10/15/25: Saagar Destroys Pete Hegseth, Dems Push Historically Old Sen Candidate, Pakistan Massacres Protesters, Bari Weiss Debunked

Ryan and Saagar discuss Saagar destroys Pete Hegseth, Dems push old candidate over populist, Pakistan massacres protesters, Bari Weiss debunked.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Let's get to the Pentagon so that you
and I can go off on this one. This has
been driving me Gras and Ryan, you and I both
have experience.

Speaker 4 (00:42):
That's going to be joined by an actual former Pentagon course.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you for Correspondent, one
of my proudest moments, my first actual reporting job.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
So here's what's currently happening.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
Pete Hagsat and his personal lawyer who he has hired
now at the.

Speaker 5 (00:57):
Pentagon, who is sometimes suing the pentag who.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Is sometimes suing the Pentagon people understand that.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
Yeah, Petexas's personal lawyer is suing the Pentagon, but we're
also working at at the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Okay, so that guy, the guy who defended.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
Him in rape accusations and other whatever.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
Who knows what happened that guy and PEX that have
concocted new press requirements at the Pentagon where any correspondent
who works at the Pentagon has to be forced to
sign a twenty one page document. That twenty one page documents.
Put this up here on the screen requires a couple
of things. It's more complicated, but this is distilled from

(01:37):
the Pentagon. Quote Number one, the press no longer roams free.
Number three or number two, the press must wear a
visible badge. Number three credentialed press no longer are permitted
to slit criminal acts. Let's go through these claims one
by one, because this makes sense if you're an idiot
and you've never been inside.

Speaker 5 (01:57):
Of the Pentagon.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
All right.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
Number one, as I as I literally used to cover
the Pentagon, you do not roam free in the Pentagon, Okay,
believe it is one of the most secure buildings in
the world. I used to cover the White House. The
White House is ten times less secure. I could quite
literally walk into the high like big parts of the

(02:20):
West Wing as a reporter without ever being a costage
ask open the door?

Speaker 1 (02:25):
Is that literally open the door.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
I could walk right up into the upper press area
of the West Wing and be twenty feet away from
the Oval office without being asked or looked at a scan.
So we can buy secret service. Yeah, and so that's
the first one. Roam free by room free. What he
means is that you enter the building, you go through
again more security at the Pentagon than you do to
even enter the White House. You walk past a food court,

(02:48):
a CBS. It's like a mini building down here. It's
like a city. There's like a T mobile store, there's
a huge food court. They have like a bunch of
gift shops and stuff because people are spend so much
time there. There's all this stuff to do, you know,
for all the staff. And then you walk down a
hallway and you go to the press area. Every single
door is locked and is key controlled. You cannot go

(03:12):
into any classified area.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
I spent a lot of time. I never once was
able to go into a classified area.

Speaker 3 (03:17):
The theory that he said is like, oh, well, some
general could be walking down the hallway and get accosted
by a drift.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Didn't see it happen once? Not once? Once? Did I
see it happen? General can just keep walking? Also, the
general can keep on. Nobody asked them to answer.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
Okay, Number two, a press must wear visible badge. Okay,
can we put D five up here on the screen?
I dug up this old photo of mine of my
old badge. Okay, there it is that badge. Yes, I
know forgive my forgive the dress shirt. It was before I.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
Knew some of the rules. I think, I think it works. Forget,
forgive me whatever.

Speaker 3 (03:54):
That's my old badge, which I had to wear around
my neck with one of my little lanyards everywhere that
I went.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
Everywhere that I went. You can see very clearly the
badge in front of you, the Pentagon Press branded badge. Everybody,
by the way, knew who the Press was.

Speaker 5 (04:10):
Because CCP star there.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, you had a little star in the middle of
the Pentagon thing. But here's the point, we already had
to wear about. That is a badge from ninety years ago.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
Because you could see it expired in August of twenty seventeen,
so I must have gotten it sometime in August of
twenty sixteen.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
So that's what the badge looked like whenever we were
rolling around with the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Keep in mind, this is under Barack Obama, and eventually
I use that badge under the new president Donald Trump.
All right, So that was the Pentagon policy that was
in place underneath. Now, the third thing that he claims,
and this is where you and I can really go off,
is quote, credential press are no longer permitted to solicit
criminal acts. What he means by that is that by
signing this document you have to commit you will not

(04:55):
solicit or publish classified information.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
And in fact, they go even further.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
It doesn't just apply to classified information, because he's making
a scene that does.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
It also applies to unclassified information.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
So effectively, what Pete hegg Seth is saying is you
cannot enter and cover this building if you do not
print exactly what we tell you to do. That is
literally what he is saying. Now let's explain, because actually
got attacked for this. I said soliciting encouraging people to
leak as part of the job. People took that as
encouraging people to leak classified information.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
First of all, yes, that is part of the job.
And if you have it, send it over. We'd love
to see it. You like see rehearsh or do yeah?
Do you like real information or not?

Speaker 3 (05:37):
But second, encouraging people to leak also falls in the
category of the pentagon makes an announcement. You and I
hit up people, or sometimes they hit us up and
I go, what's really going on here? They'll go, yeah, man,
it's bullshit. You know this, this is this, and you go, oh, okay,
can I cite that on background?

Speaker 1 (05:53):
That is not classified at all.

Speaker 3 (05:55):
Usually it's about clarification, some background information.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Some behind the scenes.

Speaker 3 (06:00):
He doesn't even want that to be reported because that
would report on the chaos that's in the building for
mister Hagsath. And what galls me about this are the lies.
The lie that the press just roams free all over
the building. Bullshit literally doesn't happen. I'm telling you it
doesn't happen. So used to cover it. Number Two, we
didn't wear a badge.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
I just showed it to you.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Had to wear it around my neck every place that
we went, couldn't even enter the building without it.

Speaker 1 (06:23):
Literally.

Speaker 3 (06:24):
Number three solicit information what he would eat and I
did this all the time. So here's I know, I'm
in the weeds, and I apologize, But the lack of
transparency around this is what causes people to take this
type of bullshit seriously. So what will happen is, let's
take this venezuela thing. In the old days, when I
would cover it, especially Isis, they would call us in
and they would say, we just hit a boat, you know,

(06:47):
or we just hit an oil refinery by Isis. We'd
say okay, and they provide an on the record statement,
which is the official version. Then they would go on
background where we could not cite them directly, and we
would say, okay, so what happened here and they're like, well,
here's how we got the information, and we got this
and that, and then we would ask follow up questions.
And then sometimes what you do is, if you're a

(07:08):
good Pentagon correspondent, you've got sources in a rock or
something like that, and you call them and you're like, hey, man,
like here's what the Pentagon is saying, and.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
They're like, oh, that's total bullshit. Actually we did this.
And so then what you do, by the way, that
would be considered a criminal act or solicitor and then
what you do is you go back to them. You go, hey, man,
I just spoke to people familiar with the strike. They're
saying what you're saying is wrong.

Speaker 5 (07:29):
They said it was a wedding party.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, they said, right, exactly, it was a wedding part.
Or they said it was fifty killed as opposed to
five hundred. Right.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
And this happens all the time. This is the standard
part of the job. And they go yeah, you know, yeah,
you got me right, and that most of the time
is what it was. Or they would scream at you,
which I also got quite a bit when I was
down there.

Speaker 3 (07:49):
That's the job of quotes, soliciting information. They don't even
want that, and so they've created this whole brew haha
where they're trying to convince people that it's like a
criminal act to solicit clarification. This is a one trillion
dollar budget, and the worst part is Ryan is even
covering it.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
It's very hard to.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
Not be a stenographer because they so limit your access
that they make it nearly impossible to print anything which
doesn't come from official channel. Unless you're really good at
your job, really really really good. Almost everything is going
to come through some official channel, which I would argue
works to their benefit because the truth is most of

(08:31):
the people who cover the Pentagon are the most neocon
people in the world.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
I mean, think about Barbara Starr.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
Glenn Greenwald used to joke that she was the Pentagon's
reporter at CNN, not the CNN's reporter at the Pentagon,
or what's that one is named Jennifer from Fox News
who's like always just repeating the pro war with the
Iran line. They love having those people in the building
because they have they repeat their talking points, they get
sources right. It's it's not like they're even all that

(08:59):
an pagonistic, not nearly enough for my purposes. So yeah,
I mean, all of it settles Ryan on this idea
that soliciting classified information is a crime. First, no, it's not,
it's actually not. But and if somebody leaves you classified information,
that's on them. But even more so, this is this
is really bad because this is the first time since

(09:20):
nineteen forty three that there will not be a preponderance
of journalist inside of that building or reporting on the
Pentagon because they refuse to sign their ridiculous agreement.

Speaker 4 (09:29):
Is it still only one America at its point, only
one American yes, is only.

Speaker 5 (09:32):
The Washington Examiner said no.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
My former employer, the Daily Caller, the.

Speaker 4 (09:36):
Tale Color said no, Washington Times, Fox News said no
Fox News.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
Pete Heggst's former employer, Rox News.

Speaker 4 (09:42):
So and your proximate point that this is about covering
up the chaos that is like bubbling underneath Pete hegsett
this leadership is key because that's that's why specifically they're
doing it here on the on the classified documents and
classified information. I even take a more expansive view on that.
I was interviewing Daniel Elsberg about this once and he

(10:04):
made the point He's like, it's not He's like, it's
not settled law, that it's a criminal act to leak,
even to leak classified information. It's like the First Amendment
does not have a carve out for government employees. Now,
you can fire a government employee, you can sanction them,
you can tell them they can never work for the
government again. But his argument is, if you are a

(10:28):
government employee and you see the government committing a criminal act,
your first Amendment right is to speak about that and
is to share information about that. Now you could imagine
carve outs or you say, well, treat will treat. And
he said, treason is different. If you sell government information.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, that's a whole other thing to foreign a country,
that's not that's not a First.

Speaker 4 (10:49):
Amendment protected activity. If you if it's not newsworthy, it's
not criminals and you're just leaking like nuclear codes or whatever.

Speaker 5 (10:58):
Like he could, he would.

Speaker 4 (10:59):
Say, like that does not have First Amendment protections, But
newsworthy information that the public has a right to know.

Speaker 5 (11:07):
Is not even a criminal act.

Speaker 4 (11:08):
So even if you don't believe in that expansive of
an interpretation, the idea that it's a criminal act for
a journalist to call a source and say, what do
you know about this airstrike where the Pentagon claims they
killed seventy five in search.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
And I did this every day when I covered the building.
And that's the other funny thing. These people they hate
even being questioned their official bullshit narrative. I literally got screaming.
He called me a shit stirring fuck face. This was
a full bird kernel, which at the time I was
like twenty four.

Speaker 1 (11:41):
I was scared. Right, I'm talking about a frankly fat.

Speaker 3 (11:44):
Overweight full bird kernel with you know, he's got the
what is it called the oak leaf clusters and that
he's like fifty eight and he's directing me down because
I was like, hey, I have a source telling me
that what you said is incorrect, and they try to
intimidate you like thugs, Like that's what they do.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yeah, it's like a it's a rite of passage.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
Actually a journalist as learning how to deal with getting
screamed at. When I talk to journalism classes, I tell
that story because I go, one day, you're going to
be in that position and they try to exploit your
position in your youth and you have to internally it's
weird getting yelled at, but yeah, exactly the reason they
get mad.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
Is because they lied to you. That's the whole job.
The job is saying no, you're a liar.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
Actually this entire time, and Ryan, you've published classified information.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
We published the Discord leaks over here.

Speaker 3 (12:35):
The argument from Hegseth and all those people, even though
all the Republicans were celebrating those Discord leaks that we
published showing that the Biden administration was lying about the
war in Ukraine and.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
The level of Pentagon involvement.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
Now they're like, oh, you're threatening national security.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
Like you should be prosecuted.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
That's the argument that Obama actually wanted to make about
journalists in Snowden. They wanted people like Glenn to go
to jail for even reporting on that, and that's part
of the thing that they threw Chelsea Manning into prison for,
I guess after eventually pardoning her or whatever. But the
point is is that that extraordinary view is now the

(13:13):
one at the Pentagon. It's so crazy because they have
banned basically all journalists from the building if they don't
agree to sign saying that they will basically not clear
all the future stories with them and not even ask
for clarification on their official readouts.

Speaker 4 (13:29):
Yeah, and it's hopeful that all these organizations are pushing back.
They're siding with the fourth of State. They're signing with
the First Amendment over their kind of ideological affinity. You
put up the third element here go check out Sager's
Twitter feed. He's lighting these people up, So won't put
this guy up. Blast Joel Valdez.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
Joel Valdez is a deputy press secretary, former mac Gates
employee over at the Pentagon, And after one of my
tweets where I said yes encouraging people of the leak
is literally a job. He says, quote, we are only
enacting good policy here at the which I replied, here's
the irony. Any real journalist knows, and Ryan, you're ten
times more real than I am. And it's ninety nine
point nine percent of the time the people who leak

(14:08):
out reach out to you because they have an ax
to grind. In fact, much of the time it is
calm flax flack, by the way, as a Washington term
for people like Joel, who are press assistants who don't
actually know anything, who are the most desperate to leak
on background.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Those are the people.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
The junior press staffer is about ninety five percent.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
The person who's on the other end of the phone.

Speaker 3 (14:31):
Let me offer you some stuff context, right, some background
for your use, so just to be able to do
for your ability to report. These are the phone calls,
the pact of things that we get. And I encourage
Joel to come out and sign a sworn affidavit that
you have never leaked information before. And I also want
you to say that your former boss, Matt Gates, has

(14:53):
also never leaked information before, and that he is in
fact not one of those people who has every reporter
in this town on speed dial.

Speaker 5 (15:02):
And in fact, I'd like him to sign an affidavit.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
That he hasn't leaked about this story. That's right, that's exactly.

Speaker 4 (15:07):
I guarantee he's leaking about this, this specific.

Speaker 3 (15:12):
Story, Joel, I will pay you one thousand dollars if
you can sign a sworn affidavit it's saying that you've
never leaked information, not not just classifying any information previously
in your job, including in your current role. One thousand dollars.
One thousand US dollars. I'd be willing to bet that
they can go to.

Speaker 4 (15:30):
If you can't take the money, charity, charity of your choice,
friends of the.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Charity of your choice. Okay, charity of your choice.

Speaker 5 (15:37):
There are a lot of different charities.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
We will take the YouTube revenue from this video and
we will use it.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
We will use it to a.

Speaker 3 (15:43):
Charity, friends of the idea for somebody. All you have
to do is sign a sworn affidavit.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
That's it. That's all you have to do. Okay. I
don't know anything else to say on this. Ryan, It's
uh no.

Speaker 4 (15:52):
I'm glad you and Emily are both punching back and
the rest of the conservative press, like that's that's what.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
Has to happen, because this was the wet dream of
Obama they wanted to do. They tried to throw Fox
out of the White House press cord, you know, under Obama,
Like I just told you, I got dressed down for
questioning some of the bullshit that they were reporting out
about isis. At the time they us hated.

Speaker 3 (16:16):
You know, at the Pentagon, but they didn't bat it
at the end of the day, and our ability to
sit there I would argue and actually press them a
little bit, which is frankly one of the best parts
of that job is you in many cases you get
to just question generals, which almost never happens because they'll
stream in live from Baghdad. All you have to do

(16:37):
is just show up to the room and you can
just ask them, like I'm talking to you right now.
There's a microphone right above my head. Let's say you're
coming in like via a zoom call. And you can
sit there and lob questions at these people, and most
of the time they would not try to censor you.
Now in some cases like the Secretary of Defense or
any of that, but it actually used to be one
of the more open environments where at the very least

(16:58):
on camera you could questions some people in power. Now,
keep in mind, press Pete Hegseth, Secretary has not done
a press to conference in four months there over at
the Pentagon, and the only time they do is when
after it's the Iran strike or something like that. So
it's not like we're losing a ton, but it is
a horrible precedent, and it is genuinely one which I

(17:18):
think it's it's the most scary because the Pentagon, that
is where all the real shit happens, right, the trillion dollars,
the strikes, the most nefarious parts of the federal budget.
You know, UFOs like the more that they try to
make it so that it's all stenography.

Speaker 1 (17:37):
We are so much worse off.

Speaker 3 (17:39):
So good thing technology exists, and if you have classified information,
send it over.

Speaker 4 (17:43):
We'd love to see it and we will publish it.
Last point I'd make is that transparency is a sign
of strength. Yeah, I agree, this tin pot stuff is
a sign of weakness. I totally agree with you.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
I actually, And the irony is, as of this morning,
there are three stories out now about Pete Hegseth sidelining lawyers,
about Venezuela Pete Haig Seth's personal lawyer being part of
this whole new media restriction, and about how that lawyer
has some previous ties to Epstein, and about how this

(18:15):
paranoia is part of the reason why he's being sidelined
by the White House. People are still going to leak.
In fact, they're probably gonna leak more so. By the way, Yeah,
if that's you, so we are.

Speaker 5 (18:24):
We got our signal right here.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
If you have us, reach out to us both, we'll
happily publish it. Let's get to Maine, Ryan, tell us
what's going on, man.

Speaker 4 (18:34):
Janet Mills. After much speculation and much recruitment on the
part of Senator Chuck Schumer announced that she is jumping
into the race. She's the current Democratic governor of the
state of Man. She'll be running against Susan Collins. If
she can get through a Democratic primary, she would be
the oldest Senator to ever take her first oath of office.

(19:00):
Senate is an old folks home in Washington. To be
able to set an age record in the United States
Senate this deep into its history is nothing short of
Extraordinay'd be seventy nine when sworn in, she'd be you
do the math eighty five when she finished her first term,
and she's running, of course against Graham Plattner, an oysterman

(19:24):
veteran of both the Marines.

Speaker 5 (19:27):
And the Army.

Speaker 4 (19:29):
At one point, as people on the left are getting
starting to look at with Ray's eyebrows, was a worked
with Blackwater, but has spent the last ten years as
an oysterman, an oyster farmer, and has run as a
kind of populist anti war, anti genocide Canada.

Speaker 5 (19:48):
Just one of these baritone, truth speaking guys.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
And there was a there was hope among Democrats that
the party leadership had seen that running the same kind
of milk toast Democrats around the country and particularly in
Maine against Susan Collins, who has beaten five of these types, yes,
fairly easily, that they had seen it, like we need

(20:12):
something different. Maybe we need these tatted up guys that
we don't understand, who just answer questions with yes as
and nose when they're asked right, Maybe we need that.
That hope was dashed by the Democratic Party jumping so
fultimately behind Janet Mills. Let's roll a little bit of

(20:33):
Governor Mills here is E one.

Speaker 6 (20:36):
What do you say to people who say, what we
really need now in the Democratic Party is younger leadership.
But while Governor Mills has been a great governor, she's
seventy seven years old and we need younger leadership. What's
your response to people who say that it's.

Speaker 7 (20:50):
A fair point and it's a legitimate consideration. God knows,
it's a consideration for me and has been these many months.
Have been thinking about it, and people have been urging
me to run, regardless of my age. But you know what,
I don't think I could live with myself if I
didn't do everything I can to reverse what's going on
in Washington, things that are harming main people. Sure, I

(21:11):
could go, you know, I'm not a rich person by
any means. But I could just retire, go to my
camp and fish and read books for the rest of
my life, I guess. But boy, I couldn't live with
myself if I did that. Not when the times are
so urgent, so dangerous, and things are happening that are
threatening the health and welfare of main people every day.

(21:32):
I can't live with that. And so I have the
energy in the time, and I want to give it
my best shot.

Speaker 4 (21:38):
If there's some democratic cope to be hat out there.

Speaker 5 (21:41):
Ben Ja Jacobs hosted it.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
If you can put up e two, he says, Look
on the bright side here, she would only be what
she's younger than eleven sitting senators, so she'd be only
the twelfth oldest.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
So she would be the oldest freshman in history, but
the twelfth oldest sitting senator. What does that tell you
about our system and starting out?

Speaker 4 (22:08):
Because the Senate is a place you go and you
build seniority.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
The Senate is a place where it's more dignified to
die of Alzheimer's. You don't enter at Alzheimer's age. Okay,
I didn't say that she had Alzheimer. I'm just saying
it's more dignified to spend you know, decades long career
there and then to die. You know if basically wheelchair
bed ridden and Alzheimer's ridden, you're not supposed to enter

(22:32):
at the age where all of that is a possibility.
But I guess you know, records are meant to be broken.
Records are meant to be broken. That is what Governor
Mills amazing.

Speaker 4 (22:41):
It's an amazing response from the Democrats because they've they've
been getting so much pressure from their base about weakness
and not thinking, not rethinking their strategy. And Biden's age
was something that Democrats kept telling their base was not
something they should be concerned about, and so they thought, Okay,
well maybe they aren't doing something different. Here They've got

(23:04):
this guy, Graham Plattner. He's really interesting running in Maine.
And no, they come in and find the person who
would be the oldest freshman senator in history.

Speaker 5 (23:14):
So here's E three.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
Here's the case she's making in her launch.

Speaker 8 (23:18):
Folks, do you want Democrats to take back the Senate? Well,
I'm Governor Janet Mills and I'm running to flip Maine
Senate seed blue. Susan Collins has sold out Maine and
bowed down to special interest and to Donald Trump. But
that ends now. So chip in five dollars today and
let's win this.

Speaker 4 (23:35):
And I think if she were wildly popular, a lot
of partisan Democrats would be like, Okay, all right, we'll
take one more super old person in the Senate.

Speaker 5 (23:44):
What's it matter?

Speaker 4 (23:45):
Like She's definitely going to beat Susan Collins, and that's
really what matters. Whereas polls that match Platner against Collins
and Mills against Collins show that Platner has much more upside,
like significantly more upside against Collins, because Platner can pull
from Independence and Republicans in a way that Mills can't.

(24:06):
Mills is a well known figure in Maine.

Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yes, you her, you like her at all, But let's
give the caveats all right, main insanely hard state poll.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
Remember Susan Collins's opponent was up by seven How.

Speaker 3 (24:20):
Much to Susan Collins went like sixteen yet, so it
was thirteen point differential, notoriously one of the hardest states
to poll. I am curious how much this will be
a test then of democratic leadership and of name I
D versus you know, a social media more driven campaign
like Grand Platter.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
For example.

Speaker 3 (24:42):
One of the things that the governor has on her
side is that the Chuck Schumer machine is now throwing
behind her tire. Let's put this up here on the screen.
It's actually super interesting. So the DSCC and Janet Mills
have formed a joint fundraising committee together called the Main
Senate Victory Fund for twenty twenty six. Before we even

(25:03):
get to Platner's response, You've got to explain what that means,
because that's effectively an endorsement without an endorsement.

Speaker 4 (25:10):
It's so yes, basically it is that endorsement. And what
it does is it opens up a campaign finance mechanism
that allows big money to flow into a vehicle that
can be used to support Janet Mills. And so that
means all of the New York donors, and in particular
people have been like, why won't the King, Jefferies and

(25:31):
Chuck Schumer just come out and like condemn netnyahuo what
he's doing, Like why do they keep doing this very
unpopular thing? And the answer for a lot of it
is the donors that are going to fund the national
effort to take back the Senate don't want them to
do it. So it's these kinds of donors who are

(25:53):
then going to flood the main Senate race with money,
and they can go much beyond the individual max that
would you know, you can you're you're capped out at
like you know, seventy six hundred or whatever for like
primary in general. But with this joint victory fund, you
can give a lot more money. And and so this

(26:16):
means that she'll have all the money that she'll need
in the primary. Platner has raised I think four million
dollars from small downers basically since launching his campaign. He'll
probably raised another million from Janet Mills getting in from
people being so angry, like you're seeing people come out
and endorse David Hoggs group. Actually the College Democrats of America,

(26:36):
which are usually a pretty.

Speaker 5 (26:38):
Kind of party a line.

Speaker 1 (26:39):
Yeah, they go, they go along because their careerists they
used to be.

Speaker 4 (26:43):
Now these College Democrats are different now, like they're they're
actually really I don't know that. So they just endorsed
Grand Platner, which which is interesting because these are kids
who want.

Speaker 5 (26:53):
Jobs with Chuck Schumer. Right, well maybe now they're going again.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
It must be different.

Speaker 3 (26:57):
They are, right, because the college Damsey you and I
grew up with were the most like Hillary Behanker.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
We had the president vice president on the show there there.
These are not party hacks anymore fascinating and so they're
they but a hogs your behind. So I saw Charlotte
Klemer endorsed as a Democratic Operative saying like I wasn't
she said, I wasn't going to endorse, But seeing the
d SEC get in is infuriating, and so I'm endorsing

(27:24):
Graham Plattner. Then we can read Graham Platner's response. Yeah,
it's almost a gift to him in some ways. He says,
Chuck Schumer should be focused on fighting It's the same side,
I mean, in the same element, Chuck Schumer should be
focused on fighting Donald Trump and protecting healthcare from millions
of Americans, not meddling in a main primary. D c's
Choice has lost to Susan Collins five times in a row.

(27:44):
We can't afford a sixth. So I actually think that
there's some real advantage to Platner here because he now
solidifies his brand as independent of the Democratic Party establishment,
like they are literally running somebody against him to try
to stop him. In a country, and in particularly in

(28:08):
a state where fealty towards the party establishment is seen
as a demerit, that's actually that actually be a benefit.
I think Mom Danni is actually boosted in the public
perception by the fact that Hakeem Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer
wolmandrsum because it makes him look more independent, like this
guy's this guy's serious here. So if if he can

(28:30):
beat Janet Mills. Then I think he actually comes into
the prime, comes into the general against Collins much stronger
among independents and Republicans than if he had just kind
of coasted to a primary victory. For people that haven't
seen him speak, here's a little clip we can roll
the next sod This is Platinir Can.

Speaker 9 (28:49):
You can share your feelings on ice?

Speaker 10 (28:52):
So right now, armed masked secret police are going around
the country, kidnapping American citizens, kidnapping people that are here legally,
abusing people because of the color of their skin. It's disgusting.

(29:14):
One of the reasons I want to go to the
Senate is that when we have power again, I want
to haul all of these people and the ones that
made them do it, in front of a Senate subcommittee,
owing to the American people how they can justify their
illegal and unconstitutional behavior.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
There's mister Plattner. Now, okay, we have enough time so
we can have the debate. I'm not saying what he
said there was bad. However, mister Plattner. I've had beef
with mister Platner since he posted a certain viral video
where he had a constitute because I know he listened
to the show by the way, so free advice for
you know, we don't have.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
It right now, Chrystal and I argue about it.

Speaker 3 (29:55):
In the past, he was asked specifically about illegals taking
healthcare back by like an immigrant, yeah, by a person
at a town hall. Sure we can call it antimon
not a friend of his right, Yes, yeah, by somebody
who was okay. And his response was and this was
celebrated by the left and they clipped it, they clipped

(30:16):
it and they posted. His response was, we can't blame
her because she's getting bad information. Now, there is a
concept amongst Republicans something known as the hicclib, which is
somebody who is in a rural Republican area but is
a shit lib through and through. I personally would argue that, yes,
his affectation and all of that is great, but is

(30:39):
it not the most elite lib coded response in the
world to say that your belief is because of a
lack of information and a lack of education. To me,
that is one of the most condescending things that you
could ever say about somebody, is that because they are
basically an uneducated shit, basically a Fox newswatcher or whatever.

(31:02):
That that is where the belief that the mindset is
one where you can only hold that belief if you
are uneducated. That is the definition of a hicc clib
and elite liberal response, And no wonder it went viral. Unbudds,
the munch of New York City liberals and a bunch
of other people who are living in Brooklyn are like, yeah,
he's school and these these hicks who are out there

(31:25):
in the middle of Maine. So I'm curious for your response.
I'm curious for your response.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
So don't tell me how I still respond, because I would.
I don't want to be dot don't tell me yet,
tell me afterwards. I agree with you if I would
not have said it, and I definitely would not have
clipped it as representative of the way that I wanted
to talk to independence and Republicans, because it is a
matter of fact that something like eight million ish people

(31:51):
you know, came across the border in a historic fashion
under the Biden administration, like that happened.

Speaker 1 (31:58):
Yeah, she's not wrong about Yeah, it's literally a fact.

Speaker 4 (32:01):
So to tell her that she's wrong about that, now.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Well, she was talking about healthcare, health care specifically dollars.
Right now, I will tell you what Herzel said, and
I don't even necessarily well, I do disagree with it,
but what she said, just to be entirely fair, was
that you hold that position because you're being sold a
different story, and that the response is not to pit
people against each other, it's to create a universal system

(32:26):
so that people are not feeling as if they're Now
my response was, we have to live in a world
of finite resources, and we can't live in one where
a bunch of people who are not even high school
educated from Guatemala get to come here and get free healthcare.

Speaker 1 (32:38):
I think that's fucking nuts personally.

Speaker 3 (32:39):
But my point is that that platinum response seems literally
cooked in a lab to appeal to a bunch of
liberals idea of what a hicclib is supposed to look
like in Brooklyn or elsewhere. He's like, yeah, he's still
in these uneducated I don't know. It's incredibly condescending to
me personally that somebody could only hold that belief if

(33:02):
because they're uneducated. It's it's frankly preposterous, and so I
don't know. That's my one thing of a hold up.
It all just seems too good to be true. The
affectation the lobster fisherman. I looked a little bit into
his background. Like you said, he served in Blackwater. That's like,
it's a little weird.

Speaker 5 (33:18):
But I lived.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
Here in DC, went to GW the same school as me.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
So it's like, okay, well, you know, maybe we're not
so far apart there, mister Graham in terms of living
in the big city before we went back to fish lobster.
It's like, maybe that's where the ideology comes from. That's
my personal suspicion anytime I see something like this. The
last person who reminded me of this was John Fetterman,
and so I would remind you all, how did that
work out?

Speaker 4 (33:41):
As I've as I've said before, I knew him when
he was a bartender to tune in back, oh wow,
twenty years ago, throwback, Okay, And so I think he's
always been I don't think. I don't think he had
to evolve to this new position. He does suffer from
the comparison with Fetterman because Fetterman betrayed the left, so
you fundamentally, not just the left, the Democratic Party like

(34:03):
his Fetterman's approval rating with Democrats is wildly underwater.

Speaker 5 (34:08):
Like Kirsten.

Speaker 4 (34:08):
Cinema levels are worse, yes, and Platter just keeps saying, like,
all I can do is prove to you that I'm
not John Fetterman. And he will say he will tell
you directly, and he says it a lot.

Speaker 5 (34:17):
I'm not.

Speaker 3 (34:17):
I don't, But I'm just saying that is the only
person in modern memory who I can think of who
had the same affectation and the same.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
Oh he's where's his little hoodie? He wears his hoodie.

Speaker 3 (34:32):
He's one of us only to come in and I mean,
who knows what happened to him, but with the injury.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
But eventually just becoming a pro Israel basically a Republican.

Speaker 4 (34:43):
Fetterman was a rich guy who went to Harvard, yes,
and then became mayor of a small town with dad's
money or whatever, and had to put.

Speaker 5 (34:52):
A lot of this on.

Speaker 3 (34:53):
Whereas I'm glad we can admit all of us now. So,
by the way, huge weedhead just saying.

Speaker 4 (34:58):
Whereas pla or genuinely middle class actually served.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
In them, I'm not denigrating the man personally, he served
the country or any of that. I'm saying that the
ideology which leads one to say that a person who
has a different belief than you can only be because
of lack of education. Is quite literally the mindset that
last Democrats the election, and is the ideology of the
people who make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a
year and think that because they went to state school

(35:25):
that they're better than everybody else.

Speaker 1 (35:26):
Right, that's all I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (35:27):
It's elitist, and it's in the Marxist world.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
They call it like false consciousness, like that.

Speaker 4 (35:34):
You're accusing someone of they have the wrong consciousness that
they ought to have because they're just diluted for different reasons,
propagandas et cetera. Of course, there's a lot of propaganda
around immigration, like so it's I can understand an attempt
to try to thread the needle on that. What I
would have done on that particular one is what I've
said before is that hospitals are required to serve everybody.

(35:56):
If people come in uninsured, we all it's just better
to its actually better to ensure people. But the Democratic
bill does not allow people who are illegally to be covered. Frankly,
it should for the reasons I just said role and
you know, we want to save our rural hospitals or
you want them to go under that aside, there's an

(36:17):
interesting contrast going on about who populist Democrats are going
to be between Platner and Dan Osborne. And Dan Oisen
is not Democratic actual independent, but he takes a harder
line on immigration.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
Well he's in a deep red state, right, he's at
R plus fifty state or something.

Speaker 1 (36:34):
I don't know the actual number. I'd have to go
back and check, but I don't know how much.

Speaker 4 (36:37):
And so he's he's like, look, I want a secure border, right,
and he's willing to just and he basically just pushes
that issue aside.

Speaker 5 (36:45):
It's like, yeah, I want a secure border, and then
he will.

Speaker 4 (36:47):
Say it does not support like masked thugs going around
scooping people up.

Speaker 3 (36:53):
I mean, Clattner's on bredder ground, if I'm being honest, Like,
here's the truth. Kamala won the state fifty two forty
five to Trump. Trump lost it by seven points. Like
that's a lot, Okay, So you're already living in a
state where Susan Collins is much more of an outlier.
And so yeah, I mean it does kind of make
sense to basically be a lib who's got, you know,

(37:15):
who can culturally connect. I mean it doesn't that doesn't
seem disconnected at all. Like it seems to me like
any Democrats probably gonna win the state in this environment.
I just personally found that clip as if it was
some great new invention by the lad I'm like, you know,
to be honest, again, I think that is quite literally
the epitome of the problem with elite liberalism is you
can only hold a different belief because you're uneducated.

Speaker 4 (37:37):
Reminded me a little bit of when McCain said about Obama. No, ma'am,
he's not an Arab. Oh, I do remember he's a
good man. Yes, And people at the time like all
applauded it. Right, But at the same time we're like,
are you saying that an Arab can't be.

Speaker 1 (37:53):
A good Yeah? Good, good point. I remember that. I
remember that well.

Speaker 3 (37:58):
Actually, because he got a lot of praise. She's like, no, man, no,
he's a good man.

Speaker 5 (38:03):
He's a good man.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
Lot.

Speaker 5 (38:05):
It's kind of weird. Quote.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
Yeah, what do you mean by that? Maybe we'll give
him the benefit of the doubt.

Speaker 5 (38:11):
We did because the bar was so low.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
The bar was low, that's true.

Speaker 3 (38:14):
I mean, I guess he did prove it out because
his life's mission was to bomb as many as he personally,
that's true. So whatever last thing, you've got a big
update for us on Pakistan.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
I'm just going to sit back and let you roll.

Speaker 4 (38:29):
So we have a genuinely extraordinary story developing out of
Pakistan that really almost defies beliefs.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
To walk you guys through this role f F two.

Speaker 4 (38:38):
Here, incredible amounts of violence unfolded outside of Lahore this week.

Speaker 5 (38:44):
This is is our policeman.

Speaker 4 (38:47):
Chase chasing down a pro Palestine protester, trying to shoot
him in the back.

Speaker 5 (38:53):
Other there's much.

Speaker 4 (38:55):
Worse video that has emerged online, though very very little
has been reported about this anywhere, whether it's Pakistan media,
which is entirely locked.

Speaker 5 (39:05):
Down, or around the world.

Speaker 4 (39:07):
We are hearing that the death count could well be
over a thousand people, and just try to sit with
the extent of the massacre that we're talking about here
before we get into the details. The context here is
that this happened. This started right around the exact same
time that Pakistan's Prime Minister, Shbah Sharif was in Egypt

(39:33):
with the rest of the Arab Muslim countries celebrating the
ceasefire deal. And these things are not disconnected at all.
Shabaz Sharif is in power because they flagrantly stole the
election back in February of twenty twenty four and have
Imran Khan in prison. The United States has been dangling
the threat of supporting the release of Imran Khan to

(39:57):
basically corner Pakistan's militaries. Pakistan's military is currently in control.

Speaker 5 (40:01):
They operate through.

Speaker 4 (40:02):
Shabaz Sharif, and but the they operate at the at
the at the blessing and the courtesy of the United States,
which at any moment could basically signal you have to
let him Ron Khan out.

Speaker 5 (40:14):
And so.

Speaker 4 (40:16):
Pakistan's military basically is doing anything the United States.

Speaker 5 (40:19):
Wants as a result.

Speaker 4 (40:20):
So let's let's roll for the just to understand what's
happening in Egypt while this extraordinary violence is unfolding in Pakistan.

Speaker 5 (40:27):
Let's roll F.

Speaker 9 (40:28):
Six, Prime Minister Sheriff of Pakistan. And also I have
to say, my favorite Field Marshal from Pakistan who's not here,
but the Prime Minister is here and you're going to
give his regards where are you?

Speaker 3 (40:43):
Well?

Speaker 11 (40:43):
Thank you doing that.

Speaker 12 (40:45):
Do you want to say with yourself to me the
other day?

Speaker 1 (40:48):
And then would you like to say what I think
it's it was so nice.

Speaker 11 (40:53):
Pakistan had nominated President Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize
for his outstanding extraordinary contributions to first stop war between

(41:14):
India and Pakistan and then achieve ceasefire along with his
very wonderful team. And today again I would like to
nominate this great president for Noel Peace Prize because I

(41:37):
genuinely feel that he is the most genuine and most
wonderful candidate for Peace Prize because he has brought not
only peace in South Asia, saved millions of people their lives.

Speaker 4 (42:00):
So Shabbaz Sharif is kind of infamous in Pakistan for
those obsequious and kind of embarrassing speeches that he gets
to people like Trump or golf leaders or basically anybody
that Pakistan you know, needs uh needs money from, or
needs political cover from.

Speaker 5 (42:15):
But so the.

Speaker 4 (42:17):
The the party in question here is known in Pakistan
that was the victim of this masac known.

Speaker 5 (42:24):
As the t LP. So t LP are basically a.

Speaker 4 (42:29):
Product of the Pakistan military over the years. So when
you have a military dictatorship in order to kind of
stay in power over the decades. They create all of
these different political factions that have some tiny bit of
independence but are effectively run either by the ISI or
the Pakistan military or both, and TLP is one of them.

Speaker 5 (42:48):
And TLP is these.

Speaker 4 (42:50):
Are hardcore far right religious fundamentalists that could be deployed
you know, for different you know, strategic or tactical reasons
by the by the pack Kistan military. And so to
say that there are a lot a lot of good
guys in this story would be an understatement. Like usually
when the TLP is out there protesting, it's to try

(43:12):
to like, you know, get somebody executed for having an
affair or having a nose ring or something like.

Speaker 5 (43:20):
Not not not.

Speaker 4 (43:21):
The kind of people that make sympathetic figures and you know,
to to Western liberals like myself for instance. Yet, so
the TLP was deployed here to protest against the Gaza
war and to protest a little bit about Pakistan getting
a little closer to Israel and hinting at some type

(43:42):
of normalization here. Uh, it's sad RIZV who's the head
of the TLP, announced his protests during his Friday prayers. Well,
then you might be thinking, wait a minute, TLP, which
is a creation of Pakistan military, is going to be
protesting against Pakistan, Like, what on earth?

Speaker 5 (44:00):
What's going on here?

Speaker 1 (44:01):
And this is where it gets so diabolical.

Speaker 4 (44:03):
And what I'm going to share is basically our analysis,
but it's it's highly informed by people with serious knowledge
about what's what's going on here. So why on earth
would the military encourage protests against itself? Well, one is
obvious on the geopolitical stage, it would be a way

(44:25):
to tell the US, like, don't push us too hard
when it comes to like normalization with Israel, because look,
we've got problems back at home. That's only one little
part of it, though. I think what's really going on
goes back to this November twenty sixth, twenty twenty four
protests in support of Iran Khan. You had thousands of
people come out into the streets. We covered here saying

(44:49):
you know, free i Ron Khan. The security forces massacred
huge numbers of people, and we published here like exclusive
video and other documents that we had gotten that showed
the extent of the massacre and also that it was
planned and organized ahead of time by the security services.

(45:13):
That this was not a something that got out of hand.
They deliberately instigated this and the violent crackdown basically wiped
out public protest on behalf of him Ron Khan. And
so I think so the military saw we know for
a fact that they saw this as a success. So
what they did is they're playing that card again, but

(45:35):
this time with the TLP, try to get to get
them under control. So what they're signaling here is that
if we do move move forward, as we move forward
with better relations with Israel under pressure from the US,
there will be no protesting against this. And so it
was Monday, Monday morning, and you can roll I think

(45:55):
it's you're going to just roll this as as I'm
talking here some of the footage that did emerge out
of Pakistan. So the march was supposed to go initially
to Lahore. With negotiations, they were able to persuade the
marchers to move instead to merid Key, which is a
town kind of north of north of Lahore where there's

(46:15):
less base of support for the TLP, And you then
have this outbreak of shooting and shelling. One person said
they saw more than six hundred bodies on the ground,
like absolute carnage. Sad Risvey sent a negotiating team, you know,
before this broke out to try to settle this. That
negotiating team was arrested. He organized another negotiating team, sent

(46:38):
them in. It happened anywhere right up until the violent started.
He was pleading for this not to go down. We
understand that the decision had been had already been made
that they were going to carry out of this, this
violent crackdown to send to send this signal that there
will be no pushback again.

Speaker 5 (47:00):
This the fact that so we did find some coverage.

Speaker 4 (47:04):
Of it in Pakistan media, which is aligned with the military,
so like controlled by the military, and that really tells
you a lot because it's like, okay, if they are
allowed to report on this, And this is where we
saw the interview with somebody saying that's more than they

(47:24):
saw six hundred bodies, Like why is a Pakistan military
allowing that to be aired?

Speaker 5 (47:30):
Because it's a signal.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
In other words, what good is a spectacular display of
violence against protesters if you don't tell the country about it.
So they're very carefully balancing the amount of information that
gets out about this massacre so that everyone in Pakistan
knows that it happened, so that they understand you will

(47:54):
not protest for Palestine, but not so much gets out
that there's international pressure on them, that there's international condemnation
of it.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
And that's a very tight rope to walk. It seems
to have worked so far.

Speaker 5 (48:09):
They're walking in.

Speaker 4 (48:09):
This was Monday, today's Wednesday, so but it's still going on.
So after this, after the massacre in the streets, you
started having house rates of all these TLP people, which
again like it's it's interesting because a lot of Pakistani
don't like.

Speaker 5 (48:25):
TLP, like these guys are thugs and goons.

Speaker 4 (48:28):
And like they're they they they're mobs that go around
like stoning people like, so we don't want any sympathy
for them. As one person I target said, this is
the first time they protested something good and also the
first time they get massacred first or did something good.

Speaker 5 (48:44):
And so.

Speaker 4 (48:46):
That's so that's where we are now, very like and
they are walking the rope like there is right now.
This is basically the only coverage. We'll have a story
at drop Side about this. This is basically the only
coverage that you're seeing around the world of this massacred
that could be like one of a thousand people getting killed.

(49:09):
That is a ton of usually a story like report
the reports about bodies just getting thrown into trucks and
dallas of chemras like it's it's horrifying and it's and
it's deeply horrifying to think that something like this can
happen and nobody even knows about it.

Speaker 3 (49:25):
Actually, while you're talking, Ryan, there's some I'll get your
live reaction. Pakistani Air Force carried out a wave of
air strikes against Taliban affiliated sites and military bases in
Kabble throughout other provinces.

Speaker 5 (49:37):
Yeah, so this comes it's up with that.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
So very recently, they supported the Taliban, they funded.

Speaker 5 (49:41):
Them, Yeah, yeah, when they were fighting.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
I can't keep up.

Speaker 4 (49:44):
They funded they backed the Talban when the Taliban were
fighting the US.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
Right of course, because we gave Pakistan money to do.
That makes a lot of time.

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Right because then we would like it was their argument
for why they we needed to fund them, Yeah, because
look at these terrorists out there. Don't you want us
to fight them when they're funding that they're yes, very
It's just it's just these conspiracies and games like all
the way down. It's crazy but yes, so a couple
of weeks ago or less, Uh, there was border clashes
where the Taliban killed something like more than fifty Pakistani soldiers,

(50:14):
like a serious, serious conflict. Because Pakistan has been saber
rattling at the Taliban and suggesting that they are going
to do regime change in.

Speaker 5 (50:23):
Cobble and throw the Taliban. It's like you wait, hold on,
you're going to do what? How are you going to
do that?

Speaker 4 (50:30):
So, yes, so this this, this is in line his
favorite field marshal by the way, that's his name's Assimnir
That's who Trump is referring to there, and he's the
guy that actually runs the country. Uh, this is his strategy.
So he's he's been using, you know, extreme amounts of

(50:50):
violence against you know, the crackdown on the part. Yeah,
we're on confolks and now the TLP folks, uh and
then and now here. And he's really feeling it for
two reasons. One is that he now has the unquestioned
not on question, but he has full throat of support
of the Trump administration.

Speaker 5 (51:11):
So this fear that Imran Khan was.

Speaker 4 (51:13):
Going to get released and he'd be in trouble is
subsiding and they feel very good about how the India
Pakistan war went for them, that they stood up to
India and got through it and had support from the
US as in it. India is like everybody who follows
Indian politics says like, India's going to hit Pakistan again

(51:33):
very soon.

Speaker 1 (51:34):
Well, they're still very angry.

Speaker 3 (51:35):
That's why they don't accept the US narrative of the
peace deal.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
They're like, there is no peace right, it's just no.

Speaker 5 (51:41):
We're hitting them again.

Speaker 4 (51:43):
So Assamnir might be proud of the way he's navigated
this so far, but to have a two front war
Afghanistan and India while also cracking down on your fundamentalist
rights and your populist affection of im run con supporters.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
Is if you're India, you're like, now's the time, Yeah, yeah,
hit them.

Speaker 5 (52:11):
This guy's yeah.

Speaker 4 (52:12):
So I don't think we've seen the last of this situation,
that's for sure.

Speaker 3 (52:17):
Well, thank you for the update, Ryan, as always our
resident Pakistan correspondent. You know, I thought I knew a
lot about Pakistan and time met this. It's the best part. Okay,
Now we're going to throw to a pre recorded segment
that Ryan did about the free press is supposed debunking
of the Gaza famine narrative. Ryan and the Dropside team
did some excellent journalism and reached out to many of

(52:39):
the families involved lo and behold, all of them are
decimated by famine. They got actual interviews on the record.
So let's go ahead and throw to that, and then
we will also see you all later.

Speaker 4 (52:50):
We have a new story over at drop site News,
written with my colleague Maha Husseini, that looks into the
infamous reporting that the Free Press did into what they
said were a dozen cases of Palestinians who they claimed
had been unfairly elevated as examples of famine and gaza.

(53:11):
The article was titled they became symbols for Gazen starvation,
but all twelve suffer from other health problems. Now, we
discovered something very strange when we first started looking into this,
and we don't have to dwell on this. They don't
look into twelve cases they don't like unless they did

(53:33):
and just didn't publish it, and we asked them for comment.
We have not gotten comment on this bizarre discrepancy. It
doesn't fundamentally undermine their reporting by itself, but they said
they were going to look into twelve cases, plus the
famous New York Times. Once that's thirteen. The only name nine,
there's another one that's alluded to, so you could generously

(53:54):
give them ten. So when we started looking closer at
their reporting, we're like, wait a minute, this is deeply flimsy. However,
according to Olivey Reinhold, this was truly outstanding reporting. So
let's roll a little bit of her from a clip
that came along with their posts.

Speaker 13 (54:14):
So you've probably seen these photos of skeletal kids in
gaza on front pages, all over social media, even in
a unic f ad. They've become the symbols of famine.
But we decided to look into these photos and the
stories behind them, and what we found is that in
case after case, these kids were sick, but not just
with malnutrition. In every instance, they were suffering with other

(54:37):
conditions or illnesses like cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and even
traumatic head injuries.

Speaker 4 (54:43):
Now all of this is important because obviously this is
not just important in its own right, and their original
piece was perhaps to me, one of the most infuriating
I've ever seen because of how shoddy it was. It's
one thing to look into do any investigation you want,
we should also do the investigation. What we found here

(55:03):
is that the Free Press did not, as far as
we can tell, attempt to contact any of the families
or the people involved in storry, Which is journalism one
on one is if you're going to write about somebody's
health conditions, you would presumably speak to them or their
doctors or somebody who has familiarity, which a lot of
it is Google translated.

Speaker 12 (55:23):
Well, I was gonna say a lot of the journalists
on the ground who had used the images already, they
were on the ground talking to the families, if I'm
remembering correctly. For the New York Times, pictures were taken
by a photojournalist, and I think there was a journalist
on the ground, right, and they had been in conversation
with the families about the conditions.

Speaker 4 (55:44):
Yeah, and so the fundamental point that the Free Press
says that it's making with its investigation is that these
children were held up, mostly children. They are two adults
held up as examples of the victims of the famine,
but in fact they had pre existing conditions, and they
exposed the fact that they have these pre existing conditions.

Speaker 12 (56:03):
So what we did, which weren't disclosed by the Washington Post,
for example, and like the Washington Post put up a
note eventually.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
And I actually think i'mes added something and the point that.

Speaker 12 (56:11):
You and I talked about at the time, it's actually
perfectly acceptable to disclose sure those those pre existing problems,
and they should do that. And the reporting that you
all have added and contributed to the conversation is that
actually it's often people with pre existing conditions who are
the first to succumb when there are shortages of food.

Speaker 4 (56:31):
Exactly full context is good, but the idea that these
children's pre existing conditions were the thing that was driving
their health complications, which is what the free press pushes
that is that turns out not to be the case
once you've talked to their families. So we asked Maha
to interview as many of these family members.

Speaker 5 (56:51):
As she could.

Speaker 4 (56:52):
In the middle of her reporting, she was forcibly displaced
from Gaza City and she had she had interviewed and
done reporting on three of the cases.

Speaker 5 (57:00):
And I said that you don't stop.

Speaker 4 (57:03):
And it's like reporting from a tent without electricity, with
like intermittent access to internet and no home base to
write it's extraordinarily difficult. And the cases that she looked into,
I think told you know enough of the story that
that we can understand what's going on here. So we

(57:23):
can start with Muhammad Zachariah. I'll move to walk, who
actually is the now twenty two month old whose picture
adorned the New York Times story that then created this
controversy of FP and others said, this child has other
health complications, so you know, you should not have used
them as an example of the worsening famine conditions in Gaza.
So we talked to family and got from them before

(57:46):
and after photos. So the photo you're looking at here
is Mohammed twelve days before the March second siege is
announced in god So on March second, Israel closed all
the crossings, no food, no medicine, nothing allowed in and
that went deep into May, and that's what drove the
acute crisis. So you can see his picture before this happened,

(58:12):
and then you can see after. And what the FP
would have you believe is that it was his pre
existing health condition. And we have a vo here that
we can play too, of him getting a haircut in
a tent before before the crossings were closed, and you
can tell he's got some pre you just you can

(58:32):
just tell.

Speaker 5 (58:33):
You don't even be able to the document.

Speaker 4 (58:34):
You can tell he's got some pre existing health conditions,
but it was the lack of access to food that
drove his condition. Now, Muhammad obviously is going to suffer
things worse than other children, but it's just very clear now.
At the same time, it's also worth fuller context if
we want it. So, he was born in December twenty

(58:57):
twenty three on during one of the nights of the
fiercest bombing that they saw in the area where where
he was born in got City.

Speaker 5 (59:07):
The last two months of.

Speaker 4 (59:11):
Her pregnancy, they were displaced and moving constantly right after Yeah,
so this is right right, So, and some of the
most widespread indiscriminate violence was right after October seventh. So
he's born into that, and you can imagine that there
could be some slight muscle weakness, which is what he

(59:32):
had when he was born, and you can imagine some
neurological condition as well. You know, it's you know, the
the health of the mother during the pregnancy matters for
for children. And so rather than kind of lessening the
responsibility of the siege and the assault on his condition,
and the further reporting actually strengthened it, and so to

(59:55):
give even more context, which I think is important.

Speaker 5 (59:58):
This is what his mother says.

Speaker 4 (59:59):
I suffered from malnutrition around two months after I gave
birth to him, and he stopped breastfeeding. At that time,
his father was still with us and could acquire milk.
So despite the harsh conditions, Muhammad began growing as a
healthy child. At one point he was even chubby, and
we've seen the photos to prove that that's the case.
On October twenty eighth, twenty twenty four, his father, Zachariah

(01:00:20):
was killed in Israeli striking Daryl Oballa, and so now
his mother is caring for these two children under these
much more difficult conditions. She writes, I couldn't consistently get
milk or diapers, but people continued to support me, bringing
milk from.

Speaker 5 (01:00:33):
Time to time.

Speaker 4 (01:00:34):
I was still able to provide food for him until
the occupation sealed the borders and enforced starvation in March.
Doing this reporting, in some ways I felt guilty, even
like asking these families to justify their situation, but at
the same time it's important to do so.

Speaker 5 (01:00:53):
Because the Free Press has.

Speaker 4 (01:00:56):
Now been bought by Paramount Barry Weiss has been elevated
to editor in chief of CBS News, and what she
considers to be proper journalistic tradecraft is now going to
have the backing of hundreds of budgets and the hundreds
of millions of dollars.

Speaker 12 (01:01:16):
That's what drove me crazy about the story originally and
continuously the story. Now that you all are following up
on it, it reminds me of your report on the
Douglas Murray David from speech contributions to Israeli Ambassador as well,
which is there's a constant drum beat of lecturing from

(01:01:36):
many of these same people about journalistic ethics, and that
is exactly what.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
Happened with this story. They kept on how proud they
were of this, rewarding the editorial board, their editorial.

Speaker 12 (01:01:46):
They wrote a Free Press editorial just slamming you, Sagur
and Crystal I somehow escaped.

Speaker 5 (01:01:53):
How did you get I don't know, But.

Speaker 12 (01:01:57):
All that is to say that was a lecture about
journalistic ethics from people who were engaged in clearly lapsed
journalistic ethics in the same story, with the same breath
that other people were being criticized over and it's not
a matter of like your ideological standpoint on this, like

(01:02:17):
if we set that aside, that that is not the
full and complete picture. The full and complete picture was
not told in this counter story. And so yeah, I
think it's it's important that the Washington Post now includes
the disclosure. I think that's that's good. But getting that
isn't a concession. Your story was a sort of beacon,

(01:02:42):
a paragon of journalistic success.

Speaker 4 (01:02:45):
And we can quickly go through two others. So another
one is six year old Nodua who's saying a jag.
First of all, the Free Press claimed that these were
all viral images. Even that is extremely dubious assertion. Naj's
photo was included in a CNN slide show.

Speaker 5 (01:03:01):
How you define viral?

Speaker 4 (01:03:02):
I don't know, but it appears more like they just
went cherry picking any image that was associated with any
story about starvation and then googled until they could find
somebody who also had a health condition.

Speaker 5 (01:03:14):
Looked. I looked it up.

Speaker 4 (01:03:15):
By the way, there are more cases of child disability
in Gaza before October seventh than average around the world.
I think UNICEF has it like like twelve percent averages
nine or ten percent, so twenty to thirty percent higher
in Gaza. And you can imagine, well, why would there
be more childhood disability like in Gaza in a place

(01:03:35):
that has been under siege for many decades. So using
the fact that somebody has a disability against them in
this case is further under mind by the fact that
the fact that they have the disability might be related
to the siege that they that their families living under
for generations. But so what they found with a Jodge

(01:03:57):
is they found that she had an esophagal condition. And
the Free press suggests that this esophagal stenosis, rather than
the imposed starvation, was responsible for her condition. So Maha
talked to her mother and she says, quote and before
the war started, we had taken her to the hospital
and she was diagnosed with esophagal stenosis. Her condition had

(01:04:17):
not yet worse, and a surgery was scheduled for December fourth,
twenty twenty three.

Speaker 5 (01:04:23):
Quote.

Speaker 4 (01:04:23):
But of course, with hospitals being bombed, others overwhelmed with victims,
and a lack of equipment, her surgery was canceled. This
is when our own war, with her condition began unquote,
which again stands to reason. If you imagine in your
own life, if you and your family and your entire
community are overnight shut off from access to medical care.

(01:04:47):
Emergency departments are open if you get if you're a
victim of bombing or your shot, and then they can
treat you. But anything scheduled, like they're working on your
esophagal condition, like that's canceled.

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
It's just not happening.

Speaker 4 (01:05:07):
And so she started started vomiting, was unable to unable
to keep things down. In the past, her mother has
said the supplements and medical fluids had kept her in
a stable condition despite this situation. But without those supplements
and medical fluids, then she began to succumb to the

(01:05:27):
ravages of malnutrition and she was diagnosed with severe malnutrition.

Speaker 5 (01:05:32):
Quote.

Speaker 4 (01:05:33):
We try to secure her proper food for a condition,
like pured vegetables, yogurt, juice, or soft cheese, but none
of these were available during the starvation campaign. We couldn't
secure anything but lentils, and so she was then successfully
evacuated and since then has gone undergone three surgeries for
this condition. But this is what all experts will tell
you that when when famine hits. It is not the

(01:05:57):
healthiest people who suffer the most first is the people
who are most susceptible to that.

Speaker 5 (01:06:04):
And just think about in your own life.

Speaker 4 (01:06:06):
If that happened, if all of a sudden you're cut
off from food and medical aid, who would go down first?
And then imagine somebody came to you and said, well,
you know, your grandmother had this condition, so why are
you blaming us? Like you're the one that cut off
food in medicine, That's why I'm blaming you. It's not
My grandmother was doing okay even though she had her condition.

(01:06:28):
And finally, one more one of the adults is Hamsa
Ismail Mishmish, his twenty five year old who'd had a
lifelong pre existing condition, which I think was obvious in
the photos of him, and so his brother told dropsite quote.
Hamsa was born with cerebral palsy and congenital anomalies and
had lived with this condition for years. We used to

(01:06:50):
follow up with doctors and he's survived all these years
on nutritional supplements and vitamins. During the war, we faced
difficulties securing the nutritional supplements and it was impossible to
compensate with fresh food. With the borders closed, and even
when international aid was allowed in, all we could find
was canned food. But in the recent months of starvation,
his condition rapidly deteriorated and shot. He added that although

(01:07:11):
his body did appear thin before the war, quote, one
can clearly see the difference between how he looked then
and how he looks now, the recent starvation made us
completely helpless towards his condition. Food supplements were completely unavailable.
And then the part that is even more brutal to
kind of think about living with these conditions, because this
is difficult enough under the most comfortable conditions, living in

(01:07:33):
a nice house with all the access that you could
have to food and medicine. Anybody who has lives with
his conditioner or knows somebody who does, it's very difficult.
But mis Mish's family added to drop Site that his
health has been further worsened by the family's conditions and displacement,
forcing him to live in a makeshift tent after the
home was bombed.

Speaker 5 (01:07:52):
Quote.

Speaker 4 (01:07:53):
This tent cannot protect him from the scorching heat in
summer or the freezing cold in winter. In cold weather,
we cannot keep him warm, so his body developed infections,
his feet swell, and his entire body weakens. We would
need at least three weeks to help him recover from
these symptoms. All these circumstances combined are why his body
has never been the same since the war. So imagine

(01:08:13):
this is your family member, and Barry Weise and Olivia
Ryan Gold come up to you and say it's because
of his cerebral palsy that he's in this condition. Like
he's twenty five years old, we've known him his whole life.
The condition is because of the siege and the war.

(01:08:34):
And to like to even make you like point that
out to them is a form of crazy making.

Speaker 12 (01:08:42):
And again for well, it actually makes the story fuller
more interesting to know that it's the case.

Speaker 4 (01:08:48):
And so yeah, one of the ones they cited was
a fourteen year old who had a piece of his
skull removed because.

Speaker 5 (01:08:54):
He his find is really shelled.

Speaker 12 (01:08:56):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (01:08:57):
Oh he had a pre existing condition from getting shelled
by Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
Right, like, this is not serious? What are you doing?

Speaker 5 (01:09:03):
Yeah?

Speaker 12 (01:09:04):
Yeah, sorry, go ahead, No, no, no, I just I
think it's all Like even more, it's it enriches the
story to know the background, and it makes it clear
just like the level of the downstream effects. You know,
we talk a lot about obviously like famine deaths because

(01:09:25):
those are the people have actually died, but also just
like the downstream consequences of lack of medical treatments and
food and how that affects you know, the most vulnerable
among us and has over the last couple of years.
It's just the tragedy and it's definitely not an own

(01:09:45):
or a slam dunk against the outlets that use these images.

Speaker 4 (01:09:50):
Yeah, and we can look forward to a lot more
of this, I guess now from sixty minutes.

Speaker 12 (01:09:55):
We'll see, we'll see, all right, great story, Ryan

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
Pott,