Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do hope everybody enjoyed their Labor Day off,
Speaker 1: as we certainly did.
Speaker 4: A lot to get to.
Speaker 1: So this is the official launch of peak campaign season
Speaker 1: now post Labor Day and one state actually starts voting
Speaker 1: literally this week.
Speaker 4: Debate is next week.
Speaker 1: We're going to be live streaming that, by the way,
Speaker 1: so join us here for that, right, So a lot
Speaker 1: to get to there. With some new polls, we will
Speaker 1: assess the state of the race. Also, since we last spoke,
Speaker 1: Trump changed his position on abortion roughly fourteen different times.
Speaker 1: So we got a new IVF policy, we got a
Speaker 1: new abortion then we have a different abortion policy. It's
Speaker 1: all over the map. Also might be now pro weed potentially,
Speaker 1: so we'll get into everything that he said about all
Speaker 1: of those things. Also, big breaking news over the weekend
Speaker 1: Brazil has now officially banned Twitter, so we'll get into
Speaker 1: the back and forth between Brazilian government and Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and what he's saying, they're saying, et cetera. Ramifications potentially
Speaker 1: for free speech. Also massive protests in Israel, this coming
Speaker 1: after six more hostages were found dead in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 4: These really people.
Speaker 1: Really overwhelmingly blaming Net and Yahoo for blocking a hostage
Speaker 1: deal that could have secured a ceasefire. So we'll show
Speaker 1: you stunning images from there and where things go as
Speaker 1: best we can tell in Israel and with regards to
Speaker 1: the ceasefire deal. We also are lucky to be joined
Speaker 1: by drop site News is Jerrey Scahill. He has some
Speaker 1: bombshell new reporting about behind the scenes details. He got
Speaker 1: some leaked documents of exactly how the ceasefire negotiations have
Speaker 1: gone that really truly pin the blame directly on bb
Speaker 1: Netanya who for not just failing to get a deal,
Speaker 1: but actively seeking to undermine and make sure that there
Speaker 1: is no ceasefire deal. This, of course, is no surprise
Speaker 1: if people have been watching this show or been watching
Speaker 1: events unfold in any really honest way. However, Jeremy actually
Speaker 1: got the documents to back it up, so excited to
Speaker 1: speak to him about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's going to be exciting. Make sure that you
Speaker 2: guys show show up at Breakingpoints dot Com. Become premium subscribers.
Speaker 2: We're going to do live streams as you guys saw
Speaker 2: that we did in Chicago, where we take audience questions
Speaker 2: and have a lot of participation, which we really enjoy doing.
Speaker 2: So for the debate fun, go ahead and subscribe Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot Com become a premium subscriber, and we will have
Speaker 2: excellent debate coverage here live, hopefully.
Speaker 3: At even more eventful than the last one. Although very
Speaker 3: that's it likely.
Speaker 4: I think that's impossible.
Speaker 3: I would have said it was the first place.
Speaker 2: You know, given how many things we've experienced in this
Speaker 2: election season, How you know, what else could we possibly?
Speaker 4: I guess you never know.
Speaker 1: But it's September tenth, I believe that's Tuesday evening, so
Speaker 1: it's always fun, the whole gang here, all that good stuff.
Speaker 1: So all right, let's go and get to the official
Speaker 1: launch a peak campaign season. Kamala Harris actually was campaigning
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden yesterday. Tim Walls was also out campaigning
Speaker 1: Trump campaign was actually not.
Speaker 3: Campaign aast Joe events. Yeah yesterday weird. Well, we don't
Speaker 3: have any sound from it.
Speaker 4: Anyway.
Speaker 1: Here's a little bit of Kamala Harris out on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail yesterday.
Speaker 5: Everywhere I go, I tell people, Look, you may not
Speaker 5: be a union member, you better thank a union member.
Speaker 3: For the five day walk week.
Speaker 4: You better thank a union member for sick leave. You
Speaker 4: better thank a union member for paid lead.
Speaker 5: You better thank a union member for vacation time.
Speaker 6: Because what we know is when union wages go up,
Speaker 6: everybody's wages go up. When union workplaces are safer, every
Speaker 6: workplace is safer when unions are strong, America is strong.
Speaker 1: So aggressively pro union Labor Day message there in Detroit. Also,
Speaker 1: she and Biden were in Pittsburgh. I believe Tim Walls
Speaker 1: was at a union event in Minnesota. As I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: we're down to it now. I mean, it really is crazy.
Speaker 1: We have this shortened campaign season that we're used to,
Speaker 1: these lengthy, drawn out presidential campaign seasons. This one the
Speaker 1: pace is very different. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Mail ballots go out in North Carolina this week September sixth,
Speaker 1: in days, then you start getting into all of these deadlines.
Speaker 1: This is just in the critical swing states documented here
Speaker 1: by you Mish voter September sixteenth. You start with Pennsylvania absentees.
Speaker 1: Then you get September twenty first, Wisconsin mail September twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: Michigan absentee.
Speaker 4: On and on and on.
Speaker 1: So you can see we really are coming down to
Speaker 1: the wire here with final weeks until election day. Let
Speaker 1: me give you a little bit of the new polling.
Speaker 1: I thought this was noteworthy. This was a new ABC
Speaker 1: News poll. We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris now has a pretty high favorability here out
Speaker 1: pacing Trump with regard to her favorable impression. But I
Speaker 1: found this interesting saga. In this particular poll, they actually
Speaker 1: found more people who said she was quote qualified to
Speaker 1: be president as opposed to Trump. And that's one of
Speaker 1: the criticisms he's attempted to lob at hers that she's
Speaker 1: she's not qualified the quote quote unquote DEI candidate, and
Speaker 1: of course she wasn't picked through an ordinary primary process.
Speaker 1: She was anointed onto the ticket as the VP, and
Speaker 1: then when Biden resigned, she you know, immediately it's his
Speaker 1: endorsement and lines up all the endorsements and is essentially,
Speaker 1: you know, fata compley to make her the Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1: So I found that noteworthy as well, that that had
Speaker 1: not that particular attack had not stuck to her very effective.
Speaker 2: I hasn't stuck yet, And I think this really highlights
Speaker 2: the danger that we were saying here for the Trump
Speaker 2: campaign is that for weeks now I've heard from them
Speaker 2: is that they're like where all the powder is dry
Speaker 2: until Labor Day. And then one of the dangers of
Speaker 2: that is that the definitional wars, and the problem with
Speaker 2: those definitional wars was that in that period Kamalawa's campaign
Speaker 2: not only experienced the DNC, they also experienced a monolithic
Speaker 2: media moment where everybody was falling over her. She did
Speaker 2: her last her interview on the Thursday. You guys did
Speaker 2: a great job. I listened to that while I was gone,
Speaker 2: oh yeah.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you any big takeaways there.
Speaker 3: I mean, I thought she was okay.
Speaker 2: I mean I was like, it was nothing that noteworry,
Speaker 2: be minus whatever. Performance nothing particularly noteworthy.
Speaker 3: I mean the way she flipped.
Speaker 2: I mean really, my more criticism is not for her.
Speaker 2: It's for Dana Bash, where it's like, well, you change
Speaker 2: something positions on some things.
Speaker 3: I'm like, no, no, no, that's not what we do. We
Speaker 3: go through a checklist and we're like, you said this,
Speaker 3: and now you say this, he said this, and now
Speaker 3: you say this, and she's like, well, I've always been
Speaker 3: true to my value, so look on the substance bullshit.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it was very like check the box
Speaker 1: kind of check. It wasn't like, let me follow up difficult.
Speaker 2: There's a real reason that they picked her. So look,
Speaker 2: all of my criticism is more for CNN. If I'm
Speaker 2: a politician, that's the dream scenario, especially for somebody like here.
Speaker 3: Let's put that aside.
Speaker 2: The fact is is that she did that on a
Speaker 2: Thursday before Labor Day weekend, when a huge amount of
Speaker 2: people are on the road or on a plane taking vacation.
Speaker 2: So the idea number of people who even watched it
Speaker 2: probably very low. The vast majority of the coverage is positive,
Speaker 2: and the Trump people at the same time were experienced
Speaker 2: a downswing. Both in terms of criticism, but not knowing
Speaker 2: really what to do and their strategy. So the biggest
Speaker 2: problem I've seen from the Trump campaign is their inability
Speaker 2: to be on message. So the problem is is that
Speaker 2: if you look at the more disciplined characters, people like JD.
Speaker 2: Vance or any of the surrogates, it's all Kamala all
Speaker 2: the time. But with Trump, there's a lot of grievance
Speaker 2: around the fact that Biden is longer.
Speaker 4: On the ticket.
Speaker 3: He's talking a lot about Biden.
Speaker 2: Every once in a while, he'll come back to Kamala,
Speaker 2: and he's kind of all over the place. Interesting New
Speaker 2: York Times analysis a guy named Sean mccreash, who I
Speaker 2: believe he interviewed Trump up read him for a long time.
Speaker 2: He talked about how Trump believes strongly in his theory
Speaker 2: of called the weave, where he weaves in and out
Speaker 2: of various different you know, political messages and kind of
Speaker 2: stream of conscious Trump believes it because it's worked for
Speaker 2: him for so long that he's just going to stick
Speaker 2: to the process. But I mean, look, he's the guy
Speaker 2: who got elected, not me. I could just see that
Speaker 2: there is a danger in that in that the definition
Speaker 2: wars at this point. Hundreds of millions of dollars were
Speaker 2: spent just in the last month or so, defining Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris behind a lot of the media messaging. Now leading
Speaker 2: into Labor Day, where the vast majority of Americans and
Speaker 2: now beginning to tune in a lot more than ever before,
Speaker 2: there is a perhaps chance to make up some lost ground.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess the bull case that I would
Speaker 2: make for Trump is, Look, you're still fifty to fifty
Speaker 2: and you know your powder is dry. You're still a
Speaker 2: fairly decent shot of winning the election, so maybe you
Speaker 2: didn't have to. You don't have nearly as much money
Speaker 2: as the Democrats did last time around, so you want
Speaker 2: to dump as much as you can when people are
Speaker 2: paying attention.
Speaker 3: So I'm still not you know, counting them out or
Speaker 3: any therapy.
Speaker 4: No, nor should anybody I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just think it was a mistake not to
Speaker 2: really fight as hard as they possibly could when clearly
Speaker 2: they were on the back foot. While a human level,
Speaker 2: I can empathize why they felt that way, from a
Speaker 2: practitioner level, I think they should have hit the ground
Speaker 2: running almost immediately a month ago.
Speaker 1: I think that's right because here's the thing. Impressions of
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris were obviously very very soft. Yeah, as evidenced
Speaker 1: by the fact that her approval rating shifted dramatically in
Speaker 1: just a short period of time. And you can say, oh,
Speaker 1: the media blah blah blah, but ultimately you're the campaign.
Speaker 1: You need to get out there and find your opponent
Speaker 1: in the way you want her to be defined, and
Speaker 1: that just hasn't worked. I mean that qualification, that's just
Speaker 1: one case in point of something that they tried, obviously
Speaker 1: didn't stick, obviously didn't land with the American public. She
Speaker 1: gets to pass on all the Biden policies too. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you ask voters like who do you trust more
Speaker 1: on this than that policy, she's massively outpacing Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: So she's also not being saddled with, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: pieces of the bidenministration voters are unhappy with. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw this. I sent this in this
Speaker 1: morning saga. We just got new numbers about dollar amounts
Speaker 1: of ad reservation in key battleground states and it's very
Speaker 1: revealing in terms of the Trump campaign has really narrowed
Speaker 1: their focus down to just a few states. Basically Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: and Georgia. They are pinning all of their hopes on
Speaker 1: those two states. So they're spending seventy million dollars on
Speaker 1: TV in Pennsylvania, almost forty million in Georgia. Those are
Speaker 1: very equivalent numbers to what the Democrats are spent. It's
Speaker 1: almost identical to what the Democrats are spending in those states.
Speaker 1: In every other swing state Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Nevada,
Speaker 1: that one Omaha market that's a swing district. Because of
Speaker 1: the way they do the electoral college there, Democrats are
Speaker 1: massively outspending Republicans. So it just it really shows you
Speaker 1: they aren't feeling that confident about Michigan and Wisconsin. They're
Speaker 1: feeling like, we have to bet the whole farm on
Speaker 1: making sure that we win both Ssylvania and Georgia. And
Speaker 1: by the way, in that scenario, they also have to
Speaker 1: hold on to North Carolina, which is no longer a
Speaker 1: given now. If they do those things, they win. That's
Speaker 1: all they have to do is just win those three
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania. But you know, really narrowly laser
Speaker 1: focused on that. It's kind of reminiscent of when Biden
Speaker 1: was in the race, Democrats had given up on Arizona, Georgia,
Speaker 1: certainly North Carolina. They were thinking, Okay, if we just
Speaker 1: have to hold these three blue Wall states, but that's
Speaker 1: our only path that's feasible at this point. Now the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign really narrowing their focus, it appears, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And it's also highlights something that we've been trying to
Speaker 2: hammer home here, which is that the map fundamentally changed
Speaker 2: from last time around.
Speaker 3: With Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: Kamala is more likely to lose Pennsylvania and win Georgia
Speaker 2: under the current That was a flip last time around, Yeah,
Speaker 2: with Joe Biden. So I want everybody also to kind
Speaker 2: of flip the way that they're thinking about where tipping
Speaker 2: points may come, what they could look like. There are
Speaker 2: multiple paths to two seventy for the Democrats that don't
Speaker 2: include Pennsylvania. I mean that could be wrong too, because
Speaker 2: sometimes I think about it, I'm like, well, in a
Speaker 2: scenario where she loses Pennsylvania, she really also going to
Speaker 2: win Georgia. I mean, theoretically, from what we're looking at,
Speaker 2: that is possible. I also find it a little bit difficult,
Speaker 2: just because you know, when things are off. They're usually
Speaker 2: off all in all direction. So in my head, she's
Speaker 2: either gonna win them all or she's gonna lose them all.
Speaker 2: But I mean, listen, it could be. It could be
Speaker 2: a true nail bider, could be like a nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: level election where it all comes down to, you know,
Speaker 2: even less votes than did last time, and it really is,
Speaker 2: you know, forty nine point two versus forty nine point one,
Speaker 2: and we have to live through weeks of recounts. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't just have that possibility either.
Speaker 1: Actually, yeah, And there's also the question I agree with you,
Speaker 1: by the way, about you know a lot of times
Speaker 1: there's like, wouldn't it be crazy if she won this
Speaker 1: one state and lost all day?
Speaker 4: It's like, usually these things all moving fandor one wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Usually they all trend a little bit this way
Speaker 1: or a little bit that way. And that's in the
Speaker 1: Senate races as well. It's unusual for it to be like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, she crushed meig but got destroyed in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: It's so nationalized at this point that typically I think
Speaker 1: things tend to trend in one direction or the other.
Speaker 1: But put that aside, it is really remarkable when you
Speaker 1: think about the fact that last time with Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: he won the popular vote by roughly four points, and
Speaker 1: we all know how close that ended up being because
Speaker 1: of the electoral college advantage that Republicans benefit from. Now,
Speaker 1: people like Nate Silver who study this stuff say that
Speaker 1: electoral college advantage has diminished.
Speaker 4: A little bit for Republicans.
Speaker 1: And there was a poll that just came out that
Speaker 1: had Kamala Harris up three points nationally. If she wins
Speaker 1: the popular vote by three points, that is like I said.
Speaker 3: Well, we just said forty nine point two versus forty
Speaker 3: nine points.
Speaker 1: That is like Georgia nightmare recount, like you won by
Speaker 1: three votes in two states or what I mean. It's
Speaker 1: it's having started to have those vibes. Let me just
Speaker 1: roll through some of the other pole numbers that came out.
Speaker 1: This is also from that ABC News pole that just
Speaker 1: says everybody's favorability. This is something that I've been talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms.
Speaker 4: Of the old who would you want to have a
Speaker 4: beer with? Test?
Speaker 1: It looks like Harris Walls are winning that She's plus three,
Speaker 1: he's plus eleven in terms of favorability ratings. Trump in
Speaker 1: this one minus twenty five. That's an outlier. That's because
Speaker 1: his favorability ratings recently have actually been a bit higher.
Speaker 1: But in any case, minus twenty five in this particular poll,
Speaker 1: I take that with a grain of salt because it
Speaker 1: is an outlier. Jade vance minus twelve that has been
Speaker 1: fairly on target with where his approval rating has been.
Speaker 1: So she's winning that, Like, who would you rather have
Speaker 1: a beer? Perhaps a glass of wine with Sager? Next, Leve,
Speaker 1: let's get a little bit into We got some leaks
Speaker 1: about her debate strategy, which is kind of relevant in
Speaker 1: terms of the whole mic on mic off debate. Put
Speaker 1: this next piece up on the screen. Source is familiar
Speaker 1: with Vice President Harris's debate prep tel NBC News. She's
Speaker 1: focused on getting under Trump's skin, remaining calm in response
Speaker 1: to his attacks, pointing out his broken promises, and emphasizing
Speaker 1: his advanced age.
Speaker 4: So this gives you some.
Speaker 1: Insight into why they've been trying to keep the mics on,
Speaker 1: because she is betting on or hoping for some sort
Speaker 1: of like unhinged moment from him, you know, happening, and
Speaker 1: she wants the mics on to be able to catch that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I look, probably a good strategy.
Speaker 2: They're trying to get recreate biden one point zero debate,
Speaker 2: the very first debate where Trump was I guess hopped
Speaker 2: up maybe on something, maybe on his own ego.
Speaker 4: Funny at COVID, so god knows what they had.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's very true.
Speaker 2: But he was interrupting Biden constantly. That was the chaos
Speaker 2: debate that was definitely, at the very least I wouldn't
Speaker 2: say it helped him win the election or come close
Speaker 2: in the election. So that's what they're really trying to
Speaker 2: recreate this time around. It's actually not a terrible one
Speaker 2: because Trump actually has lost his cool in previous debates
Speaker 2: or he has shown well, I would say it's risky
Speaker 2: in one regard. Sometimes he's very good off the cuff.
Speaker 2: The classic moments of twenty sixteen. Let me think about,
Speaker 2: you know we had you'd be in jail, some of
Speaker 2: the NAFTA attacks that were on Hillary Clinton, showing and
Speaker 2: trying to throw her off the bat in debate number
Speaker 2: two by bringing all those Bill Clinton accusers, which I
Speaker 2: think clearly did have some effect on Hillary going into that.
Speaker 3: So yeah, certainly possible.
Speaker 2: He has risen to the occasion before they are all
Speaker 2: trying to recreate his worst debate performance on record so far,
Speaker 2: which was the first debate last time around. Look, I mean,
Speaker 2: in general, this is a relatively easy test because all
Speaker 2: Kamala has to do is appear better than Joe Biden
Speaker 2: and deliver very classic attacks.
Speaker 3: I believe her biggest strength so far as not that.
Speaker 2: It was a moment in the interview where they asked
Speaker 2: her about the race attacks and previously these are the
Speaker 2: type of things that Democrats would have fetishized and be like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, and there was every buzzword in the book,
Speaker 2: and she said the same old thing from Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Next question, Yeah, he said, ah, you know, that's the
Speaker 2: smartest learner to do so far. They learn fardest thing
Speaker 2: I've seen her do so far, because.
Speaker 3: You take the bait.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And I don't know if you caught.
Speaker 1: At the end of the interview too, Dana Bash put
Speaker 1: up that picture of Kamala's adorable grand niece and she's
Speaker 1: got like the pigtails and she's, you know, a little
Speaker 1: black girl looking up at the black and she asked
Speaker 1: her a similar like you know, what does this mean
Speaker 1: to all the black women out there?
Speaker 4: Or whatever?
Speaker 1: And her response was, I'm running because I think I
Speaker 1: would be the best president for all Americans. So again
Speaker 1: just very different from the Hillary Clinton campaign, just reeked
Speaker 1: of all this like narcissistic, like, oh my god, look
Speaker 1: at me. Aren't I so special? It won't be so
Speaker 1: amazing for all women just to have.
Speaker 4: Me in office?
Speaker 1: And Kamala Harris is leaning more into the way that
Speaker 1: Barack Obama handled this. Now, not that he never talked
Speaker 1: about race. He gave that very famous speech about race,
Speaker 1: which was very well received at the time, but by
Speaker 1: and large, he really went out of his way to
Speaker 1: emphasize I'm running for everyone, and she seems to have
Speaker 1: taken that playbook. But I one hundred percent agree that
Speaker 1: was the best moment of the whole interview. And Dana
Speaker 1: Bash tried to be like she was like, that's it,
Speaker 1: almost like that's it. So they've learned something about how
Speaker 1: to run against Trump, for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is smart.
Speaker 2: Let's put Nate Silver's piece up on the screen in
Speaker 2: really interesting stuff A seven please next one.
Speaker 1: This is yeah, this is the Bloomberg polls. We can
Speaker 1: just mention she's leading her tied with Trump in the
Speaker 1: seven swing states here that includes North Carolina where she's
Speaker 1: up to. So this is the Bloomberg polls. Gohea and
Speaker 1: put me at silver up next we can take a
Speaker 1: look at that gout.
Speaker 2: So the Nate Silver analysis here currently has each candidate's
Speaker 2: chance of winning has changed, and this is not necessarily
Speaker 2: the chance of winning right now, but the Havelow chance
Speaker 2: of winning has changed their win probability at one point
Speaker 2: going at fifty five percent for Trump and Harris at
Speaker 2: forty four. He has an excellent post out this morning
Speaker 2: that I actually highly recommend everybody read, which has really
Speaker 2: changed my analysis to in the literal throwing my hands up.
Speaker 2: Is why this election is not normal, and it's not
Speaker 2: normal for so many reasons. It was not normal for
Speaker 2: the RFK on the ballot for each third party but
Speaker 2: then dropping out endorsing Trump. It is not normal for
Speaker 2: the extremely short, less than one hundred day period sprint
Speaker 2: to the election. It is not normal in terms of
Speaker 2: the way that Donald Trump literally was almost assassinated. It
Speaker 2: is not normal in terms of Tim Wallas going from
Speaker 2: basically an unknown figure now onto the national stage in
Speaker 2: a dizzying turn of events. It's not normal to be
Speaker 2: able to track things over time and so the ability
Speaker 2: to have a miss and perhaps a very large miss
Speaker 2: is perhaps greater today than ever before. So I'm really
Speaker 2: thinking and trying to incorporate that. And that's part of
Speaker 2: why when I was saying about Pennsylvania, it just seems
Speaker 2: extremely unlikely to me that she would win Pennsylvania, or
Speaker 2: that Trump would lose Pennsylvania, or sorry, would win Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: and just not win the entire election. But that is
Speaker 2: part of why I'm also injecting just like the general
Speaker 2: chaos theory of there is so much crazy stuff that
Speaker 2: has happened here, and look, we are as bewildered as
Speaker 2: all of you. And I think that's what we can
Speaker 2: try and help people think through is when they're going
Speaker 2: into this election, the normal rules just have not applied
Speaker 2: at all. And that is okay actually, and to think
Speaker 2: about and so to use old heuristics and kind of
Speaker 2: apply them here not really appropriate.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, anytime you're talking about presidential election, ultimately
Speaker 1: it's such a small sample size. So to say there's
Speaker 1: any sort of ironclad rule about how the polls work
Speaker 1: or how this works, or what the electoral college path
Speaker 1: looks like or whatever, you just you really do have
Speaker 1: to start with a fresh slate, because every single election
Speaker 1: pr exists some sort of a surprise that no one
Speaker 1: was anticipating, and we've already had a number of both
Speaker 1: in this particular election. You know, the I guess the
Speaker 1: case I would make for if I'm going to play
Speaker 1: Devil's advocate about why maybe Pennsylvania could be different from
Speaker 1: Michigan and Wisconsin, it's just because of those numbers I
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier that the Trump campaign of spending massively in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and not spending massively in those other states. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're basically all that abandoned those other states. So to
Speaker 1: the extent that paid advertisements really make that much of
Speaker 1: a difference at this point, which is debatable, very debatable.
Speaker 2: I guess the absence of it is bad, but the
Speaker 2: presence of it is not necessarily that means, which is
Speaker 2: a crazy thing to think about.
Speaker 1: Political consultants certainly think you're making a lot of money
Speaker 1: on and they think it's very impactful. But I don't know,
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't know if it makes that much of
Speaker 1: a difference at this point, given like I said, how
Speaker 1: nationalized the election are. But that would be the case
Speaker 1: for why a Pennsylvania and a Georgia could be different
Speaker 1: from the others. It's simply because the Trump campaign is
Speaker 1: spending way more of their dollars focus attention. I'm sure
Speaker 1: ground game, et cetera in those states, So that would
Speaker 1: be one thing. But yeah, the bullish case to make
Speaker 1: for the Trump people based on the Nate Silver analysis
Speaker 1: that does have Trump now in terms of the Electoral
Speaker 1: College out of you know, out of one hundred simulations,
Speaker 1: fifty five times Trump wins and forty five times Commal wins.
Speaker 1: That's basically a top toss up, but gives Trump somewhat
Speaker 1: of an edge. So far post convention, there hasn't been
Speaker 1: much of it. It's basically been static from where it
Speaker 1: was pre convention. For Kamala Harris, and so his model
Speaker 1: is factoring in like, oh, you should have gotten a bump,
Speaker 1: and so it's sort of discounting the polls at this
Speaker 1: point that show her up but don't show her getting
Speaker 1: a bounce. So, you know, if you consider this a
Speaker 1: honeymoon period, if you look at this and say, oh,
Speaker 1: well you should have gotten a bounce, maybe that was
Speaker 1: negated by the RFK junior and dropout an endorsement whatever,
Speaker 1: then you know, a reversion back to the mean.
Speaker 4: If you lose those two points that.
Speaker 1: Maybe she theoretically got but was negated by RFK Junior,
Speaker 1: then you're back to you know, the popular vote.
Speaker 4: Being close to tide.
Speaker 1: And in that scenario, if they're tied in the popular vote,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wins given their electoral college margins. Put a
Speaker 1: eight up on the screen. This is the more I guess,
Speaker 1: hopeful or bullish case for the Kamala people. So, like
Speaker 1: I said, doesn't get a convention balance. This poll does
Speaker 1: have her up by six, but it already had her
Speaker 1: up by six, so you'd still say, all right, well
Speaker 1: that's still a good result. But we're going to show
Speaker 1: you some more of this data in the block we're
Speaker 1: about to do about abortion. The gender gap, women continue
Speaker 1: to move towards Kamala Harris. Women vote more often than men,
Speaker 1: so you would rather have the women's side of the
Speaker 1: gender gap than the man.
Speaker 4: Side of the gender gap.
Speaker 1: There's also the data that I referenced before is that
Speaker 1: women are registering in like astronomical numbers, even higher rates
Speaker 1: than postd ops, which is kind of extraordinary. So that's
Speaker 1: the bullish case for the Harris people. You know, if
Speaker 1: you want to do a little unskewed the polls on
Speaker 1: the Kamala Hair side, you would say, listen, these new voters,
Speaker 1: these new women who are redstaring to vote, They're to
Speaker 1: be captured any likely voter screen and they are much
Speaker 1: more likely to vote. New voters are much more likely
Speaker 1: to vote than people who've been registered for a long time.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's kind of the bullish case on
Speaker 1: their side, which I think has some merit.
Speaker 3: Absolutely that some merit. That's why voter registration.
Speaker 2: I think we're going to continue to track that metric
Speaker 2: and that's going to be very important in the way
Speaker 2: that we think about all of this as well. So
Speaker 2: in general, yeah, I mean my main thing is normal
Speaker 2: rules don't really apply. All of this is a lot
Speaker 2: of signaling we are trying to figure out, like which
Speaker 2: way things are going, and then also to what extent
Speaker 2: the so called fundamentals still matter. We're going to pretend
Speaker 2: that they still do, but as we all found out
Speaker 2: last time around, they don't necessarily always. That's actually maybe
Speaker 2: a good turn to the next one, which is abortion.
Speaker 2: Because abortion was not a topic whichever was so called
Speaker 2: fundamental it was relatively a decided issue in the minds
Speaker 2: of most Americans. To the extent that it was an issue,
Speaker 2: it was an issue for Republican voters in presidential primaries,
Speaker 2: and perhaps in terms of turnout.
Speaker 3: Trump himself has no idea what to do here.
Speaker 2: Last time around, he could just say it was pro life,
Speaker 2: but the stakes of being pro life didn't have any
Speaker 2: real electoral consequences outside of driving Republican votes in his primary.
Speaker 2: This time around, you have literally tens of millions of
Speaker 2: women and voters who are for this is, if not
Speaker 2: their number one issue, one of the major issues influencing
Speaker 2: their decision to vote in the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 2: So Trump has changed his position now several times just
Speaker 2: in the last ninety six hours. First and foremost, and
Speaker 2: this is what really set off a firestorm, was an
Speaker 2: NBC News interview where he appeared to come out against
Speaker 2: a six week amendment which is on the ballot in
Speaker 2: the state of Florida known as Amendment for Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen to his original comments.
Speaker 6: Art grow and you want abortion to be a states
Speaker 6: rights issue in Florida, the state that you are a
Speaker 6: resident of, there's an abortion related amendment on the ballot
Speaker 6: to overturn the sixth week fan in Florida, how are
Speaker 6: you going to.
Speaker 4: Vote on that?
Speaker 5: Well, I think the six week is too short. This
Speaker 5: has to be more time. And so that's and I've
Speaker 5: told them that I want more weeks, so.
Speaker 6: You'll vote in favor of the amendment.
Speaker 5: I'm voting that. I am going to be voting that
Speaker 5: we need more than six weeks. Look, just so you understand,
Speaker 5: everybody wanted Roe v. Wade terminated for.
Speaker 3: Years, fifty two years. I got it done. They wanted
Speaker 3: to go back to the States.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that is crazy because of course, not only
Speaker 2: has he said previously, what did he say six weeks
Speaker 2: was cruel? I think that's what he said in his
Speaker 2: criticism of Rhonda Standers. But he basically came out there
Speaker 2: and seemed to say that he was going to be
Speaker 2: voting in favor of Amendment four. Amendment four is the
Speaker 2: so called right to abortion initiative that will be actually
Speaker 2: on the ballot, and it says specifically that amendment to
Speaker 2: limit government interference with abortion. No law shall prohibit penalized
Speaker 2: delay or restrict abortion before viability, or when necessary to
Speaker 2: protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's health
Speaker 2: care provider. This amendment does not change the legislature's constitutional
Speaker 2: authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before
Speaker 2: a minor has an abortion.
Speaker 3: That's a text of the amendment.
Speaker 1: Basically codifies row effectively.
Speaker 2: It's actually past row right because it isn't even talking
Speaker 2: about the first trimester effectively. And this is what the
Speaker 2: critics of it are saying, is that it legalizes abortion
Speaker 2: all the way up until nine months if that is
Speaker 2: what a healthcare provider were weere to recommend. Of course,
Speaker 2: relatively rare case, but anyway, that's part of the reason
Speaker 2: why some of the abortion anti abortion activists are very
Speaker 2: influenced by it. The other consequential thing that he said
Speaker 2: in that was not only that he opposed in principle
Speaker 2: six weeks as quote being too short. He also came
Speaker 2: out in favor of mandating insurance coverage of IVF for
Speaker 2: all Americans.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen, So we.
Speaker 5: Are paying for that treatment or want it for all
Speaker 5: Americans that get it, for all Americans that need it.
Speaker 5: So we're going to be paying for that treatment or
Speaker 5: we're going to be mandating that the insurance company.
Speaker 2: Paid Okay, So perhaps no comment pissed more traditional conservatives
Speaker 2: off than this one for two reasons. One, it actually
Speaker 2: expands insurance coverage. It quite literally mandates insurance companies to cover.
Speaker 2: But second was, of course that there is a philosophical
Speaker 2: objection by some very very religious elements of the GOP
Speaker 2: two IVF. So this was his first, like twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: moment that I'd seen in quite a long time, and
Speaker 2: I was like, hey, that's actually quite a smart play.
Speaker 2: But of course, you know, the people inside the coalition
Speaker 2: are going to be absolutely furious about it.
Speaker 1: You know, I thought about this, and I'm not so
Speaker 1: sure it is a smart play because in the same
Speaker 1: way that I don't think it's smart for Democrats to
Speaker 1: validate the frame of Republicans on immigration and issue that
Speaker 1: they are never going to win it on, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's smart for Republicans to validate that.
Speaker 4: I want them to.
Speaker 1: I would like them to be pro choice. I appreciate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for three minutes, you know, attempting to move
Speaker 1: the party in a more pro choice direction, but just
Speaker 1: speaking tactically, he's validating the Democratic frame here, and he
Speaker 1: also just looks like panicked and also You're going to
Speaker 1: see him completely change his position in the course of
Speaker 1: like two days time. So any of the criticisms that
Speaker 1: they have of Kamala Harris, which are legitimate of her
Speaker 1: being a flip flopper, hard to make that land when
Speaker 1: you yourself have four different abortion positions over the course of
Speaker 1: one weekend. So even on the politics of this, I
Speaker 1: actually sort of agree with the you know, the Lilah Roses.
Speaker 1: You put her tweet up on the screen here. This
Speaker 1: was after these initial comments. She says, expressions of disappointment
Speaker 1: are not enough. Disappointment is not being counted at the
Speaker 1: ballot box. The currency the language in the season is votes.
Speaker 1: Trump has plenty of opportunity to still win the pro
Speaker 1: life vote, and it will only help his campaign. I
Speaker 1: want Trump to win as a pro life candidate, but
Speaker 1: let's be clear, Trump winning as a pro abortion candidate
Speaker 1: is a loss for the pro life movement. So the
Speaker 1: two risks politically are Number one, you do moralize your base,
Speaker 1: which has been very critical and very steadfast with him.
Speaker 1: You know, they're the like evangelical right, the religious rights
Speaker 1: since twenty sixteen has been his strongest and most solid.
Speaker 4: Base of support.
Speaker 1: So you risk sort of you know, de energizing them,
Speaker 1: demotivating them so that they don't turn out and they
Speaker 1: don't volunteer, and all those sorts of things which are critical.
Speaker 4: But also you are.
Speaker 1: Validating the Democratic Party frame, and you're always going to
Speaker 1: be the guy who put the people on the bench
Speaker 1: that overturned Row. You're not getting away from that. So
Speaker 1: the position he took in twenty sixteen in service of
Speaker 1: winning the Republican primary and then in service of holding
Speaker 1: onto evangelicals after the whole Access Hollywood situation, you know,
Speaker 1: in a sense they really have I do think they
Speaker 1: helped him to be able to win that election, but
Speaker 1: they've really come home to roost in a way that
Speaker 1: I don't think he can, you know, jiu jitsu his
Speaker 1: way out of on the IVF thing, though if I
Speaker 1: were Democrats, I would take him up on it. Put
Speaker 1: a bill on floor, make them vote, like, Okay, let's
Speaker 1: cat it. Let's let's guarantee IVF. Let's have the government
Speaker 1: pick up the bill, or the insurance companies if you
Speaker 1: have private health insurance, let's do it.
Speaker 4: Let's go and see what happens.
Speaker 1: Because we've had legislation go through the Senate to protect IVF,
Speaker 1: and almost every Republican voted again, So I.
Speaker 2: Guess the reason that I have I'm not thinking of
Speaker 2: this through politics. I'm trying to say, how do we
Speaker 2: just shift the Overton windows so that these Lilah graces
Speaker 2: of the world are not like ruling the Republican Party
Speaker 2: for no reason, these are extremely unpopular positions. Sorry, it
Speaker 2: just is, as all recent politics has shown you. It
Speaker 2: is also extremely unpopular and also disc it doesn't make
Speaker 2: sense to so be the so called pro family party
Speaker 2: and not be in favor of expanding IVF for me protection.
Speaker 3: So I'm not exacting here, and I'm like, so I
Speaker 3: think it's important.
Speaker 2: When the leader of the party is like, no, we're
Speaker 2: going to mandate that all government is going to pay
Speaker 2: for IVF, I'm like, hey, you know what, that's actually
Speaker 2: what a pro family you know position would look like,
Speaker 2: you know, And that's one of those where this is
Speaker 2: why everyone's like, oh, you know, one of the attacks
Speaker 2: I saw somebody so like, when is the last time
Speaker 2: Soccer said anything, you know, traditionally conservative? It's like, what
Speaker 2: makes you think that I were traditionally conservative? Because that
Speaker 2: is one of those traditional conservative points that I think
Speaker 2: is extremely stupid if you do care about the eventual outcome.
Speaker 2: We can argue a million times about other stuff, but
Speaker 2: on this one too. This is something rossed out that
Speaker 2: had said previously as well. He's like, look, I'm at
Speaker 2: literally pro I'm pro life, pro family. And the truth
Speaker 2: is is that being legitimately pro life would require a
Speaker 2: massive expansion of a lot of family based social safety
Speaker 2: net programs that most traditional Republicans are not comfortable with,
Speaker 2: and that is actually ideologically consistent. Now, we can argue
Speaker 2: a lot about marriage and work incentives and all that
Speaker 2: other stuff, but this is an actual difference in the framework. Now,
Speaker 2: on the politics of it, maybe you're right, but at
Speaker 2: the same time, a lot of it is trying to
Speaker 2: meet Americans where they are. The truth is is the
Speaker 2: vast majority of Americans are quote unquote pro choice. Under
Speaker 2: the Rogue census, the absolute supermajority of people are pro IVF.
Speaker 2: And also most people hate their insurance companies, and they
Speaker 2: also hate the modern healthcare system and the bills associated
Speaker 2: with fertility. So the average cost of a single round
Speaker 2: of IVF is some twelve to fourteen thousand dollars for
Speaker 2: a single cycle, meaning it's a luxury good and that's
Speaker 2: not right. It's actually not right, And what it tells
Speaker 2: us is that if we want to live in a
Speaker 2: society where people of all classes experience, et cetera, who
Speaker 2: want to be able to have a family should be
Speaker 2: able to have one, then we need to expand protection
Speaker 2: of said medical but in the same way that we
Speaker 2: would with so many other different policies. So my only
Speaker 2: point here is just that the current economics of it
Speaker 2: on healthcare, insurance and all that, trying to become less
Speaker 2: scary as Republicans on the issue is very important, I
Speaker 2: think on a framework level. But you could be correct
Speaker 2: only because only because he's not willing to fully have
Speaker 2: some sort of Sista Souldier moment where he's now, guys,
Speaker 2: I'm breaking from you. He's like, you're either with me
Speaker 2: or you're not. I mean, I think he should because frankly,
Speaker 2: I think they'll all show up to vote for him. Anyways,
Speaker 2: let's go to the next part on Matt Walsh. He
Speaker 2: says Amendment four in Florida will enshrine a right to
Speaker 2: murder children.
Speaker 3: Up until the moment.
Speaker 2: This is what I was talking about, by the way,
Speaker 2: in terms of what the pro life activists were saying.
Speaker 2: They say it's an abject evil, radical leftism, etc. The
Speaker 2: point is is that after significant pushback by Matt Walsh,
Speaker 2: by people like Michael Knowles, we can put the next
Speaker 2: one up there who says, quote, as a practical matter,
Speaker 2: most persons created through IVF are destroyed or frozen indefinitely. Additionally,
Speaker 2: IVF establishes the domination of technology or the origin and
Speaker 2: destiny of human life, and assert it's a perverse right
Speaker 2: to a child and severs the unitive from.
Speaker 3: The pro creative. For those not familiar with such terms.
Speaker 4: I'm sure three percent of people agree with you there, buddy.
Speaker 3: This is religious.
Speaker 2: It's perhaps a blessing and a curse that I know
Speaker 2: so many religious Catholics. Thus, I frankly understand what he's saying.
Speaker 2: If you don't, then you wouldn't maybe understand a lot
Speaker 2: of this. All of this is to say is that
Speaker 2: after a lot of pushback on the initial amendment for conversation,
Speaker 2: Trump then reverses his position and now says, actually, no,
Speaker 2: he will not be voting for Amendment four.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen, webby voting no for that reason.
Speaker 7: Now on Amendment four for that reason, because it's a
Speaker 7: radical and when are you talking about radical? Having a
Speaker 7: baby abortion, doing an abortion, and the ninth month is
Speaker 7: unacceptable to anybody. There's something in between, but the sixth
Speaker 7: is too short. It's just too short a period, and
Speaker 7: the nine months is unacceptable. But for that reason, for
Speaker 7: the radicalization on the Democrat side, we're voting no.
Speaker 2: They have tried this a million times and guess what,
Speaker 2: it's just not going to work.
Speaker 3: We saw it in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: People are not concerned about the so called cases of
Speaker 2: late term abortion. They are very concerned about early term
Speaker 2: six weeks and really between six and twelve first trimester. Again,
Speaker 2: like I said, a literal, not only majority.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: I think it's almost sixty sums, maybe almost seventy percent
Speaker 2: of American support, a rogue consensus. And thus, if we
Speaker 2: put this last piece up here, just Trump contorting himself
Speaker 2: on abortion in search of political gain. It is an
Speaker 2: extremely difficult position that he is in, as long as
Speaker 2: he wants to try and keep all sides happy. I
Speaker 2: genuinely believe that this is one of those a time
Speaker 2: for choosing moments, and that you either have to, as
Speaker 2: I said, have a literal sist to soldier moment and
Speaker 2: just say, look, guys, I don't support this. This is
Speaker 2: not the direction that we're going in. This is the
Speaker 2: new consensus. We are going to have to argue on
Speaker 2: very different framework. And this is a lot like the
Speaker 2: way that the European right wing parties argue on the
Speaker 2: issue of abortion, or we are or he's going to
Speaker 2: have to become explicitly pro life and just live with
Speaker 2: the consequences. But this current like trying to satisfy everybody.
Speaker 2: It's a lot like immigration, where on the issue it's
Speaker 2: just such a polarized one and the choice actually does
Speaker 2: matter so much on where you directionally fall that Trump
Speaker 2: all of this like firing in all different directions.
Speaker 3: It's just not going to work. Yeah, I don't see.
Speaker 4: It right now.
Speaker 1: No, And you know, after the DNC he tweeted that
Speaker 1: thing about like, no one's going to be better for
Speaker 1: reproductive rights than me. No one is going to believe that.
Speaker 1: No one is going to believe that. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: got forty fifty years of Republicans being the party of
Speaker 1: blocking abortion access. You are not going to change that association,
Speaker 1: just like Democrats are not going to change the association
Speaker 1: of suddenly think that Kamala Harris going to be more
Speaker 1: of a hawk on the border than Donald Trump. That
Speaker 1: is not happening, right, So yeah, it's it's there is
Speaker 1: no winning on this position for Donald Trump. And one
Speaker 1: of the things I wanted to mention the New York
Speaker 1: Times Siena polls, which are considered very high quality polls,
Speaker 1: as you know, good as they get in terms of
Speaker 1: for whatever. That means the number one issue for women
Speaker 1: under forty five abortion. It's not actually the economy, it's
Speaker 1: not democracy, is not anything else. The number one issue
Speaker 1: for women under forty five is abortion. That tells you
Speaker 1: how central this has become to a lot of political
Speaker 1: energy and activism at this point. Let me go ahead
Speaker 1: and put this ties in with what I just said.
Speaker 1: Put B nine up on the screen. I mentioned this
Speaker 1: voter registration data earlier, but let's just show you really
Speaker 1: clearly here.
Speaker 4: This is Target Smart.
Speaker 1: It is a Democratic aligned firm, but they track voter
Speaker 1: registration and those are just hard numbers, like you can't
Speaker 1: Democrat or Republican. The actual numbers of who's registering and
Speaker 1: when they register whatever. You can see the spike in
Speaker 1: women registering to vote Postdobs huge spike led to monumental
Speaker 1: victories for the pro choice position in places like Kansas
Speaker 1: and Kentucky. Right then, after Kamala Harris becomes the nominee,
Speaker 1: you see a spike that actually out paces surpasses the
Speaker 1: Dabbs spike in women registrants. And I guarantee you know
Speaker 1: Trump is seeing some of this data, and he has
Speaker 1: always had an instinct. He was the first Republican after
Speaker 1: Roe was overturned, to say this is going to be
Speaker 1: a problem for us. Privately, he was telling his aide like,
Speaker 1: this is going to be a disaster for us, ironic
Speaker 1: given that he's the one who made that happen. But anyway,
Speaker 1: put that aside. This is effectively what they're terrified of
Speaker 1: right now is that this issue, even if it's not
Speaker 1: the primary issue for a majority of voters, it is
Speaker 1: so motivating for such a key slice of the electorate
Speaker 1: that it could in and of itself be determinative and
Speaker 1: has been in some of the special elections that we
Speaker 1: have seen.
Speaker 3: Ghostop That wasn't the last thing I want to say.
Speaker 2: One of the other things I think is the reason
Speaker 2: stupid and Trump should have actually just stuck with his
Speaker 2: position on Amendment four. Is guys, Amendment four is going
Speaker 2: to pass, all right, I'll eat a sock here on
Speaker 2: this show if it doesn't pass, because that is one
Speaker 2: of the things about Florida. It can be a R
Speaker 2: plus twenty state, and abortion can also still be extremely
Speaker 2: like or at least being pro the pro life position
Speaker 2: can be extremely unpopular, as we all learned in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty when Trump wins the state of Florida by some
Speaker 2: three point five percent and minimum wage.
Speaker 3: Passes by like sixty percent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people are very multifaceted and very different, especially whenever
Speaker 2: they have to vote issue by issue at the ballot box.
Speaker 2: Amendment four is one hundred percent going to pass. So
Speaker 2: coming out against it, what's the point, Like, why would
Speaker 2: you want to be on the other side and then
Speaker 2: give the Democrats even more of an edge to run
Speaker 2: up the scoreboard against you because they're going to guarantee
Speaker 2: you Florida Democratic Party will use that.
Speaker 3: Will he still win the Florida State of Florida? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, But my point is, just like, why give people
Speaker 2: more ammunition whenever they would need it? Because I can
Speaker 2: also tell you that Florida may not matter, But Arizona's
Speaker 2: got an abortion thing on the ballot, and you think
Speaker 2: they won't be slicing that in to their coverage. It's
Speaker 2: a gift to all of the people that you are
Speaker 2: running against, and especially in places like Arizona where Carrie
Speaker 2: Lake is a massive drag right now on the ticket,
Speaker 2: you need every inch that you can possibly fight for
Speaker 2: or to win that state.
Speaker 1: So for it to pass in Florida, because it's a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment, it takes a sixty percent super majority, and
Speaker 1: the polls that I've seen recently have it like basically
Speaker 1: right at that sixty percent. But like you, I think
Speaker 1: it's likely it will pass, especially with Trump kind of
Speaker 1: wavering on it, you know. I mean that's a signal
Speaker 1: that a lot of people.
Speaker 4: Who are more moderate on.
Speaker 1: Abortion and maybe a little more Trump inclined or whatever,
Speaker 1: I think, are going to see those initial comments and
Speaker 1: agree with them and be more inclined.
Speaker 3: To vote for it.
Speaker 1: So I expect it to pass. But it's not, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not. It's not a gimme. Given that it has
Speaker 1: to get it'll definitely get a majority. We'll get over
Speaker 1: sixty percent probably, but it's not a gimme.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, Yeah, I think you're probably right, but
Speaker 2: I still think it's almost certainly going to pass.
Speaker 3: And even then we'll still make you to sock.
Speaker 2: I'm churrel. I mean, all it is a dry mouth.
Speaker 2: All I'm saying is that you know you don't want
Speaker 2: to be on the opposite ends a very very popular issue.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part. This is a per
Speaker 2: personal one. Very Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. Speaking of Trump supporting things in the
Speaker 2: state of Florida, Trump is now in support of the
Speaker 2: recreational quote unquote recreational marijuana initiative in Florida.
Speaker 3: Let me read entirely as everyone.
Speaker 2: Knows, I was and will be again the most respected
Speaker 2: law and order president in US history. We will take
Speaker 2: our streets back by being tough on crime.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: In Florida, like so many other states that have already
Speaker 2: given their approval, personal amounts of marijuana will be legalized
Speaker 2: for adults with Amendment three. Whether people like it or not,
Speaker 2: this will happen through the approval of voters, so it
Speaker 2: should be done correctly. We need the state legislature to
Speaker 2: responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of it in
Speaker 2: public spaces, so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we
Speaker 2: go like we do in many of the Democrats run cities. True,
Speaker 2: at the same time, someone should not be criminal in
Speaker 2: Florida when this is legal in so many other states.
Speaker 2: We do not need to ruin lives and waste packs
Speaker 2: taxpayer dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them.
Speaker 2: And no one should grieve a loved one because they
Speaker 2: died from fentsonal lace to marijuana. We will make America
Speaker 2: safe again. So Trump is now fully in support of
Speaker 2: Amendment three. And it's funny because a lot of the
Speaker 2: criticism of the from the pro life side of Trump
Speaker 2: on these amendments and all that applies exactly to this one.
Speaker 3: This is not.
Speaker 2: Let me be very clear, Amendment three is not decriminalization.
Speaker 2: It is straight up commercial legalization of pot and the
Speaker 2: same way that you see in Denver and everybody else,
Speaker 2: which will lead to the massive proliferation of weed stores
Speaker 2: literally everywhere, the futrid.
Speaker 3: Smell of marijuana.
Speaker 2: You can say whatever you want about, oh well we
Speaker 2: need to prohibit public space. It's not going to happen
Speaker 2: because the commercial incentive is way too strong. My friend
Speaker 2: Charles Lehmann wrote a great Wall Street Journal op ed
Speaker 2: just this morning about the problems with widespread legalization with
Speaker 2: no curbs on commercialization. Excuse me, with no curbs on
Speaker 2: commercial lifeization, or on no curves on commercialization, or on
Speaker 2: uh the increased percentage of THHC in products, no regulation
Speaker 2: literally whatsoever. And by the time people even try and
Speaker 2: get around to doing that, a lot of the damage
Speaker 2: is already done in terms of traffic, fertilities, rising addiction,
Speaker 2: problems with children, schizophrenic breaks, and increased amounts of crime.
Speaker 2: So that's all I would say on the subject. But
Speaker 2: Trump clearly has quote gone woke on the issue. So
Speaker 2: why why follow? Why follow popular trends on weed? But
Speaker 2: on abortion, we're like, oh no, we got to you know, we.
Speaker 1: Gotta well, you know, you know the answer to that,
Speaker 1: because the abortion people are very powerful.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe I should become founerful.
Speaker 4: We don't, Maybe we should.
Speaker 2: Yeah, weed, Being against weed, especially against the commercialization of wheed,
Speaker 2: is probably a way more popular position than being straight
Speaker 2: up pro life.
Speaker 3: We have some of these IVF religious Catholics are.
Speaker 1: So I have the pulling on it it depends on
Speaker 1: you know, your definition of where these things lie. I
Speaker 1: guess in terms of the popularity of the position. But
Speaker 1: overall support for marijuana legalization is seventy percent Democrats, it's
Speaker 1: eighty seven percent, independence of seventy percent Republicans, it's fifty
Speaker 1: five percent. So even among Republicans it's a majority at
Speaker 1: this point. So you know, he's reading the poles.
Speaker 4: I guess.
Speaker 1: I would just say, with all of this stuff, it
Speaker 1: just I don't know. You tell me if you feel
Speaker 1: this way too. It all just feels really sort of
Speaker 1: flailing and desperate, like the panda is a little too obvious.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it feels, especially on the abortion thing, like
Speaker 1: all over the place. You can tell he's looking the polls.
Speaker 1: He's like, I got a problem. What can I do.
Speaker 1: He's spinning his wheels, he's trying to throw different attacks
Speaker 1: at Kamala against the wall that aren't really sticking the
Speaker 1: wed thing out of nowhere feels the same way. It
Speaker 1: just it all feels a little panicked and flailing and
Speaker 1: not considered and not you know, I'm again, I'm happy
Speaker 1: for him if he's stuck with this pro choice position.
Speaker 1: I prefer that I prefer you stick with his marijuana
Speaker 1: poss We'll see if he does. He probably will because
Speaker 1: there isn't as much of a powerful, organized constituency on
Speaker 1: the other side. And you know, that's ultimately what caused
Speaker 1: him to fold, which shows you just how powerful that
Speaker 1: constituency continues to be in the Republican Party. Even with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, who does have this, like, you know, very
Speaker 1: strong hold on the base cult of personality around him.
Speaker 1: With that whatever, even he felt like he couldn't hold
Speaker 1: his position shifting on abortion without facing, you know, real
Speaker 1: ramifications from that part of the Republican base. So so yeah,
Speaker 1: in any case, he's reading the polls and looking at
Speaker 1: that seventy percent overall support and thinking that he's got
Speaker 1: to get on the right side of that. And I
Speaker 1: guess because it's on the ballot in Florida, he didn't
Speaker 1: feel like he could not take a position on it,
Speaker 1: or maybe he thought, you know, the other thing saga
Speaker 1: has just occurred to me. He's on the Lex Friedman
Speaker 1: podcast today obviously excited about RFK Junior and Tulci Gabbard
Speaker 1: endorsing him. He's been going on all these different like
Speaker 1: streamer and podcasts that's been a concerted strategy, and his
Speaker 1: campaign thinks that they can reach young men in particular
Speaker 1: through this like podcast approach. And in that frame, you know,
Speaker 1: he changed his position on crypto. That was part of
Speaker 1: the appeal to this audience. And so this could be
Speaker 1: part of a concerted campaign strategy to appeal to young men,
Speaker 1: because if you look at age eighteen to thirty four,
Speaker 1: seventy nine percent of young people men and women age
Speaker 1: eighteen to thirty four support marijuana legalization. So it could
Speaker 1: be a part and parcel to that strike.
Speaker 2: It actually just occurred to me, Yeah, obviously correct, and
Speaker 2: I know that's right, which is that this is an
Speaker 2: attempt to win over the coveted, the quot quote unquote
Speaker 2: barstool social socially libertarian demographic people who don't trust mainstream
Speaker 2: media listen to a lot of podcasts Lex Readman, Theovon
Speaker 2: and all that right in that Sean Ryan podcast as
Speaker 2: well the so called like YouTube politics space.
Speaker 3: Which is predominantly on the right.
Speaker 2: Lex Readman is not right wing, but I'm saying previously
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of crossover with the least with
Speaker 2: Sehan Ryan show, right in terms of politically the valance
Speaker 2: of what that looks like, and you want to be
Speaker 2: able to spread and try and reach people who traditionally
Speaker 2: are not going to be in a mainstream platform. I
Speaker 2: think all of that is actually quite smart. Weed is
Speaker 2: almost certainly going to be a part of that. If
Speaker 2: he does, let's say, appear on the Joe Rogan podcast,
Speaker 2: which you know we'll see, then it's Joe said he.
Speaker 3: Doesn't want an interview him, but you know he may.
Speaker 3: I don't know, Joe would probably ask him about it.
Speaker 2: So he wants to get, you know, in a position
Speaker 2: where he's roughly in line with where it's going to be.
Speaker 2: But my only point on this is that it's very
Speaker 2: funny to meet it. It's like pander and go in
Speaker 2: one direction on one issue like Weed, but then on
Speaker 2: you know, pro life or whatever, the genuine tyranny of
Speaker 2: that minority. You know, if we're thinking of like nessim
Speaker 2: teleb and how the most untolerant almost always win their
Speaker 2: litmus tests are the ones that are literally forcing him
Speaker 2: into one of the most unpopular positions in modern American history.
Speaker 2: And if he loses, it is no doubt in my
Speaker 2: mind that that is the only reason, why, why why
Speaker 2: he lost the election, it will be because of abortion.
Speaker 3: Now, there will be a lot more that backs all
Speaker 3: that up.
Speaker 2: But as we see from all the numbers that Harris graph,
Speaker 2: you know that you showed us on registration, on the animating,
Speaker 2: you know reason why the Democrats are coming out to vote.
Speaker 2: It's just such an own goal for him, and it's
Speaker 2: almost it is almost an insurmountable political force for him,
Speaker 2: where whereas I think he could have gotten past many
Speaker 2: many other things if this wasn't on the ballot.
Speaker 1: Well, and think about what just happened with these comments
Speaker 1: and shifting positions whatever. He gave people a news cycle
Speaker 1: that's about abortion, which is the last thing he wants
Speaker 1: a new cycle about. And it's the polar opposite of
Speaker 1: what has always been his superpower.
Speaker 4: And this is what he's really.
Speaker 1: Struggled with in the Kamala Harris era, is because the
Speaker 1: Democrats aren't taking as a bait the way they used to,
Speaker 1: as evidenced by Commel in that interview. She gets asked
Speaker 1: about like the you know you turn black comments and
Speaker 1: she's like, whatever, same old playbook, next question. They're not
Speaker 1: taking the bait, and he struggling to buying the news
Speaker 1: cycles and set the tone of the conversation and set
Speaker 1: the terms of the conversation in the way that he
Speaker 1: has always been able to do and that has been.
Speaker 4: So effective for him.
Speaker 1: So with this like flailing all over the place with abortion,
Speaker 1: he gets the Democrats a news cycle about abortion, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, that's their greatest wish. If they have more
Speaker 1: days talking about abortion between now an election day and
Speaker 1: fewer days talking about immigration between now an election day.
Speaker 1: Guess what, that landscape is looking pretty good for them,
Speaker 1: and he just gave them an assist in that regard.
Speaker 2: Turning now to Brazil, where there's an important freeze pech
Speaker 2: free speech story, a surrounding Twitter and a big fight
Speaker 2: with Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Brazil has now blocked Elon Musk's X after the company
Speaker 2: has refused to comply. I made a feud with a
Speaker 2: federal judge. So this is a fascinating kind of a
Speaker 2: story that I had to delve into. Just any time
Speaker 2: you know, we see a Twitter or X so called
Speaker 2: or any social media company get literally blocked in a
Speaker 2: major country, it's important. But actually in Brazil, Twitter, YouTube
Speaker 2: and social media plays a major outsize role, as I've
Speaker 2: learned from following Glenn Greenwald and kind of some of
Speaker 2: the other observers of what's happening. So this is actually
Speaker 2: especially important in a very large democracy and of course
Speaker 2: a place which is very nearby to the United States,
Speaker 2: and perhaps what it all means.
Speaker 3: So it all begins kind of with this one.
Speaker 2: Judge Alexander, I'm going to butcher these Portuguese names, so
Speaker 2: I truly apologize. I'm going to go with Alexandra. Alexandre
Speaker 2: de Moore, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice ordered the Brazilian
Speaker 2: Telecom agency to block x from across the nation because
Speaker 2: the company quote lacked a physical presence in Brazil. This
Speaker 2: is after Twitter's office in Brazil did not comply with
Speaker 2: a court order to remove so called quote X accounts
Speaker 2: that said broke Brazilian law. All of these orders are
Speaker 2: sealed currently Twitter said that they will publish them. The
Speaker 2: justice also originally said that any person in Brazil who
Speaker 2: still tried to use X via VPN software will be
Speaker 2: fined some nine thousand dollars per day. Now I believe
Speaker 2: that has since been rescinded. The Lula government, though, has
Speaker 2: backed up this basically blocking of Twitter, and there's been
Speaker 2: a major showdown now between Elon and between the country
Speaker 2: of Brazil and its justice system. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: here as well. Friend of mine, Brendan Carr is actually
Speaker 2: one of the FCC commissioners, put out a really interesting
Speaker 2: analysis and he says that the text of this fifty
Speaker 2: one page decision to shut down X in Brazil is
Speaker 2: quote far more concerning and sweeping the headlines may suggest.
Speaker 2: In his own words, it makes clear that they are
Speaker 2: attempting to strike a broader blow against free speech in
Speaker 2: favor of authoritarian control. His opinion does not try to
Speaker 2: hide it. He comes out and points to Brexit and
Speaker 2: the two sixteen election of Donald Trump as examples in
Speaker 2: his telling of quote the types of extreme populist outcomes
Speaker 2: that he is attempting to avoid by imposing a new
Speaker 2: censorship regime in Brazil, head of the country's elections later
Speaker 2: this year.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 2: This type of censorship and political ideologically nature is explicitly
Speaker 2: prohibited by Brazil's own constitution. Nonetheless, they argue that free
Speaker 2: speech on X quote cannot be allowed to continue because
Speaker 2: the diversity of political opinions expressed on the site might
Speaker 2: influence the people of Brazil ahead of their twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four elections. In other words, he is arguing that free
Speaker 2: speech is a threat to democracy and the quote, of
Speaker 2: course the opposite is true. So he warns in his
Speaker 2: decision that they warned over the playbook of labeling political
Speaker 2: speech that runs contrary Torrents and orthodoxy is quote misinformation
Speaker 2: and disinformation. So there's a lot of seeds of a
Speaker 2: lot of the same debates that we have here Bristol.
Speaker 2: And of course this also affects our friend of the show,
Speaker 2: Glenn Greenwald as well, who you know we're always thinking
Speaker 2: about here and his safety as well.
Speaker 3: But it is extremely I mean, it's concerning, and it.
Speaker 2: Is also perhaps a preview of especially what is to
Speaker 2: come with some major fights, especially with Elon's ownership over
Speaker 2: Twitter in country trees where Elon does not want to
Speaker 2: comply with the current.
Speaker 1: Law, yeah, which is not all countries, because he has
Speaker 1: succeeded to many government censorship requests. I'll get more to
Speaker 1: that in a minute. Just to back up a little
Speaker 1: bit where this fight originates, as best I understand, and
Speaker 1: let me admit I am no expert in Brazilian politics.
Speaker 1: This is my simplistic understanding. Effectively, they had kind of
Speaker 1: akin to a January sixth situation. Bolsanar lost the election
Speaker 1: to Lula, he denied those results. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a whole spin up of like stop the Steel style
Speaker 1: activism online on places like Twitter and culminated in this
Speaker 1: storming of a government building, again kind of akin to
Speaker 1: January sixth. So in response to that, there was a
Speaker 1: crackdown on speech in Brazil, and you know, this ruling
Speaker 1: from this judge is part of that. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's worth mentioning that a larger panel of the Brazilian
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that I believe had five members on it
Speaker 1: unanimously backed up this judge.
Speaker 4: So there's been.
Speaker 1: Attempt to kind of personalize and make it just about
Speaker 1: this dude. But this larger panel also backed up the
Speaker 1: ruling and found it to be grounded in Brazilian law.
Speaker 1: The specific thing that they're pointing to here is it
Speaker 1: all spawned from a request to take down certain accounts.
Speaker 1: Those accounts, as you mentioned, Saga, the rulings of exactly
Speaker 1: which accounts they were, it was actually sealed. Elon has
Speaker 1: now actually docked them and their real names and revealed.
Speaker 4: Who they were.
Speaker 1: They were all these Bolsnaro aligned type of right wing
Speaker 1: activists who the courts wanted them to block. There was
Speaker 1: a threat apparently that the according this is according to Elon,
Speaker 1: that their representative in the country could face personal arrest
Speaker 1: and prosecution. So he removes that legal representative from the country.
Speaker 1: And then that's actually the piece that triggers the suspension
Speaker 1: is under Brazilian law, if you were going to operate
Speaker 1: a social media platform in the country, you have to
Speaker 1: have a legal representative.
Speaker 4: Elon refused to name a.
Speaker 1: Legal representative of Twitter in the country, and so that's
Speaker 1: the specific thing that ends up sparking this whole situation
Speaker 1: for the people of Brazil. There's no doubt that this
Speaker 1: is a I mean, the VPN thing is crazy, Like
Speaker 1: it's not clear how that would be enforced or if
Speaker 1: that's actually going to you know, remain in effect. But
Speaker 1: the idea of finding people nine thousand dollars to use
Speaker 1: a VPN, and that's a massive amount in any country anywhere,
Speaker 1: but also you know, specifically in the country of Brazil insane.
Speaker 1: Given you know, I'd have to look up what the
Speaker 1: average like median salary is per year there but that's
Speaker 1: just that's wild, right, And in the same way that
Speaker 1: when you ban Twitter, Telegram, WhatsApp and countries like China
Speaker 1: and countries like Russia, obviously it's a free speech issue
Speaker 1: for the people of Brazil.
Speaker 4: I think with regard to.
Speaker 1: Elon, though specifically, it's makes more sense in the context
Speaker 1: of thinking of this as an ideological project. And the
Speaker 1: reason I say that is because, as I alluded to before,
Speaker 1: and we can put C three up on the screen,
Speaker 1: when it was countries with leaders and political movements that
Speaker 1: were in charge that Elon is ideologically aligned to, he
Speaker 1: agreed to the censorship requests. He you know, he did
Speaker 1: it with Turkey, he did it with India. These were
Speaker 1: kind of the two most famous examples. When we interviewed
Speaker 1: Jack Dorsey, he made a point that was really important
Speaker 1: that was actually that listen under my leadership, and there
Speaker 1: were all kinds of you know, issues that we criticized
Speaker 1: at the time, but they actually had a common free
Speaker 1: speech understanding and they pushed back on more government censorship
Speaker 1: requests than Elon has. Now that he is you know,
Speaker 1: in charge of and owns Twitter. Some eighty three percent
Speaker 1: of government censorship requests have been agreed to by Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: So you asked yourself, Okay, well, what's different between twit,
Speaker 1: you know, Turkey and India and Brazil. And it's hard
Speaker 1: not to come to the conclusion that the difference is
Speaker 1: an ideal line one. And so that's why in one
Speaker 1: instance he says, yes, I will help you government of
Speaker 1: Turkey government, you know mody in India, and no I
Speaker 1: will not in country or Brazil. The other reason that
Speaker 1: I say that is because another thing we talked about
Speaker 1: at the time, Sager, is that that we disagreed with,
Speaker 1: by the way, at the time and continue to I
Speaker 1: continue to disagree with. His definition of free speech was
Speaker 1: and this is how he justified those takedowns in India
Speaker 1: and Turkey was well, whatever the laws of the country are,
Speaker 1: that's what I have to follow, and that's my definition
Speaker 1: of free speech. He said this in particular in a
Speaker 1: big interview sit down he did with BBC that you
Speaker 1: guys might remember, Let's take a listen to a little
Speaker 1: bit of that.
Speaker 8: We have our responsibility to adhere to the law and
Speaker 8: if people want the law changed, they should talk to
Speaker 8: elect talk to their electric representative and get the load changed.
Speaker 8: And then we will adhere to the law, okay, but
Speaker 8: if you want to see beyond the law, that is
Speaker 8: that is us deciding to be censors. So and I'm
Speaker 8: against censor. I'm a favor of freedom of speech. And
Speaker 8: freedom of speech only is relevant when people you don't
Speaker 8: like say things you don't like. Otherwise it has no meaning.
Speaker 4: So sorry.
Speaker 1: That was actually the Don Lemon Show. There was a
Speaker 1: different interview with BBC. You can put that up on
Speaker 1: the screen from CNN wrote up the interview, but he
Speaker 1: makes very similar comments about you know, he said he
Speaker 1: has no actual choice about government censorship requests and that
Speaker 1: their definition of free speech is effectively following the laws
Speaker 1: of whatever country. Now you could see the problems with
Speaker 1: that because there are all kinds of repressive regimes around
Speaker 1: the country. You wouldn't want to be following, you know,
Speaker 1: the laws of Saudi Arabia and consider that to be
Speaker 1: free speech. But that was his definition, at least when
Speaker 1: it came to countries where you know, he had a
Speaker 1: either business or friendly ideological relationship with the government. And
Speaker 1: it's different when it's Brazil because it's Lula and it's
Speaker 1: left wing and so he has an ideological disagreement with
Speaker 1: the government. So I think that that's you know, the
Speaker 1: best sort of frame to think about.
Speaker 2: It's probably ideology, but I mean I think a lot
Speaker 2: of it is business too with Elon, and that's part
Speaker 2: I will never you know, this is all was problem
Speaker 2: with Elan A lot of stuff on this. One of
Speaker 2: the reasons why I'll never open his mouth about China,
Speaker 2: the most censorious government in the history of the world
Speaker 2: whenever it comes to social media, is that he has
Speaker 2: a massive commercial interest in China, in SpaceX and Twitter.
Speaker 2: It's not actually that big of a business bottom line,
Speaker 2: whereas India is what the most populous country in the
Speaker 2: whole world. Elon literally had met with Mody. You could
Speaker 2: call it ideology. I would actually call it much more business.
Speaker 2: So he'll pick the fight whenever it both aligns with
Speaker 2: ideology and it isn't going to hurt him on his
Speaker 2: business bottom line. And this is always I've always said this,
Speaker 2: This's a huge problem with him, is that he will
Speaker 2: and wants to comply with a lot of Chinese censorship,
Speaker 2: specifically because they have Tesla the company, they can destroy
Speaker 2: them overnight anytime they want it, with their supply chain,
Speaker 2: with their batteries and with Giga Shanghai specifically, So if
Speaker 2: you look at the problems that he has in that.
Speaker 3: Regard, it's really big.
Speaker 2: Nonetheless, I mean, like you said, we're going to take
Speaker 2: I mean, like in this particular case, it's really bad.
Speaker 2: The company, which I think, to their credit, who has
Speaker 2: been the most consistent is actually Rumble. They have denied
Speaker 2: all censorship press basically across the board. They have fought
Speaker 2: them in court. Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of Rumble, actually
Speaker 2: put out, you know, an interesting thing just about some
Speaker 2: of the history of the both the Brazil case, but
Speaker 2: also many others which they've refused to comply with, many
Speaker 2: of which are complete bs, both in the UK, in France,
Speaker 2: all across the developed world.
Speaker 3: I think one of the reasons why this is really important.
Speaker 2: Oh, by the way, I looked it up, GDP per
Speaker 2: capita in Brazil is eight hundred dollars, so nine thousand
Speaker 2: dollars a day is quite literally the yearly average salary
Speaker 2: of Azil inside. So if we think though about what
Speaker 2: this may mean in the future, is there is a
Speaker 2: big fight that is being set up specifically in the
Speaker 2: developed world.
Speaker 3: It usually you know, the rules.
Speaker 2: In the playbook may be a little bit more ham
Speaker 2: handed in Brazil's, in Russia, in India, but you know,
Speaker 2: make no mistake in France, in the UK, in Germany.
Speaker 2: You know, perhaps maybe later this week I'll talk about,
Speaker 2: you know, in Germany the AfD winning its first state
Speaker 2: election since World War Two. You just wait and see
Speaker 2: how those scientology era scientology, you know, right wing laws
Speaker 2: that are on the books, how they're going to try
Speaker 2: and be enforced there. So this has major, major political ramifications.
Speaker 2: And not only that, the EU regulatory regime, which is
Speaker 2: one of the most insane regulatory regimes in the world,
Speaker 2: is much more aligned with this kind of Brazilian view
Speaker 2: of things. And you know, in a certain sense, he's
Speaker 2: not wrong in terms of how populous quote unquote politics
Speaker 2: and others can bubble up through through online and social media,
Speaker 2: because by definition they have to circumvent the established powers
Speaker 2: and then the you know, the damage that can be wrought.
Speaker 2: We watched this in the UK with the riots where
Speaker 2: immediately they're charging and throwing people in jail for literally
Speaker 2: whipping up, you know, whipping up quote unquote bad sentiment
Speaker 2: on online and a lot of that was on Twitter,
Speaker 2: that's really.
Speaker 1: Scary to pick up on business point, which is an
Speaker 1: important one. Just to clarify one thing, Brazil is one
Speaker 1: of Twitter's largest markets, So you might look at that
Speaker 1: and say, oh, well, he has a huge business interest.
Speaker 1: Twitter is Elon Musk is Megan his money, and so
Speaker 1: Twitter is basically, you know, Elon bought it in the
Speaker 1: same reason that Jeff Bezos brought bought The Washington Post.
Speaker 1: As an ideological tool. I think it's I think we
Speaker 1: should think of Elon's ownership of Twitter in the same
Speaker 1: way we think about Rupert Murdoch's ownership of Fox Math. Sure, right,
Speaker 1: it's an ideological tool. I mean, this is not. He
Speaker 1: can't even pretend to be a neutral actor.
Speaker 4: At this point. He has endorsed Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: He is putting millions towards Trump's campaign on Twitter. You know,
Speaker 1: the algorithm has you know, really surfaces, And I don't
Speaker 1: think that this is actually I agree with Ryan that
Speaker 1: this has been to their detriment and has convinced right
Speaker 1: wing users that their voices are more their view points,
Speaker 1: are more popular than they actually are, more prevalent, more
Speaker 1: influential than they actually are. But he's using Twitter as
Speaker 1: an ideological tool for the policies and type of governance
Speaker 1: that he wants to see. And so when you're thinking
Speaker 1: about these disputes that he's having with various countries, why
Speaker 1: this country there's a dispute, why that country he just
Speaker 1: accepts the censorship. I think you're right the business piece
Speaker 1: is important to take into account as well.
Speaker 4: But then also you.
Speaker 1: Know his goals for Twitter as an ideological tool or
Speaker 1: an important part of understanding what's going on there as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's smart.
Speaker 2: So anyways, it's a concerning situation. I'll continue to monitor it,
Speaker 2: and especially just thinking about you know, Glenn Greenwall being
Speaker 2: in Brazil and some of the dangers that all come
Speaker 2: with that, you know, always thinking about him and his safety.
Speaker 1: Huge news, we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: There are massive protests in Israel, and the reason for
Speaker 1: these protests or you had six hostages, including that Israeli
Speaker 1: American whose parents spoke at the DNC, who were found
Speaker 1: dead in the Gaza strip. We're going to talk more
Speaker 1: about the their circumstances of their death in a moment
Speaker 1: which appears to be and this was sort of confirmed
Speaker 1: by Hamas that as IDF soldiers were closing in on them.
Speaker 4: Their Hamas or.
Speaker 1: Other affiliated captors were under instructions to rather than let
Speaker 1: them be rescued by the IDF, to shoot them and
Speaker 1: kill them. However, the reason these protests have broken out
Speaker 1: and they are we're talking about hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people in the streets best I can tell, largest protests
Speaker 1: since these this war began, you know, post October seventh,
Speaker 1: is because they directly and correctly blame Bibi nan Yahoo
Speaker 1: for putting his own political survival over the survival.
Speaker 4: Of the hostages.
Speaker 1: So you know, that has been the framing of a
Speaker 1: lot of Israeli media that has been I'm going to
Speaker 1: play you for you in a moment one of the
Speaker 1: key opposition figures in Israel. They are saying the hostage families,
Speaker 1: they are directly saying their blood is on your hands
Speaker 1: because rather than take the deal that was on the table,
Speaker 1: rather negotiate in good faith, you have done nothing but
Speaker 1: try to undercut these negotiations and guarantee that the war
Speaker 1: would continue because of your desire to maintain your own
Speaker 1: political standing. So, in addition to these protests, and what
Speaker 1: I showed you in that video was they were being
Speaker 1: treated incredibly aggressively by the Israeli police, sprayed with what's
Speaker 1: called skunk spray. They also were hit with stun grenades.
Speaker 1: You might contrast that with the treatment and encouragement of
Speaker 1: the right wing protesters who were blocking Aid going into gaza,
Speaker 1: where they were enabled, encouraged, et cetera. Here very a
Speaker 1: pretty vicious crackdown from the Israeli police. Let's put D
Speaker 1: two up on the screen. In addition to the protest,
Speaker 1: there was a relatively brief general strike led by this
Speaker 1: long standing labor union in Israel. Friend of the show
Speaker 1: Demi reader had put out a long thread sort of
Speaker 1: explaining the background of this union.
Speaker 3: What they are.
Speaker 1: My understanding based on his thread is that it's a
Speaker 1: sort of, you know, very top down labor union tied
Speaker 1: in pretty closely with the government. There was a ruling
Speaker 1: that came back that said, hey, you can't do this
Speaker 1: general strike because it doesn't directly have an economic tie in,
Speaker 1: and they just sort of like back down, like okay, fine, whatever.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't undercut the fact that you've had this
Speaker 1: huge grassroots in the streets reaction to this latest news.
Speaker 1: Let me go and put D three up on the screen.
Speaker 1: To give you some of the details here. This is
Speaker 1: from the Washington Post headline is protests escalating israelter six
Speaker 1: hostages bodies are recovered in Gaza, including Hirsch Goldberg, Poland
Speaker 1: that Israeli American I met reference before and five others
Speaker 1: that Hamas took hostage on October seventh, according to the
Speaker 1: IDF and as I said sort of confirmed by Hamas.
Speaker 1: They were killed shortly before being found. They say in
Speaker 1: this article Israeli's react with shock and fury after the
Speaker 1: bodies of those six hostages were recovered. They also say
Speaker 1: that they were found roughly half a mile from the
Speaker 1: tunnel where the IDF rescued a living hostage last week.
Speaker 1: The bodies were taken to the National Center of Forensic Medicine,
Speaker 1: where and examination determined the six had been killed by
Speaker 1: multiple close range gunshots. Again, that's the Israeli analysis of
Speaker 1: what happened, but Sager getting to some of the reaction
Speaker 1: from some of the hostages' families. One of the hostages
Speaker 1: who had been released in the previous brief ceasefire deal,
Speaker 1: released in November after fifty five days in captivity, accus
Speaker 1: bb of quote perpetrating psychological terror on us like Hamas
Speaker 1: perpetrated on us. So that is the strength of the
Speaker 1: sentiment among a lot of the population.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's been very interesting to consume this through Western media,
Speaker 2: through US media, and then through Israeli media. So I
Speaker 2: was in the UK when all this was happening, so
Speaker 2: I watched BBC. BBC is actually quite good. I hate
Speaker 2: to say it, but they do a general.
Speaker 4: Big better than ours media.
Speaker 3: They do a good job of being like, here's a
Speaker 3: view from Israel, here's a view from from the US,
Speaker 3: like US politician President Biden has issued this, here's what
Speaker 3: the Prime minister has said. And actually the UK just
Speaker 3: suspended some arm sales to Israel.
Speaker 2: So there's a little bit of a difference in the
Speaker 2: way that they think about things over there.
Speaker 1: That was you know, Cure Starmer in charge now so
Speaker 1: Labor he's been he's pretty pro Israel, but at least
Speaker 1: he feels like he needs to make some sort of
Speaker 1: moves in this direction.
Speaker 2: Only point is that it's so different in the way
Speaker 2: that you consume a lot of this, Because if you
Speaker 2: were watching Fox News, you'd be like, oh, this is
Speaker 2: one hundred percent on Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: They're like, what like how's that possible?
Speaker 2: If you watch MSNBC, I guess you're probably just gonna
Speaker 2: be like, this is a one hundred percent on Bbe. But
Speaker 2: I mean, the view in Israel seems to be a
Speaker 2: major split between those who are pro hostage negotiation and
Speaker 2: cease fire, because their prime objective is saving the hostages,
Speaker 2: not the so called destruction of Hamas. And then where
Speaker 2: you fall on that question is kind of whether you
Speaker 2: agree with the prosecution of the war and even the
Speaker 2: aims of the war itself. So that is a big,
Speaker 2: kind of interesting thing because in America, you know, if
Speaker 2: you were to look at what people think the prime
Speaker 2: aim of the Israeli military would be in America, it's
Speaker 2: probably the destruction of Hamas and like live revenge for
Speaker 2: October seventh, whereas they think about things very very differently
Speaker 2: over there. The fact that the protests did explode like
Speaker 2: this against the Israeli government after they were literally murdered
Speaker 2: in cold blood by Hamas does tell you, though, something
Speaker 2: is that they're not willing to be like this is
Speaker 2: one hundred percent on Hamas, kind of the way that
Speaker 2: a US based commentator predominantly saying that now, of course
Speaker 2: they did murder them, and they did murder them in
Speaker 2: cold blood, which is horrible. From the Israeli side, they're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we know that they're blood thirsty terrorists.
Speaker 3: That's why we need to do a ceasefire to get
Speaker 3: them the hell out of there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the way that you think about that is
Speaker 2: really important. I don't know, though, how much credence to
Speaker 2: even give that side though at this point, because if
Speaker 2: the ceasefire just seems so impossible at this current time,
Speaker 2: I mean, with the US government all these various frameworks,
Speaker 2: it just seems to me that if it was going
Speaker 2: to happen, it would have happened. And I think Israel's
Speaker 2: cast is die. I think they the BB Netanyahu government
Speaker 2: as it currently stands, I don't think they will ever
Speaker 2: agree to a ceasefire under Hamas. Maybe it was possible
Speaker 2: before who was it was killed, but after that, you know,
Speaker 2: the people who are left in power are not the ones. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're not the ones who want to pursue a cease fire.
Speaker 2: And it seems here that these the Hamas people who
Speaker 2: murdered the terrorists or sor I murdered the hostages and
Speaker 2: were on orders from higher command to kill them if
Speaker 2: they were to ever fall into IDF, if they were
Speaker 2: to fall back into IDF custody, the people who are
Speaker 2: in power seem to be just as extreme, if not
Speaker 2: more extreme than before. So we're in a lose lose
Speaker 2: situation on both of those sides.
Speaker 1: So it was Ismael Haneya and who was assassinated in
Speaker 1: Iran and the Iranian capital in Tehran, and he was
Speaker 1: the lead negotiator. It was like the head of the
Speaker 1: political wing of Hamas. And now it's Yaya Snore who
Speaker 1: orchestrated the October seventh attacks, who is now the lead
Speaker 1: negotiator has been put into that position. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: bbe literally murdered in a foreign nation's capital the lead negotiator,
Speaker 1: So I think that's pretty telling about his commitment to
Speaker 1: these negotiations. And these really people aren't stupid. They can
Speaker 1: see all of this. There is talk listen.
Speaker 4: I'm not there.
Speaker 1: I don't have a fine understanding of Israeli politics, so
Speaker 1: I can't say how likely this is or not. But
Speaker 1: you know, our friend Shaiel ben Fraim, who's like a
Speaker 1: liberal Zionis that we had on the show before, and
Speaker 1: others are saying there is a chance BB's government could
Speaker 1: actually fall this week if these protests continue, and especially
Speaker 1: if you were to have a longer general strike, which
Speaker 1: the general strike has already ended, as I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: So perhaps some of that pressure has been taken off,
Speaker 1: but you still have polls saying seventy percent of Israelis
Speaker 1: want Babe to go. They do not want him to
Speaker 1: stand for election again. So there is definitely a majority
Speaker 1: sentiment of we would like to move on from this
Speaker 1: particular brand of political leadership, and if the pressure cooker
Speaker 1: gets turned up high enough, potentially you could see the
Speaker 1: government fall this week. I have to be skeptical and
Speaker 1: cynical of that, just because this guy is such a
Speaker 1: freaking political survivor, you know, I mean, I just have
Speaker 1: to go back to that he's made it this far
Speaker 1: when after October seventh, his whole philosophy of security was
Speaker 1: in tatters, his reputation was in utter tatters. Yes, of
Speaker 1: course people blame herm us, as they should, but they
Speaker 1: also looked and said, listen, you're the one who said
Speaker 1: we could work with these people. You're the one who said, hey,
Speaker 1: well why don't we You're the one who sent these
Speaker 1: ideaf troops to the West Bank to guard settlers rather
Speaker 1: than being there in the Gaza strip. You're the one
Speaker 1: who failed in terms of assessing this, even though your
Speaker 1: own people were warning that there was some sort of
Speaker 1: a plan about to be put into action. We now
Speaker 1: know they had the plans in advance, they just didn't
Speaker 1: take it seriously. So he has survived this far. So
Speaker 1: you know, at this point, you'd be probably fool to
Speaker 1: bet against him surviving a little bit further. And it's
Speaker 1: not that long till election day, and we all know
Speaker 1: who he wants to get into office.
Speaker 4: You know, with regard to the.
Speaker 1: Ceasfire piece, We're going to talk to Jeremy Skahill more
Speaker 1: about this. But you had Biden come out. He got out,
Speaker 1: asked to like shouted questions b be doing enough to
Speaker 1: secure a cease fire deal, and he said no, it's like,
Speaker 1: I mean, the only way a ceasfire deal is actually
Speaker 1: going to happen is if the US says this is happening,
Speaker 1: We're cutting off your weapons, like this is it.
Speaker 4: This is the end of the road.
Speaker 1: We're making it happen, We're enforcing it, period, end of story.
Speaker 1: There was this is a reporting from Jeremy there was
Speaker 1: actually you know, remember when Biden gave a big speech saying, hey,
Speaker 1: here's the deal that Israel's agreed to and now we're
Speaker 1: just waiting on Hamas to agree. Well, Hamas agreed to
Speaker 1: that deal, and then Phoebe undercuts it and puts in
Speaker 1: a bunch of provisions poison pills that he knows are
Speaker 1: put in there intentionally to guarantee that Hamas would never
Speaker 1: agree to that. So there should have been a deal
Speaker 1: back then Israel said we accept this deal, and Hamas
Speaker 1: said we accept this deal, and then Israel went back
Speaker 1: on their word and said, no, no, actually we need
Speaker 1: these ten other provisions to guarantee that, you know, that
Speaker 1: Hamas won't accede to the deal. And I mean that
Speaker 1: just makes it heart extra heartbreaking to see the level
Speaker 1: of death and destruction that has continued since July, including
Speaker 1: these hostages, including this Israeli American and also including the
Speaker 1: Palestinians who have been murdered between then and now, when
Speaker 1: there should have been a peace deal in hand, the
Speaker 1: Biden people are now saying like, oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: put a take it or leave a deal on the table.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, you know, Israel's going to leave it
Speaker 1: like that's entirely predictable at this point. So until you
Speaker 1: are willing to say no more arms, you are done,
Speaker 1: end of story. We're finished here. Until that happens, this
Speaker 1: horror is going to continue. Kamala Harris, we can put
Speaker 1: her response up on the screen, you know there. To
Speaker 1: your point, Sagar, about just the level of contrast between
Speaker 1: the commentary of figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the news media here versus the Israeli
Speaker 1: public opposition figures news media there are extraordinary. She used
Speaker 1: the same you know, basically framing as a net Yahoo would.
Speaker 1: She says Hamas is an evil terrorist organization. With these murders,
Speaker 1: Hamasas even wore American blood on its hands. She went
Speaker 1: on to say that the threat threat Hamas poses the
Speaker 1: people of Israel and American citizens in Israel must be eliminated. Again,
Speaker 1: that's Beebe's type language. And Hamas cannot control Gasa. You
Speaker 1: have so many American officials, including the Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 1: who says Hamas.
Speaker 4: Cannot be eliminated.
Speaker 1: So at this late date for her to still be
Speaker 1: buying into this fantasy that Hamasca quote unquote be eliminated
Speaker 1: is just foolish, unacceptable, unnecessary, all of those things. In fact,
Speaker 1: there were reports that Hamas has recruited thousands of more fighters.
Speaker 1: They're reconstituted in the north and are reasserting their capabilities.
Speaker 1: So what exactly are we doing here? In direct contrast
Speaker 1: to that type of tone from Kamala Harris, you had
Speaker 1: opposition leader Yayer Lapede in Israel. Can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. He's speaking in Hebrew. I'll just read
Speaker 1: you a little bit of what he says here. Says
Speaker 1: they were just alive. Netanyahu and his cabinet of death
Speaker 1: shows not to rescue the hostages. I call in the
Speaker 1: labor union, large businesses, and local authorities to shut down
Speaker 1: the economy. So that is more the tenor of the
Speaker 1: conversation that is happening there. And finally, let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This is Caitlin Collins says. A
Speaker 1: group representing the families of Israeli hostages is calling for
Speaker 1: Babe to address the nation, which he did, but he
Speaker 1: didn't do this part and take responsibility for abandoning the hostages.
Speaker 1: They say, the recovery of these bodies is a direct
Speaker 1: result of failing to sign a deal. They were all
Speaker 1: murdered in the last few days after surviving almost eleven
Speaker 1: months of abuse, torture, and starvation in Hamaska captivity. The
Speaker 1: delay in signing the deal has led to their deaths
Speaker 1: and those of many other hostages. Again mincing no words
Speaker 1: in where the hostage families are placing the blame directly
Speaker 1: at the feet of BB nine.
Speaker 2: Now who yeah again, you know, the tenor in the
Speaker 2: conversation very very different over there in terms of what
Speaker 2: the criticism and that look like, and from the hostages themselves,
Speaker 2: that's always what's been so annoying. You know, You'll have
Speaker 2: hostages literally rescued who are like, we almost died and
Speaker 2: were bombed, and.
Speaker 3: You need to do a ceasefire.
Speaker 2: And then if you say that in America, people are like, yeah,
Speaker 2: pro Hamas. It's like, words have meaning, you know, throughout
Speaker 2: all of this, and apparently they don't. They only have
Speaker 2: meaning in Israel. They have no meaning here in America.
Speaker 2: And I think there is a real reason for that
Speaker 2: in terms of the way that the conversation and all
Speaker 2: of that here is controlled. But in terms of where
Speaker 2: things go. Look, maybe the guy is right, But I
Speaker 2: just don't. I always bet on his political survival. He's
Speaker 2: an animal, you know, he's very, very talented. It takes
Speaker 2: and you know this.
Speaker 4: In a mucky villion way, yes, vivor the way.
Speaker 3: He's a literal survivor.
Speaker 2: He survived the Supreme Court thing, he survived October seventh,
Speaker 2: survived the inter war period. He's managed the relationship with
Speaker 2: the United States in terms of playing both political parties
Speaker 2: pretty effectively. I think APPEC is a major winner right
Speaker 2: now than at any time ever before.
Speaker 3: The ADL as well.
Speaker 2: All of their political machinery in Washington has been you know,
Speaker 2: exercised at the highest level and mostly has won almost
Speaker 2: every fight that they've engaged in. So I don't bet
Speaker 2: against him. I don't bet against him coming out of this.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go ahead and get to Jeremy Scahill
Speaker 1: of drop site News, who has a number of importance
Speaker 1: scoops to bring us.
Speaker 4: Let's go to it.
Speaker 1: Happy to be joined this morning by Jeremy ska Hill, who,
Speaker 1: of course, alongside our own right now Grim is co
Speaker 1: founder of drop site News.
Speaker 4: Great to see Jeremy, Good to you, good to be back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, so you have some bombshell reporting about
Speaker 1: these ceasefire negotiations and really pointing the finger at in
Speaker 1: a conclusive way at bb Netnaho for intentionally undermining a
Speaker 1: deal that he had already agreed to. It can put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen and you can elaborate here
Speaker 1: a bit more. But effectively, Hamas agreed to a three
Speaker 1: phase deal that actually back down on what was one
Speaker 1: of their key demands that there be a permanent cease fire.
Speaker 1: This was something that supposedly the Israelis had already agreed to,
Speaker 1: and yet after Hamas says okay, yes, we accept then
Speaker 1: Netanyahu specifically enabled, as you point out, by the US
Speaker 1: layers on a bunch of additional conditions, intentionally met to
Speaker 1: undercut the achievement of a deal. It talked to us
Speaker 1: about the documents that you were able to gain access
Speaker 1: to and put this in a broader context for us.
Speaker 9: The broad context is that for the past ten plus months,
Speaker 9: the narrative from the United States and Israel has been
Speaker 9: that Hamas has been blocking a ceasefire, and that has
Speaker 9: not been true throughout this entire time. Certainly, Hamas and
Speaker 9: Israel had very different perspectives on what they wanted in
Speaker 9: any document that established a framework for a ceasefire. But
Speaker 9: it's been propaganda from the beginning to state that somehow, unilaterally,
Speaker 9: Hamas was sabotaging it. But let's fast forward to the
Speaker 9: very current situation. You have Kamala Harris anointed as the
Speaker 9: Democratic nominee for president in Chicago earlier in August, and
Speaker 9: you had AOC and others praising her for working tirelessly
Speaker 9: for a ceasefire, saying the White House was working around
Speaker 9: the clock for a ceasefire. And what they were talking
Speaker 9: about is that President Joe Biden in May announced that
Speaker 9: he was going to present a framework for a ceasefire
Speaker 9: that had actually been presented by Israel, and he said,
Speaker 9: you know, now the onus is on Jumas to accept
Speaker 9: this deal. And what that framework essentially said was that
Speaker 9: there would be three phases, and in the initial first
Speaker 9: six week phase, there would be a large exchange of captives.
Speaker 9: Many of the civilians that are being held by Hamas
Speaker 9: inside of Gaza. There are also some that are classified
Speaker 9: as in a humanitarian category. One of those we understand
Speaker 9: was Hirsch Goldberg, poll In, the dual US Israeli national
Speaker 9: whose death in Gaza was announced on Sunday by Israel,
Speaker 9: and so you had this framework. Hamas then looks at it,
Speaker 9: they gave some notes on it. Then you know, within
Speaker 9: the next ten days, and they said that they wanted
Speaker 9: to be able to negotiate a permanent ceasefire in the
Speaker 9: first phase of the deal. Now, according to my sources
Speaker 9: in Hamas, they were told by the international medias mediators
Speaker 9: Kutar and Egypt, this was a deal breaker for Israel
Speaker 9: in the United States, and so Hamas deliberated on that
Speaker 9: The United Nations Security Council endorsed the so called Biden Framework,
Speaker 9: and by July second, Hamas had actually backed off of
Speaker 9: what it was one of their most important demands and
Speaker 9: made what they thought was a really big concession by
Speaker 9: taking that language out of what they were insisting on.
Speaker 9: They then go back to the mediators and the documents
Speaker 9: I have show that on July second, Hamas formally informed
Speaker 9: both Egypt and Kutar, the two main mediators dealing with
Speaker 9: the United States and Israel, that they would accept the
Speaker 9: terms of the framework based on an American amendment. And
Speaker 9: Hamas sources told me that the Americans acknowledged that Hamas
Speaker 9: had accepted that framework, and they went back to Israel,
Speaker 9: and then Netanyahu bombards the process with a whole slew
Speaker 9: of new conditions, including an indefinite presence of Israeli troops
Speaker 9: in the Philadelphi Corridor, which has been governed by agreements
Speaker 9: going back to nineteen seventy nine and two thousand and
Speaker 9: five with Egypt and Israel. Israeli forces are not supposed
Speaker 9: to be in the Philadelphi Corridor or controlling the Rafak crossing.
Speaker 9: And they also insisted that they would maintain troops in
Speaker 9: what's called the net Serim Corridor, which essentially splits Gaza
Speaker 9: in half. So Hamas said, no, no deal on this.
Speaker 9: We already agreed to something. And so what we've seen
Speaker 9: is Anthony Blinken running over to Tel Aviv and traveling
Speaker 9: around the Middle East. And now what's happening is they've
Speaker 9: tried to say to Hamas, yeah, we know that you
Speaker 9: agreed to this, but now you have to accept parts
Speaker 9: of these other demands that you've made very clear you
Speaker 9: will not accept, which is an indefinite Israeli troop presence
Speaker 9: inside of Gaza.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Jeremy, can we put E three please up
Speaker 2: on the screen. This was very interesting in terms of
Speaker 2: some of the reporting that was coming out where they
Speaker 2: say that the heads of the security intelligence services urging
Speaker 2: Netanyahu for months to reach the deal. We warned him
Speaker 2: and the cabinet officials about this exac scenario, but they
Speaker 2: would not listen. So how does this comport with some
Speaker 2: of the other reporting that you've done on the subject.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, what's really ironic is that you have
Speaker 9: Yoav Galan, the Minister of Defense of Israel. Now this
Speaker 9: is someone who made genocidal statements at the onset and
Speaker 9: said that essentially they were in a collectively punish the people,
Speaker 9: the Palestinians of Gaza by shutting off food, electricity, water,
Speaker 9: et cetera. He has emerged internally as net Nyahu's most
Speaker 9: formidable opponent from within the Israeli national security state. And
Speaker 9: we understand that just days ago there was a cabinet meeting.
Speaker 9: It's public that the cabinet meeting was called by net
Speaker 9: and Yahoo to get an endorsement for his pledge to
Speaker 9: stay in that Philadelphi corridor that I was referring to
Speaker 9: along the Egyptian border. And according to Israeli media reporting,
Speaker 9: Yoav Galant exploded at net Yahu during that meeting, said
Speaker 9: that he is doing this because he knows Hamas is
Speaker 9: not going to accept it. He warned net Yahoo that
Speaker 9: if any more hostages die, net Yahou would have their
Speaker 9: blood on his hands, and he identified net Yahu as
Speaker 9: the main obstacle to a ceasefire. And then just days later,
Speaker 9: this past Sunday, you had Israel announcing the deaths of
Speaker 9: six hostages and captives inside of Gaza, including this US
Speaker 9: American dual citizen, Heirsch Goldberg.
Speaker 1: Poll in Jeremy talk a little bit about the way
Speaker 1: that the US has enabled this behavior, because as you said,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, you're Lapede and certainly you have Golant
Speaker 1: within the government have emerged as direct critics of Bbe's
Speaker 1: strategy here, which is clearly designed to undercut the negotiations
Speaker 1: in an attempt to keep himself in power at you know,
Speaker 1: obviously the expense of Palestinian lives, but more consequential in
Speaker 1: the eyes of Yu ofv Golan, at the expense.
Speaker 4: Of Israeli hostage lives.
Speaker 1: How has that behavior been endorsed and enabled by the
Speaker 1: US government, which has at every turn continued to lay
Speaker 1: all the blame at the feet of Hamas versus where
Speaker 1: at this point it very clearly, more accurately lies at
Speaker 1: the feet of Bebe.
Speaker 9: I mean, in the very simple, big picture. The direct
Speaker 9: answer to that is that in stead of enacting any
Speaker 9: meaningful consequences on net and Yahoo or Israel for their
Speaker 9: systematic war crimes in Gaza, the Biden administration has accelerated
Speaker 9: weapons transport to Israel. You know, August was the busiest
Speaker 9: month in a long time at the main airport that
Speaker 9: received in Israel that receives US weaponry, and the flight
Speaker 9: data that's been revealed publicly about this shows that Biden
Speaker 9: was shipping emergency weapons to Israel at a time when
Speaker 9: he was telling the world that he had come up
Speaker 9: with a formulation to end the war. You have Harris also,
Speaker 9: who was saying, you know, we need a ceasefire, we
Speaker 9: need it quickly. But behind the scenes, and you know,
Speaker 9: I haven't just spoken with Hamas, I've talked to other
Speaker 9: people involved with the mediation. What the US has been
Speaker 9: doing is saying, yes, President Biden said this is the deal,
Speaker 9: and Homas just needs to accept it. But now Israel
Speaker 9: is doing something different, and so we want you to
Speaker 9: accept all of these other things that we had already
Speaker 9: resolved through months of negotiation that led up to the
Speaker 9: so called Biden Framework. So you see Kamala Harris and
Speaker 9: Joe Biden at a very top level, continuing to endorse
Speaker 9: Israel even as it commits a horrifying genocide, even as
Speaker 9: it invades the West Bank and continues to sort of
Speaker 9: gaza as size the West Bank. And then on a
Speaker 9: technical level, you have Anthony Blinkin, Brett McGirk, other US
Speaker 9: officials backing away from what they had said was a
Speaker 9: deal that Hamas could sign. Hamas agreed to it, and
Speaker 9: then they changed the terms of it. So at every
Speaker 9: move in the big picture and on a technical level,
Speaker 9: Israel is in control of the agenda. And it's in
Speaker 9: control of the agenda because it's the US is allowing
Speaker 9: it to be jeremy.
Speaker 1: Just for people who would say, okay, well, why doesn't
Speaker 1: Hamas just accept these new conditions, Why don't they just
Speaker 1: allow for this, you know, Israeli true presence in these
Speaker 1: two areas, what's the big deal? What would your response
Speaker 1: to those people be?
Speaker 9: To accept that would be to accept that international law
Speaker 9: doesn't exist, would be to accept that the genuine aspirations
Speaker 9: for self determination, independence and freedom on the part of
Speaker 9: the Palestinian people are illegitimate. Look the Palestinians. You can
Speaker 9: say what you want about Hamas's tactics. There are international
Speaker 9: criminal court indictments waiting for leadership members that have not
Speaker 9: been killed of Hamas for what prosecutors believe were war
Speaker 9: crimes that they committed on October seventh. But to imply
Speaker 9: that because October seventh happened, that somehow international law doesn't matter,
Speaker 9: that somehow it means that Palestinians have no right to independence,
Speaker 9: or no right to self determination, or more specifically, no
Speaker 9: right to armed resistance against occupation would mean that the
Speaker 9: so called rules based order that Biden and others embrace
Speaker 9: all the time doesn't actually exist. So there is a
Speaker 9: process that can be negotiated, There are political solutions that
Speaker 9: can be negotiated. But Israel to come back into Gaza.
Speaker 9: I think the belief on the part of Hamas and
Speaker 9: Mosttinians is if they're allowed to do that, that they
Speaker 9: will never leave. And when you see net and Yahu
Speaker 9: holding up maps as he did just in the last
Speaker 9: twenty four hours, he shows that that the West Bank
Speaker 9: doesn't exist at the same time that he's talking about
Speaker 9: keeping troops inside of Gaza. So you know, everyone wants
Speaker 9: to just say, well, what about October seventh? What about
Speaker 9: October seventh? But what about October sixth, what about nineteen
Speaker 9: forty eight, what about nineteen sixty seven. I mean, these
Speaker 9: are legitimate questions. They're not just rhetorical devices. There's real
Speaker 9: law that governs this. And for Hamas to accept an
Speaker 9: indefinite Israeli occupation in Gaza would be to say that
Speaker 9: the Palestinian cause is dead.
Speaker 2: So Jeremy, since you actually have sources in Amas and
Speaker 2: you're one of the only journalists that genuinely tries to
Speaker 2: actually speak with them and then report the perspective, it's
Speaker 2: not an endorsement, it's literally just talking with them. What
Speaker 2: would you say then, that the current state of Hamas
Speaker 2: leadership and they're thinking towards a ceasefire deal is now
Speaker 2: that Neta nah Who's government and others have put in
Speaker 2: various different provisions which make the possibility less likely. Do
Speaker 2: they just fully endorse armed resistance and now the killing
Speaker 2: of these hostages? Is that the direction things are likely?
Speaker 2: Where do you think their mindset is right now.
Speaker 9: Look, let's let's remember that last month Netanyahu and his
Speaker 9: forces assassinated Ismail Khania, who was not the military leader
Speaker 9: of Hamas but was the top political officer of Hamas
Speaker 9: and was the lead negotiator. He was then replaced in
Speaker 9: a consolidation of power on the ground in Gaza and
Speaker 9: externally by Yahya Sinhwar, who has been the Gaza commander
Speaker 9: of Hamas, leader of Hamas and is believed widely to
Speaker 9: be one of the top architects of the October seventh attacks,
Speaker 9: when Israel in June attacked Nusirat, the Nusirat refugee camp
Speaker 9: to extract some of its hostages, and killed hundreds of
Speaker 9: people wounded many hundreds others. Abu Obeeda, the spokesperson for
Speaker 9: the Casam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas that has
Speaker 9: been leading the resistance against the Israeli forces in Gaza,
Speaker 9: said that there were going to be new rules rules
Speaker 9: given to the Palestinian fighters who were guarding Israeli hostages.
Speaker 9: They didn't specify what those rules were, but it appears
Speaker 9: that it may have included to kill hostages if Israeli
Speaker 9: forces start attacking sites where hostages are being held, and
Speaker 9: just last night, Abu Obeda released a series of written
Speaker 9: statements on social media channels about the six hostages and
Speaker 9: saying that he wanted to remind the world that they
Speaker 9: had warned Israel that if they continued to try to
Speaker 9: release the hostages through military means, that the choice they
Speaker 9: were making was for them coming home alive or in coffins.
Speaker 9: It was widely interpreted as Abu Obeda taking responsibility for
Speaker 9: at least some of the deaths of the hostages. At
Speaker 9: the same time, though Hamas' political officials had said just
Speaker 9: hours before that statement was issued by the spokesperson of
Speaker 9: the Casam Brigades that they laid blame for the deaths
Speaker 9: of the hostages on Israel and had implied that some
Speaker 9: of them may have been killed in airstrikee or were
Speaker 9: shot by Israeli forces. So, you know, what I'm sensing
Speaker 9: is that there appears to be a disconnect between some
Speaker 9: of the Hamas officials who are operating in Doha or
Speaker 9: Lebanon or elsewhere and what's happening on the ground. It
Speaker 9: could also be that there are there's a compartmentalization of
Speaker 9: the military operations, and so the Hamas political leaders may
Speaker 9: not even be aware of everything that commanders of the
Speaker 9: Cassam Brigades on the ground are doing. But one twist
Speaker 9: to this story that I think it's a little in
Speaker 9: the weeds, but I think it's worth mentioning the American
Speaker 9: Israeli citizen whose death was announced on Sunday, whose parents
Speaker 9: spoke at the Democratic National Convention on May thirteenth. The
Speaker 9: casambragades had announced that they had lost contact with that
Speaker 9: American Israeli citizen and the Palestinians that regarding him, as
Speaker 9: well as four other Israeli captives that were being held.
Speaker 9: On Sunday morning, a top Hamas officials said that they
Speaker 9: had not heard from the guards or that hostage, the
Speaker 9: American Israeli citizen since that time back in May when
Speaker 9: they lost contact with him, and that they learned about
Speaker 9: his death from the Israeli announcement. So there had been
Speaker 9: speculation that he may have been killed in that Nusirat
Speaker 9: attack where some Israeli hostages were taken by Israel alive
Speaker 9: and brought out of Gaza in a rescue operation, as
Speaker 9: Israel described it, So we don't really know what exactly happened. There,
Speaker 9: and there have been contradictory statements being made by Hamas,
Speaker 9: But just to directly answer the question, if you talk
Speaker 9: to political officials, their position has been they are ready
Speaker 9: to go back to July second and discuss in more
Speaker 9: detail the terms of the framework that they accepted, which
Speaker 9: they said was also endorsed by the United States and
Speaker 9: originated from President Biden himself. That's what they're saying. Hamas's
Speaker 9: military wing seems to indicate that they are now doubling
Speaker 9: down on the notion that if Israel continues to try
Speaker 9: to quote unquote rescue hostages through military means, that those
Speaker 9: hostages are going to go back to Israel.
Speaker 1: In a coffin, the US officials are saying that they're
Speaker 1: going to put some sort of a quote unquote take
Speaker 1: it or leave it deal on the table, whatever that means,
Speaker 1: and the absence of any willingness to use actual US
Speaker 1: leverage and say take it or leave it, meaning we're
Speaker 1: going to actually enforce this, We're going to guarantee something
Speaker 1: gets done here. Do you have any hopes or optimism
Speaker 1: given the level of backlash in Israel and the huge
Speaker 1: protests we're seeing on the ground, do you have any
Speaker 1: expectation that this round of negotiations could end in a
Speaker 1: different outcome.
Speaker 9: Based on what net and Yah Who has been saying
Speaker 9: the past twenty four hours, it seems very very slim.
Speaker 9: I think there is a possibility that the Egyptian and
Speaker 9: Katari mediators might be able to thread the needle between
Speaker 9: the United States and TAMAS. And really, I mean it's
Speaker 9: one thing that was described to me by people involved
Speaker 9: with the negotiations is that the Israeli negotiating teams at
Speaker 9: times seem to be open to conditions that could actually
Speaker 9: represent a breakthrough quickly, and then they go back and
Speaker 9: Net Yah who says no way. And so part of
Speaker 9: the sense that I'm getting from sources is that the
Speaker 9: Israeli negotiators aren't even fully empowered by Net and Yahoo
Speaker 9: to make agreements. And again, remember Hamas is not directly
Speaker 9: participating in these negotiations. They are doing it through international mediators.
Speaker 9: I think the real sticking point. I had some indication
Speaker 9: that the net Serene corridor issue may be one that
Speaker 9: Israel is going to step away from, but the Philadelphi
Speaker 9: corridor thing seems to be net Yahu's line in the
Speaker 9: sand Hamas tells me, they're not going to accept it.
Speaker 9: But it involves Egypt as well, So let's see what
Speaker 9: the Egyptians say. I think everyone in on the ground
Speaker 9: in Gaza, regardless of their political perspective, wants this to end.
Speaker 3: This is a genocide.
Speaker 9: There was a polio threat that now hopefully is going
Speaker 9: to be addressed through this vaccination program. But to talk
Speaker 9: about a ceasefire in Gaza at a time when Janine
Speaker 9: is burning, when the West Bank is burning, when Israel
Speaker 9: is going in and just gratuitously destroying paved roads and
Speaker 9: civilian infrastructure, and come in concocting theories about Iran establishing
Speaker 9: a base in the West Bank. You know, a territory
Speaker 9: Iran doesn't share any border with. It's surrounded by Israel
Speaker 9: and Jordan, and Jordan recently defended militarily Israel when Iran
Speaker 9: launched missiles at it. So you know, we're in the
Speaker 9: realm of Alex jones lunacy here with net Yahu's theories
Speaker 9: about Iran while Gaza and the West Bank are burning.
Speaker 9: So it's difficult to imagine. I think what's most likely
Speaker 9: is you get something temporary that looks like the November
Speaker 9: truce and Biden and Harris kind of claim some form
Speaker 9: of victory, and then net Yahoo resumes the torching of
Speaker 9: Gaza again that, unfortunately, I think is probably the most
Speaker 9: likely outcome.
Speaker 1: The last thing I wanted to ask you about, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: actually is that invasion the West Bank. Guys, we can
Speaker 1: put E four up on the screen. This is some
Speaker 1: of the images of you know, civilian roads being destroyed
Speaker 1: in this massive arm force entering the West Bank, and
Speaker 1: you can continue to play this while I asked the question,
Speaker 1: there's the demolition of civilian roads for what reason? To
Speaker 1: what end other than just pure destruction annihilation? Hard to say,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this invasion, of this escalation?
Speaker 1: You know, what do you believe that the ultimate goal here?
Speaker 1: Jeremy really is.
Speaker 9: Well on this one, I think you have to take
Speaker 9: Netanyahu at his word. I mean, he's he's talked about
Speaker 9: a final solution for the issues you know that Israel
Speaker 9: has with the Palestinians, and you know, I think his
Speaker 9: agenda for a long time has been to erase any
Speaker 9: notion of Palestine from the map. They are now pressuring
Speaker 9: the United States to try to build some sort of
Speaker 9: a fence or a structure along the Jordanian border to
Speaker 9: further entrap the Palestinians of the West Bank and make
Speaker 9: so that israel Is in even greater control of their lives,
Speaker 9: to go from like ninety five percent now to one
Speaker 9: hundred percent. And I think that really what we're witnessing
Speaker 9: is that Netanyahu probably calculates this is his last shot
Speaker 9: at it, and that he wants to go down in
Speaker 9: history as the man that destroyed Palestine and the Palestinians
Speaker 9: with it. I really think we're looking at a genocidal agenda.
Speaker 1: Jeremy, thank you so much for spending some time with
Speaker 1: us this morning and explaining your reporting and helping provide
Speaker 1: context for what's happening. Please let people know where they
Speaker 1: can find drop site News and how they can support
Speaker 1: the worth it you and Ryan and your team are doing.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thanks for that, Crystal. Drop site news dot com.
Speaker 9: We're a nonprofit. You can donate to us, You can
Speaker 9: subscribe and pay to have a subscription, but nothing's behind
Speaker 9: a paywall. The most important thing you can do is
Speaker 9: hit the subscribe button and let everybody you know know
Speaker 9: that dropsiteews dot com is available to the public and
Speaker 9: we're trying to do hard hitting journalism and take big
Speaker 9: swings of powerful people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we already see that, even though it's early days. Jeremy,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Always great to see you.
Speaker 9: Thanks Jeremy, Thank you guys so much for being great
Speaker 9: voices for justice and truth and being willing to debate.
Speaker 4: I'm doing our best over here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thanks for watching everybody, We appreciate it. Great counterpoint show
Speaker 2: for everybody tomorrow and we will see you all on Thursday.