 1: a Boeing quality engineer, who testified to Josh Holly their
Speaker 1: planes are not safe, and he claims he was threatened
Speaker 1: and silenced by the company as well as to listen
Speaker 1: to a little bit of what he had to say.
Speaker 8: Are these planes safe right now?
Speaker 13: I would not. You know, it's like an earthquake, you know,
Speaker 13: the big air quokes is coming. But when that hits
Speaker 13: the building that you know you let's say, if you're
Speaker 13: talking of a building have to be prepared to accommodate
Speaker 13: that type of well, let's say, shake up. You know,
Speaker 13: it has to be built properly. Right now, from what
Speaker 13: I've seen, the airplanes are not being built perspect and
Speaker 13: per requirement.
Speaker 8: So your testimony is the seven eighty seventh line and
Speaker 8: the seven Triple seven, the Triple seven line, or you think,
Speaker 8: are not well.
Speaker 13: They are doing stuff that increases the risk factors. Okay,
Speaker 13: when you increase the risk factors, you know it's not
Speaker 13: just one. You are doing stress concentrations. That those stress
Speaker 13: concentrations like you know, breaking a paper clip. You know
Speaker 13: you do it so or twice, it doesn't break, but
Speaker 13: it breaks at some time as the plane gets older.
Speaker 13: You know, all of these things that you know you took.
Speaker 13: You know, you said it's not a safety issue. It
Speaker 13: becomes a safety issue.
Speaker 8: And the company's response to you was to threaten you.
Speaker 13: Threaten you, sideline you, you know, transfer you.
Speaker 8: You raise concerns about the seven eighty seven, and so
Speaker 8: they transferred you, transferred you to the seven Triple seven.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 13: Well, yes, initially they just cut me off of all
Speaker 13: the meetings. They took my name out, and then so
Speaker 13: I was just doing nothing. I wasn't informed of what.
Speaker 13: Then they transferred me, and they do it pretty stealthy.
Speaker 13: Oh we have a job over here, we want to
Speaker 13: go over there, so they move you down there. And
Speaker 13: you know, I come from like forty years of engineering background,
Speaker 13: so when I see and I've taken a lot of
Speaker 13: stress class, stress classes, even though I'm not done a
Speaker 13: specialist on that. But when there's a problematic area that
Speaker 13: you see, you can recognize.
Speaker 1: So another, let's put this last hair sheet up on
Speaker 1: the screen. He made an additional comment that really jumped out,
Speaker 1: and man, I'm sure you'll find it noteworthy as well. Sager.
Speaker 1: He said, quote in regards to retaliation, I was sidelined,
Speaker 1: I was told to shut up. I received physical threats.
Speaker 1: My boss said I would have killed someone who said
Speaker 1: what you said. In that meeting. Senator Richard Blumenthal in addition,
Speaker 1: asked about hey, what about the FAA. What if we
Speaker 1: hired more inspectors? Would that help? And one of these individuals,
Speaker 1: who was a former FAA engineer, said yeah, that would help.
Speaker 1: But the attitude right now at the FAA is that
Speaker 1: Boeing dictates to the FAA. So I mean, these are
Speaker 1: deep seated problems here, and the consistent issue that comes
Speaker 1: up very clearly over and over again is it was
Speaker 1: about profits over safety. They were willing to cut corners.
Speaker 1: There are some horrifying examples about employees who were jumping
Speaker 1: on plane parts to try to bend them so they
Speaker 1: would fit in. And now you think you're going to
Speaker 1: be safe on that airplane. That they have completely lost
Speaker 1: their way, and the FAA has become really captured by
Speaker 1: this corporation and effectively has outsourced their own regulatory capabilities
Speaker 1: to the company itself.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 2: He says that Boeing should ground every single seven eighty
Speaker 2: seven Dreamliner which is in the sky. He says one
Speaker 2: thousand Boeing planes are currently in a danger of structural
Speaker 2: failure because of premature fatigue. On the seven eighty seven. Specifically,
Speaker 2: he says that tiny gaps and plane parts have not
Speaker 2: yet been properly filled. According to him, they have not
Speaker 2: been properly addressed ninety eight point seven percent of the time,
Speaker 2: and that debris is now lodged in eighty percent of
Speaker 2: these unfilled gaps, which could easily result in a fire.
Speaker 3: He claims, as you said, that people are.
Speaker 2: Literally using their feet to jump on top of pieces
Speaker 2: of the airplane to get them to align, and that
Speaker 2: none of the stress testing which is happening, which is
Speaker 2: leaving catastrophic gaps of error. Combine that with the criminal
Speaker 2: cover up safety documents that the other gentleman said that
Speaker 2: he's given to the FBI, and it's like, what more evidence.
Speaker 3: Do we need here?
Speaker 2: We need a complete national takeover of Boeing until we
Speaker 2: can figure out what the hell is going on, especially
Speaker 2: because we are the ones. You know, back to the
Speaker 2: tax situation, Yes, bowe makes a lot of money in
Speaker 2: their private business. They also wouldn't survive without the US government.
Speaker 2: We've built this company out a million times since its inception,
Speaker 2: and recently in twenty twenty, we fund huge portions of
Speaker 2: their business through the military industrial complex. You know, it's
Speaker 2: not just passengers which are unsafe, it's our service members.
Speaker 2: And then look at the F thirty five program, which
Speaker 2: was a complete nightmare, not Boeing, but still it's a
Speaker 2: similar situation. My point is just that commercial aviation, there's
Speaker 2: one hundred million Americans who step foot on a plane
Speaker 2: at some point in a year on a yearly basis.
Speaker 2: That's one third of the entire country, and there's a
Speaker 2: great shot that you're stepping on a Boeing aircraft. I've
Speaker 2: been counting recently, seven out of the ten last planes
Speaker 2: that I've been on, we're Boeing. And it's like in
Speaker 2: every single one of these. You just look at that
Speaker 2: and you're like, well, you know, I hope it works out.
Speaker 2: And yes, commercial aviation is very safe statistically and all
Speaker 2: of that, but the catastrophic failures which we see today
Speaker 2: were not ever part of commercial aviation before. And this
Speaker 2: is all a result of the pursuit of profit, the
Speaker 2: sacrifice of safety, lack of government regulation, and just a
Speaker 2: complete criminal cover up. Now at this point, because lives
Speaker 2: are not just at stake, lives have been lost. Hundreds
Speaker 2: of people died as a result of Boeing's mistake, not
Speaker 2: just that long ago, and now this is the second
Speaker 2: instance in just a matter of five years where people's
Speaker 2: lives directly put at risk as a result of a failure.
Speaker 1: At this point, and the number of safety instances that
Speaker 1: are stacking up at this point, I mean, it has
Speaker 1: been essential to the commercial airline industry that they have
Speaker 1: this pristine safety record because guess what, people feel little
Speaker 1: nervous getting on an airplane and flying so high up
Speaker 1: there and thinking about what could happen. And the only
Speaker 1: reason that prospect works is because you can look at
Speaker 1: it statistically and say, I'm actually more at risk when
Speaker 1: I get in my car. Well, what if that calculus
Speaker 1: starts to change, and then you know, to your tax
Speaker 1: point a modest proposal, how about you send our tax
Speaker 1: dollars instead of going to bomb babies. How about you
Speaker 1: send our tax dollars to have a real FAA that
Speaker 1: has the capability to actually regulate and not just say hey, hey, Boeing,
Speaker 1: are you doing a good job. Okay, great work, keep
Speaker 1: it up, because that's what we have right now. And
Speaker 1: by the way, this is a problem across the board
Speaker 1: with regulatory agencies. This was a whole sort of like
Speaker 1: neoliberal ideological project of we're effectively going to gut these agencies.
Speaker 1: They're not going to have the technical know how to
Speaker 1: even you know, credibly regulate these complex industries, let alone
Speaker 1: the manpower or the funding. So this is that's part
Speaker 1: of why this story is so important. It's important on
Speaker 1: its own just because of how significant this one company
Speaker 1: is and how entangled it is with the American taxpayer
Speaker 1: and all of our lives. But it's also important because
Speaker 1: it's so symbolic of a deeper rot that really exists
Speaker 1: in almost every industry that you care to dig into.
Speaker 1: So extraordinarily significant testimony that we heard yesterday, and of
Speaker 1: course we can't forget about the prior whistleblower who raised similar,
Speaker 1: very significant concerns about a lack of attention to detail,
Speaker 1: about taking parts that had been discarded as these are defective,
Speaker 1: pulling them out of the heap and putting them into airplanes.
Speaker 1: And then lo and behold, while he's in the middle
Speaker 1: of testifying, he is quote unquote found dead, and at
Speaker 1: least some of his coworkers do not believe that he
Speaker 1: committed suicide. Still a lot of questions around what the
Speaker 1: hell happened there. So kudos to these two men who
Speaker 1: know that their safety is at risk. There's no doubt
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 2: As he said, he literally said to his boss, said
Speaker 2: that he would have killed somebody who said what he said.
Speaker 2: So I guess we should just state for the record
Speaker 2: neither of these men are suicidal.
Speaker 3: And I hope that they have some records and.
Speaker 2: All of that ready, and that their families and all
Speaker 2: of that are prepared for their safety as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, indeed, we wanted to track a really important labor story.
Speaker 1: Of course, we covered extensively the United Auto Worker negotiations
Speaker 1: with the Big Three, which netted a significant contract improvement
Speaker 1: for all of the workers there. That seems to have
Speaker 1: sparked quite a bit of momentum in terms of unionizing
Speaker 1: more auto workers around the country, including at foreign automakers,
Speaker 1: and the uaw's new president, Sean Fain, very aggressively going
Speaker 1: after these new organizing drives. And one of the big
Speaker 1: places where they are laying their claim is in a
Speaker 1: Tennessee Volkswagen plan which has previously they've previously attempted to
Speaker 1: unionize this workforce and it got voted down twice before,
Speaker 1: but they feel really good about their prospects this time
Speaker 1: around for a variety of reasons I'll get into. Put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen from Bloomberg headline here how
Speaker 1: the UAW is winning over new plants starting with Volkswagen.
Speaker 1: So this factory is actually voting right now on whether
Speaker 1: to become the only foreign commercial carmaker that is unionized
Speaker 1: in the United States. Would also be the first plant
Speaker 1: to join the UAW since that strike last fall that
Speaker 1: we covered so extensively. One of the members of the
Speaker 1: organizing committed committee, one of the workers there at the
Speaker 1: Tennessee factory, says, quote, We're going to be the first
Speaker 1: domino to fall and encourage these other plans to get
Speaker 1: out there with us. As I referenced before, there were
Speaker 1: two prior attempts. Now, the South is notoriously difficult in
Speaker 1: terms of unionizing. They have right to work laws quote
Speaker 1: unquote right to work laws and a genuine general anti
Speaker 1: union climate. There was a lot of sort of political
Speaker 1: involvement from the governor at the time, effectively threatening these
Speaker 1: workers that if they do decide to unionize then the
Speaker 1: plant is going to be shut down. Now that is
Speaker 1: illegal to do, but there was of course no accountability.
Speaker 1: So you know, this time around they have gotten a
Speaker 1: super much authority of workers to sign the card indicating
Speaker 1: they would like to unionize. So that's significant. They really
Speaker 1: have made it a very local worker, ground up movement
Speaker 1: to try to unionize this time. And I think the
Speaker 1: two other things I would point to here why they
Speaker 1: feel so good about this is that Number one, you have,
Speaker 1: as opposed to twenty nineteen under Trump, you have a
Speaker 1: much more pro union president, much more pro union NLARB.
Speaker 1: So you've got a friendlier climate in terms of some
Speaker 1: of the decisions that could come from the NLRB in
Speaker 1: terms of unionizing. But the big thing is this momentum
Speaker 1: from UAW. You know, you look at you look at
Speaker 1: what they were able to achieve, and these workers are saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm doing literally the same job and I'm not getting
Speaker 1: nearly what they're getting. So that's an incredibly powerful motivator
Speaker 1: as well. You've got some Republican politicians in Tennessee and
Speaker 1: in other states that UAW also has their eyes has
Speaker 1: their eyeset on trying to trash this and undermine this effort.
Speaker 1: A Tennessee state senator said, voting against the UAW is
Speaker 1: protecting Tennessee's values. In Alabama, the UAW is making inroads
Speaker 1: at a Hyundai plant. The governor there, Kivys, denounced the
Speaker 1: union as a threat from Detroit, warned that the Alabama
Speaker 1: model for economic successes under attack, and Sean Faine, the
Speaker 1: president UAW, replied to that She's damn right, it is.
Speaker 1: It's under attack because workers are fed up with getting screwed.
Speaker 1: So yeah, interesting there.
Speaker 2: It is actually especially because so much of what's going
Speaker 2: on in the South. One of the things I'm really
Speaker 2: watching is how politics are changing down in the South
Speaker 2: and in the sun Belt. We've had a huge population influx.
Speaker 2: The economies of these states are booming manufacturing, but they're
Speaker 2: still controlled by older red state ideology, despite the fact
Speaker 2: that their voters have significantly changed. So, for example, this
Speaker 2: is happening in the state of Tennessee. Tennessee is not
Speaker 2: that many people. They have had a huge influx, specifically
Speaker 2: in the city of Nashville, the rich suburbs of Franklin,
Speaker 2: and others from California, from all over New York, et cetera.
Speaker 2: The question now is that, in the combination also with
Speaker 2: a lot of the economic growth, is are they going
Speaker 2: to stick to some of this right to work policy
Speaker 2: and other things that they traditionally have now for right now,
Speaker 2: it does seem like that is the direction. But with
Speaker 2: the change in voters, but also what I think is
Speaker 2: going to be a change in their economy. I mean,
Speaker 2: no offense, Georgia, you weren't exactly an economic powerhouse, but
Speaker 2: nowadays like you really are becoming one. Florida, Alabama, Tennessee,
Speaker 2: there's a ton of manufacturing that is down there from BMW,
Speaker 2: Toyota and all these other Volkswagen et cetera. And they're
Speaker 2: going to have to grapple and kind of change with
Speaker 2: some of the new updates to their population and to
Speaker 2: their economies as well. So yeah, I think that this
Speaker 2: is actually a preview of what I expect big big
Speaker 2: fights in the Sunbelt article.
Speaker 1: It's a real test case of whether or not you know.
Speaker 1: And it's very symbolic too, since the vote failed here twice.
Speaker 1: If they can off, it really does show that it's
Speaker 1: a new day, that it's a new climate. The other
Speaker 1: factor I forgot to mention is just unions are way
Speaker 1: more popular than they used to be. You know, they're
Speaker 1: sort of a historic high in terms of popularity and receptivity.
Speaker 1: I saw this quote. I was trying to find it
Speaker 1: specifically from a worker, but who said, you know, they
Speaker 1: looked at the UAW contract and they said, I want
Speaker 1: my life to be more like what they've got. Nothing
Speaker 1: could be more powerful than seeing that model of success.
Speaker 1: And that is a one point eighty from what has
Speaker 1: been happening our entire lives with regard to the labor movement,
Speaker 1: where every contract is concessionary, and they're having to take
Speaker 1: cuts and cuts and cuts, and so yeah, rationally, if
Speaker 1: you're a worker, you look at that and you're like, Eh,
Speaker 1: this is risky, And they're telling me they're going to
Speaker 1: shut down the plant. And it's not even looking like
Speaker 1: they're getting that good of a deal over there, So
Speaker 1: why should I stick my neck out? Now that calculation
Speaker 1: has really flipped. UAW has their site on, as I said,
Speaker 1: this Hyundai plant in Alabama. They also are looking at Tesla.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really want to make a push kind
Speaker 1: of across the board. And there's no place that's more
Speaker 1: important or more difficult to organize than these auto plants
Speaker 1: in the South, which specifically located in these states in
Speaker 1: part because of their anti union politics. They want to
Speaker 1: get away with paying their workers less than giving them
Speaker 1: less benefits, etc.
Speaker 11: More.
Speaker 1: Perfect Union has been doing a characteristic great job covering
Speaker 1: this union drive. They spoke to a worker there named
Speaker 1: Robert about why he thinks this time is going to
Speaker 1: be different and why some of the intimidation tactics are
Speaker 1: not going to work this time around. Let's listen at
Speaker 1: what he had to say.
Speaker 9: The loudest voices of the anti union. They keep trying
Speaker 9: to press this notion that if we unionize Volkswags and
Speaker 9: shuts down, they're going to close their factory. They're not
Speaker 9: going to pull it out just because four thousand employees
Speaker 9: out of six hundred thousand want to be organized, not
Speaker 9: to mention the fact that all of their other factories
Speaker 9: are organized. So the US is a huge market for
Speaker 9: any auto manufacturer. They all want in this place. Really,
Speaker 9: it boils down to if you have a bad union,
Speaker 9: it's bad leaderships. It has nothing to do with the
Speaker 9: philosophy of unions or what unions can gain as a whole.
Speaker 9: So there's really not really great meat to sink your
Speaker 9: teeth into when it comes to trying to tear the
Speaker 9: idea of a union apart, and so they use the
Speaker 9: the old reliables like it's going to shut your union down.
Speaker 1: The other thing to note here, Sakar is a Volkswagen
Speaker 1: because they work with unions in other countries. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to say that they've been like, you know, open
Speaker 1: arms the union drive. I'm sure the organizers on the
Speaker 1: ground could point to some nefarious dealings, but they have
Speaker 1: not been as aggressively anti union as some other you know,
Speaker 1: like Starbucks and other Amazon and other corporate giants that
Speaker 1: have been the last thing. Put this last element up
Speaker 1: on the screen referred to the anti union climate and
Speaker 1: where this goes next. So after this vote, there's an
Speaker 1: organizing drive happening in that Alabama Hundai plant, and lawmakers
Speaker 1: are there are really trying to go after any companies
Speaker 1: that would even be like receptive to unions. So they
Speaker 1: are working on a bill that would bar any sort
Speaker 1: of state incentives to companies that voluntarily recognize unions. So
Speaker 1: what this means is, you know, theoretically they used to
Speaker 1: work more like this. Once you have a majority of
Speaker 1: workers in the bargaining unit who sign a cards and yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to unionize, employers can say, okay, great, we
Speaker 1: voluntarily recognize it. That's it. You have a union and
Speaker 1: not go through the strawa. Okay, now we have to
Speaker 1: vote blah blah blah, And there's this battle going on
Speaker 1: at the workplace, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, we got
Speaker 1: a majority here, they want to be in the union. There,
Speaker 1: it's a done deal. So companies have that option, and
Speaker 1: Alabama lawmakers are effectively not that a lot of companies
Speaker 1: avail themselves of that option, but Alabama lawmakers are trying
Speaker 1: to take that option off the table altogether. And you
Speaker 1: can imagine saga that at this point, if you do
Speaker 1: have a victory at Volkswagen after some of the other
Speaker 1: victors that we've seen, how companies may calculate that it's
Speaker 1: better for them to build goodwill for their employees if
Speaker 1: they see the writing on the wall that union is
Speaker 1: definitely coming in, that the workers are almost definitely going
Speaker 1: to win, that they can avoid all of that, save
Speaker 1: the expense and just voluntarily recognize the union. Move from there,
Speaker 1: Alabama trying to undermine that direction.
Speaker 2: The other thing about unionization is even if it's not successful.
Speaker 2: For example, Costco leadership put out this statement which I
Speaker 2: thought was fantastic, where some Costco shop decided to unionize
Speaker 2: and the executives put out a statement they said, hey,
Speaker 2: you guys voted to unionize. Clearly we're doing something wrong,
Speaker 2: and I want to hear what you guys want, and
Speaker 2: I want to make sure that all my employees in
Speaker 2: this entire country are so well taken care of they
Speaker 2: don't feel like they have to do this now.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously he's got an incentive to do so, but.
Speaker 2: The mea act of it was enough for them to
Speaker 2: be like, Okay, I guess.
Speaker 3: We got to pay people more. Yeah, I guess we
Speaker 3: got to pay people a lot more.
Speaker 1: That's such an important point. It's such an important point
Speaker 1: because the rise of unionism doesn't just benefit those workers
Speaker 1: who happen to be in a union, which is still
Speaker 1: a pitily percentage of the American workforce. We've seen this
Speaker 1: in the auto industry. Other automakers, including Tesla Jacky, had
Speaker 1: to increase their wages because they could see the writing
Speaker 1: on the wall Amazon. After the Amazon Labor Union had
Speaker 1: that historic success on the organizing the Staten Island warehouse,
Speaker 1: they had to lift some of their wages. They felt
Speaker 1: the pressure that even though it was just this one warehouse,
Speaker 1: now you've got drives going on across the country. You've
Speaker 1: got not only ALU, you've got the teamsters look going
Speaker 1: to organize Amazon as well. And so they're under pressure feeling,
Speaker 1: all right, we got to do something to try to
Speaker 1: make our employees, employees happier so that they don't choose
Speaker 1: to unionize, because we still want to have a total
Speaker 1: top down control of what we've got going on here.
Speaker 1: So it isn't just the wages and benefits of union
Speaker 1: workers that are at stake here. It really does sort
Speaker 1: of set the pace for the entire industry, in the
Speaker 1: entire economy.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 1: All right, let's turn to our favorite politician, Senator Robert Menenda.
Speaker 1: You said, scumbag could not be a better word to
Speaker 1: describe this individual. Okay, you'll recall he's under indictment for
Speaker 1: a variety of alleged corrupt dealings, including the notorious gold
Speaker 1: bars that were found in his closet. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: poor allegedly taking cash and other gifts and favors from
Speaker 1: foreign businessmen and then using that and doing favors for
Speaker 1: them in return and for their countries in return. Disgusting
Speaker 1: abuse of power, allegedly. All right, put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So as if that's not bad enough. Now
Speaker 1: we got a little sneak peek and how he's going
Speaker 1: to approach this in court, And according to court documents
Speaker 1: that his lawyers filed, he is planning to basically throw
Speaker 1: his wife under the bus and say that she kept
Speaker 1: the truth from him. She was the one getting the
Speaker 1: money she was hiding what was really going on and
Speaker 1: misleading poor innocent Robert Mendez into thinking that the gold
Speaker 1: bars in his closet were there and it was all
Speaker 1: on the up and up. Pretty extraordinary. Can put this
Speaker 1: next piece up on the screen. The reason he's able
Speaker 1: to do this is because his legal team was able
Speaker 1: to successfully split his case from his wife's. Apparently she's
Speaker 1: having some sort of surgery and has some sort of
Speaker 1: medical issue. I don't really know the details of that.
Speaker 1: His trial's beginning in May, her trial's beginning in July.
Speaker 1: So the thought is he can use this defense for himself,
Speaker 1: throw his wife under the bus, and not really impact
Speaker 1: the way her case is separately adjudicated since they were
Speaker 1: successful in splitting these two. But just the idea of
Speaker 1: you're going to blame your wife and the details of this,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys recall the way they
Speaker 1: describe it here. They say they were accused of accepting
Speaker 1: tens of thousands in cash and gold bars from three
Speaker 1: businessmen and what prosecutors described as a wide ranging bribery
Speaker 1: scheme in exchange. The Center stands acused of trying to
Speaker 1: help secure overseas business deals, as well as interfere with
Speaker 1: separate criminal investigations related to two of the businessmen. There
Speaker 1: was also like a luxury car involved all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff like that. And if you think this man didn't
Speaker 1: know exactly what was going on and what he was doing,
Speaker 1: I've got a bridge to side.
Speaker 2: Well we know it because gold and dollars were found
Speaker 2: in items of clothing bearing his name.
Speaker 3: How can you possibly claim that you didn't know that.
Speaker 2: It literally has his name ascribed on the jacket and
Speaker 2: money that is tucked in the same thing.
Speaker 3: I think my name is actually here on this.
Speaker 1: Imagine you got gold bars in there.
Speaker 2: My name is right here, Soccer and Jedty. Okay, you
Speaker 2: can read it very clearly, and there were one hundred
Speaker 2: dollars bills in here. But yeah, it was it was
Speaker 2: my wife who put that she not touching your suits?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? So look, this is totally ridiculous.
Speaker 2: And as I said to scum behavior, you know, at
Speaker 2: this point, let's say if he isn't true, it's like, dude,
Speaker 2: if you're a real man, you would eat yourself and
Speaker 2: you make sure your poor wife didn't have to go
Speaker 2: to Jim and instead he's so power hungry he's going
Speaker 2: to throw it. By the way, this is a new marriage.
Speaker 2: You know, they were just married in twenty twenty, and
Speaker 2: some of the behavior actually happened before they were even
Speaker 2: officially married, and he was her fiance. So in this
Speaker 2: new marriage, you have so little dedication and love for
Speaker 2: your wife, you're literally going to blame her publicly as
Speaker 2: an official, just so you can try and hang on
Speaker 2: to power. You know, in the United States Senate. You
Speaker 2: you are the absolute scum of the earth. I don't
Speaker 2: think there is like, honestly, this is more shameful and
Speaker 2: worse than the corruption charges. Yeah, to do something like
Speaker 2: this as a man like, it's pathetic and it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: It is truly shameful. Like, I can think of fewer
Speaker 1: things that would be less manly in the you know,
Speaker 1: traditional sense than throwing your loved one, your wife under
Speaker 1: the bus for your corrupt dealings. Also, by the way,
Speaker 1: she's not the senator who can you know, get them
Speaker 1: interfering the criminal investigation and you know, help them with
Speaker 1: their international business deals. She's not the one who can
Speaker 1: do that. So I'm very curious to see how they
Speaker 1: attempt to spin this, you know, in terms of his
Speaker 1: political career that is already over. The only thing he's
Speaker 1: hanging on to is like, you know, whatever the remainder
Speaker 1: of his term is. They already are, you know, filling
Speaker 1: his seat. They've already had the Democratic primary New Jersey voters.
Speaker 1: To their credit, he initially was kind of trying to
Speaker 1: ride this down. And then they started taking polls Democratic
Speaker 1: primary polls of him versus you know, potential opponents, and
Speaker 1: he was at like eight percent. I mean, just immediately
Speaker 1: people were like, you are disgusting and we do not
Speaker 1: want you representing us. So the good people of New
Speaker 1: Jersey not putting up with this corruption saga.
Speaker 3: I certainly hope, so.
Speaker 1: Going against type there in terms of New Jersey politics.
Speaker 3: This is such scum behavior. It's also crazy.
Speaker 2: You know, his kids, His freaking son is a congressman,
Speaker 2: his daughter is an MSNBC anchor. It's like the nepotism
Speaker 2: that exists in this world is just so ridiculous and
Speaker 2: so and of course neither of them has a freaking
Speaker 2: comment about their disgusting father's behavior. So he's gonna blame
Speaker 2: his wife, Okay, I mean I hope he just like
Speaker 2: I really am praying that he gets convicted, but I
Speaker 2: still don't yet have faith because the previous case was
Speaker 2: so ironclad and he still somehow got away with it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad you raised that also, because the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has made the bar of what is corruption so
Speaker 1: high that you almost literally have to be like taking
Speaker 1: the gold bar and saying, I will exchange do these
Speaker 1: favors for you. So that's how Bob McDonald got out
Speaker 1: of his right problems. He was convicted in the Supreme courts.
Speaker 1: I know, we don't think that this is actually a corruption.
Speaker 1: And there was a similar thing of he also kind
Speaker 1: of threw his wife under the bus there a little bit.
Speaker 1: It was sort of like, oh, she wants to live
Speaker 1: the high life. We couldn't afford it for anyway. Yeah, Anyway,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to actually,
Speaker 1: you know, to secure these convictions behind them guilty. So
Speaker 1: we'll see how the all unfold. But it's not a
Speaker 1: done deal. Maybe his little gambit here is going to
Speaker 1: work out disgustingly. All right, So we have a little
Speaker 1: bit of a look at who some of the Trump
Speaker 1: jurors are, and you know, I, first of all, I
Speaker 1: want to make sure we're staying on top of these
Speaker 1: cases because I do think that they're very politically significant.
Speaker 1: Obviously they're important to you know, American people, regardless of
Speaker 1: how you feel about them. And also because it's just
Speaker 1: wild to imagine trying to be unbiased with regard to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, like literally anybody, because he has single handedly,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that he has done
Speaker 1: to this country, which is honestly terrible, he's made politics
Speaker 1: and culture like the same. So one of the things
Speaker 1: that I immediately noted that I lived in Kentucky at
Speaker 1: the time when he was elected is the like swim
Speaker 1: team moms and soccer moms that I was around, who
Speaker 1: used to never want to talk politics, where it was like,
Speaker 1: you know, if I even brought up I was doing
Speaker 1: anything in politics, that got kind of like, now, suddenly
Speaker 1: this was what everybody wanted to talk about, and everybody
Speaker 1: had an opinion about Donald Trump, pro con whatever. So
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to imagine assembling an actually unbiased jury,
Speaker 1: although I do think people genuinely, you know, having I
Speaker 1: served on a grand jury when I was actually lived
Speaker 1: in New York, it was an interesting experience. And my
Speaker 1: experience was that the people that were there were genuinely
Speaker 1: trying to take their civic duty seriously and do the
Speaker 1: best that they possibly could. So I do want to
Speaker 1: say that, but just take a few offense of how
Speaker 1: difficult it is to find these individuals. The media interviewed
Speaker 1: a potential juror who had said I think I could
Speaker 1: be unbiased. Now she's not on the jury because of
Speaker 1: a scheduling conflict, but take a listen to how she
Speaker 1: described her feelings about Donald Trump.
Speaker 14: Can you share your opinion of the former president and
Speaker 14: why you felt that you could be unbiased.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan.
Speaker 14: I during COVID nineteen, I lived with someone who was,
Speaker 14: you know how depised, and I think his scandling of
Speaker 14: COVID nineteen was.
Speaker 2: Abase.
Speaker 14: I also, I have assostory who has adopted from China,
Speaker 14: and the comments he made about China when he was
Speaker 14: running for president made her very anxious and therefore made
Speaker 14: me angry. There policies he's supported it regarded women and
Speaker 14: reductive health that I do not agree with, and.
Speaker 1: I think all of that.
Speaker 5: Needs to be addressed.
Speaker 1: So, you know, like she's clear that infinianed people are
Speaker 1: dragging her. I don't know. I mean, listen, you're not
Speaker 1: gonna find she's being honest.
Speaker 2: You're not going to find on a camera she's not
Speaker 2: honest in the bout or wherever in the jury, whatever
Speaker 2: it's got. You've been through this, I haven't been what
Speaker 2: she said she was unbiased, whichever she was asked by
Speaker 2: the court. It's only after she's dismissed that she's like, no,
Speaker 2: I can't stand like twelve different things that he did.
Speaker 1: I mean, but listen, she could make the argument like,
Speaker 1: but that has nothing to do with the specific case, right,
Speaker 1: because everyone is going to have something he did they like,
Speaker 1: they don't like his personnel whatever, Like every person who
Speaker 1: is on this jury that's claiming they're holy and completely unbiased. Like,
Speaker 1: there's no way, there's no way you don't have some
Speaker 1: prior opinion about him. The best you can do is
Speaker 1: try to put that aside and just look at the
Speaker 1: specifics of the case. The other thing that was kind
Speaker 1: of funny that unfolded in the core room is to try,
Speaker 1: you know, the judge trying to get at like, all right,
Speaker 1: who is really the most unbiased and what does your
Speaker 1: social media presence look? Like? They were reading all of
Speaker 1: these like posts that had been made by some of
Speaker 1: the perspective jurors about Trump. And here's one snippet of
Speaker 1: an exchange her he can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So they're asking this perspective juror, you know about his
Speaker 1: social media, what do you think? What do you do?
Speaker 1: And they say, well, how about you start? You use
Speaker 1: any websites or any Facebook. And the prospective juror says, well,
Speaker 1: I'm a repost king.
Speaker 2: I love that.
Speaker 1: So I'll see something that I thought was interesting and
Speaker 1: I'll repost it. I do the Google thing and YouTube.
Speaker 1: I can control what I watch and I can look
Speaker 1: at the thumbnails and decide if I'm going to watch
Speaker 1: it or not. And they reply that makes sense, and
Speaker 1: then continue on. But there was a lot of this
Speaker 1: going on and digging into like the social media habits,
Speaker 1: the news gathering habits of these individuals. You know, in
Speaker 1: terms of the right, there's already an effort to kind
Speaker 1: of like seize on their bios and say, listen, this
Speaker 1: is it can't possibly be an unbiased jury. Although I
Speaker 1: will say on the other side of things, people were
Speaker 1: noting there were two lawyers who have already been picked.
Speaker 1: The jury hasn't been fully filled on I think they
Speaker 1: have seven jurors, and by the way, they're in court
Speaker 1: today again trying to complete this jury selection process. They
Speaker 1: picked two lawyers, and there were some analysts who were
Speaker 1: saying that might actually be a good thing for Trump
Speaker 1: because they are more skilled, old at like looking at
Speaker 1: the specifics of the case or considering these potential technicalities.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if that's true or not. I'm
Speaker 1: just telling you what some animals were saying about some
Speaker 1: of these potential jurors. In any case, Jesse Waters was
Speaker 1: going through the list and not liking what he was
Speaker 1: finding about these individuals based on the characteristics that were
Speaker 1: described as take a listen as a bit of that.
Speaker 6: A nurse from the Upper East Side with a master's degree.
Speaker 6: She's not married, has no kids, and lives with her
Speaker 6: fiance who works in finance. She gets her news from
Speaker 6: the New York Times, Google and CNN. She said two
Speaker 6: things that really stuck out. One quote, I don't really
Speaker 6: have an opinion of Trump and quote no one is
Speaker 6: above the law. I'm not so sure about Jeron number soo.
Speaker 1: So currently saying no one is above the laws, disqualifying potentially.
Speaker 3: Those like liberal Shibbalitz, Right.
Speaker 2: So it's like one of those things when it's like
Speaker 2: when you know, when people like chant Israel has a
Speaker 2: result right to defend itself. Yeah, it's not like bad
Speaker 2: per se. But whenever you hear someone say that, you're like,
Speaker 2: I do actually know a lot.
Speaker 1: It's liberal coded. Yeah, it's liberal coded.
Speaker 2: Like no one is above the law, but it is
Speaker 2: panting that, you know, to the end of it.
Speaker 1: It's also funny that that would be something that becomes
Speaker 1: liberal coded. Sure, yeah, I mean you're supposed to be
Speaker 1: the law and order people over there.
Speaker 2: I see you both ways. As I was showing you.
Speaker 2: As I was showing you, one of the jurors actually
Speaker 2: just dropped out because she said she was like, you
Speaker 2: know what, screw this. Publicly available details of her BIO
Speaker 2: had apparently informed family and friends that she was on
Speaker 2: the jury.
Speaker 3: She said, I don't want to deal it.
Speaker 1: I actually wonder, I wonder if it was this person.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's very po you got you know, one
Speaker 1: and seven chants and it's a woman that dropped out,
Speaker 1: so it's actually even you know, more likely, so it
Speaker 1: is possible. And I was thinking about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you are on this jury. You were signing up
Speaker 1: to be a public figure, to be smeared, be attacked.
Speaker 1: It's I don't I feel for them. It's not a job, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that you should sign up for. Were lightly We do
Speaker 1: have some of those.
Speaker 3: Details, Ystal. It just came out.
Speaker 2: It was the oncology nurse that was it. Wow, Wow,
Speaker 2: it just got the news. Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, no one's above the law. I guess that's
Speaker 1: what I did her. And so last we've got this
Speaker 1: tear sheet of who the first seven jurors now six
Speaker 1: were four male, three females, now two females. Some of
Speaker 1: the details here that I found interesting, just to give
Speaker 1: you a sense of who these people are, because I
Speaker 1: do think it's kind of kind of interesting. You've got
Speaker 1: German number one as a middle aged salesman from Ireland.
Speaker 1: He's going to be the cases foreman lives in West Harlem,
Speaker 1: said he normally gets his news from listen to this list,
Speaker 1: New York Times, Daily Mail, Fox News and I'm assem BC.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: That's a rare one. That's yeah, that's a rare one,
Speaker 1: he says. In a spare time, he enjoys doing anything
Speaker 1: out Doorsy once worked as a waiter but has worked
Speaker 1: in sales for the last three decades. When asked if
Speaker 1: he was aware of Trump's other criminal cases, he responded,
Speaker 1: I've heard of some of them, and if you go
Speaker 1: down the list, you got to mix bag in terms
Speaker 1: of the like news sources, and most of them are
Speaker 1: sort of claiming like and I don't really follow the
Speaker 1: news that closely, so I mean express embarrassment that they
Speaker 1: don't know more of the details of the case, which
Speaker 1: I find believable. People are busy living their lives. You
Speaker 1: can certainly find some jurors who are just not following
Speaker 1: things closely. That's probably your best bet in terms of
Speaker 1: finding and actually, like quote unquote unbiastcury.
Speaker 2: If I'm Trump, you know who I want. I want
Speaker 2: people who don't read the news. I want people who
Speaker 2: are actually the least informed because they will not have
Speaker 2: preconceived opinions. I want people who watch TV, go to
Speaker 2: the game, care about sports, living their lives, and I
Speaker 2: want them to be able to come in with a
Speaker 2: relatively open side, so you could say, yeah, I think
Speaker 2: something about Trump, you know, based on whatever.
Speaker 3: Like you know, I vote every once in a while.
Speaker 3: My uncle votes, he tells me. That's what I want.
Speaker 2: People who are hardcore ideological and almost like too.
Speaker 3: Informed to a certain extent in a certain.
Speaker 2: Way, like you're going to have very very well founded
Speaker 2: opinions about this, which are you're not going to be
Speaker 2: able to be unbiased whenever you come to the jury box.
Speaker 2: So if I was Trump, I actually think things are
Speaker 2: going in a direction which may be better for him.
Speaker 2: That's really his only prayer.
Speaker 14: Any of this.
Speaker 1: Let me give you a little bit about juror number four,
Speaker 1: because I thought this one was interesting. He said he
Speaker 1: finds the form of president to be quote fascinating and mysterious. True,
Speaker 1: he walks into a room, he sets people off one
Speaker 1: way or another. The juror said, I find that really interesting. Really,
Speaker 1: this one guy can do all of this. Wow, that's
Speaker 1: what I think. So originally from Puerto Rico, has lived
Speaker 1: in the Lower East Side for the last four years.
Speaker 1: Self employed IT consultant, has attended one year of college,
Speaker 1: been married for a long Time's two grandkids. He says,
Speaker 1: I have no spare time when answering the question questionnaire,
Speaker 1: my hobby is my family. So previously served on a
Speaker 1: jury trial, but it was a long time ago. Normally
Speaker 1: gets his news from Daily News, New York Times and Google.
Speaker 1: A lot of them saying they get their news from Google.
Speaker 1: What does that mean.
Speaker 2: I think they mean Google News. That's my like, that's
Speaker 2: got to be it, right, Like a Google news reader
Speaker 2: or something like that.
Speaker 1: I like, automatically serve you. It's like that Apple News.
Speaker 2: I've deleted that a long time ago. I don't use
Speaker 2: any of that, but I think.
Speaker 1: They serve me or insulting sometimes.
Speaker 3: I don't even know. It's like pop culture crap or whatever.
Speaker 2: So in my experience, the way that a lot of
Speaker 2: normal people engage with the news is exactly like you said,
Speaker 2: Apple News, news reader, something like that.
Speaker 3: iPads are usually involved.
Speaker 2: I don't understand, true, I will never understand the iPad thing.
Speaker 2: But they love to read news on their iPad, specifically
Speaker 2: in the Apple News app. So I guess they're being
Speaker 2: well and form very true.
Speaker 1: But you know, and sometimes my mom will get one
Speaker 1: of those Apple News alerts and she'll bring up something
Speaker 1: to me that I had missed. So now that she's retired,
Speaker 1: he's been helping me with my that's good. So anyway,
Speaker 1: good luck and godspeed to these jurors. Is I don't
Speaker 1: don't envy them this task and every word that they utter,
Speaker 1: everything they've done in their life is about to be
Speaker 1: scrutinized and used against.
Speaker 2: I would absolutely not do it, but anyway, all right,
Speaker 2: We will see you guys later. Thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for watching. We had a guest but unfortunately didn't
Speaker 2: work out. We are working on rescheduling them. Really appreciate
Speaker 2: everybody who watched the show today, who supports us. Who
Speaker 2: watch check out the debate. We'll post it later to
Speaker 2: maybe tomorrow or something like that on our podcast feed,
Speaker 2: and if you can help us out breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: We'll see you later.