Krystal and Saagar discuss Arab Americans refuse Kamala, Scahill confronts MSNBC on Gaza, Sinwar video released, Israel preps Iran strike.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We also want to just take a quick look at
how Kamala Harris is bearing with a group that really
could be pivotal, especially in the state of Michigan, which
is Arab American voters. There was recently a focus group
that was convened and wasn't great for Kamala Harris because
every single panelist said they will not vote for Kamala
(00:46):
Harris and that at this point, given her support for
Joe Biden's policies Visavi Israel's Jonasid in the Gaza strip,
there is nothing she could do at this point that
would win them back.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Let's take a listen to how that went.
Speaker 5 (00:57):
Who was voting for Donald Trump and four it's possible,
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yeah, it's definitely not by Harris, that's for sure.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
Who's voting for Kamala Harris here? Absolutely no, No, not possible.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
There's nothing she can do or say for us to
change our mind.
Speaker 5 (01:17):
Who's voting third party in twenty twenty four, good chance,
so Jill Stein slightly.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
It's also possible to this less, we'll just abstain from
voting altogether. But we do know that that's not the
best political strategy.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
You know, why are you voting for Donald Trump? Because
my main goal is to get someone who is actively
funding a genocide out of office. Is your vote for
Donald Trump a vote endorsing Donald Trump? Or is it
a vote against Kamala Harris?
Speaker 4 (01:46):
Against Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Donald Trump has said he will reinstate the Muslim ban,
so that last time he's said that he wants Natagnell
who to finish the Jobnald Trump said a lot of
things his first time around that terrified me. The campaign
that the Democrats ran was that Donald Trump pays us.
I felt safe well in the country when Trump was
(02:11):
in office. I don't feel safe right now with Kamala
in office. So I mean that to me speaks more.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
He's donning and We've seen polling among Arab Americans in
Michigan and other swing states that suggests a majority of
them may in fact vote for Ji Jill Stein. And
you've seen the Democrats actually launch their first ever ad
campaign specifically against Jill Stein. So you know, it's not
(02:37):
surprising necessarily to hear these voters say, yeah, there's nothing
she could do, like it's too much, it's too long,
She's she had a chance to separate herself from this policy,
and at every opportunity she's done the opposite. At every
opportunity she's chosen a signal no, I will do exactly
what Joe Biden did. So, you know, if Democrats lose
(02:59):
Michigan because of this voting block, they have no one
but themselves to blame, Like, don't blame Jill Stein, don't
blame third parties, don't blame Donald Trump even you know,
you have yourselves to blame for number one, backing and
absolutely immoral policy, and number two.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
You know, just completely.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Ignoring what was a massive movement against this policy in
including you know, huge numbers of activists on the ground,
including a massive amount of energy, including if you just
look at the polls, like overwhelming majority of people want
certainly a ceasefire, but also to withhold weapons from Israel
(03:45):
to to you know, to end this core that we've
all seen in our social media feeds every day. So
I'm glad that they talk to these voters, and I'm
glad Democrats will have to look at that on their
favorite network and understand that you don't get to lecture
these people about who they're going to.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
But in reality, what happens, They're just going to run
ads about how Jill Stein is bad. I mean, the
Stein campaign or the anti Stein campaign might be the
most vicious that I've ever seen it. There's a New
York Times hit piece out this morning. There's the Democratic ads.
They've got Democratic activists now actively trying to smear her
every single day on the timeline and this is exactly why.
(04:20):
But as you said, it's actually on Kamala. If you
look at the way that she even talks about the issue.
Here she is being asked in Detroit about Israel, Palestine,
about Gaza, about message to Muslim voters.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Take a listen, how risky is it that you could
lose the election?
Speaker 6 (04:37):
Well, it is undeniable that it is something that everyone
is aware of what is happening there. I speak publicly
all the time about the fact that there are so
many tragic stories coming from Gaza, and of course, the
first in this phase of everything that has happened, the
first most tragic story is October seventh and what happened
(05:03):
that day, and then what has happened since. And I
think what's critically important as we look at this moment
is one acknowledging the tragedy of what has happened in
Gaza in terms of the extraordinary number of innocent Palestinians
have been killed, and taking that seriously and speaking truth
about that. In addition, of course to what I said
(05:25):
about what happened on October seven, in terms of twelve
hundred innocent Israelis being slaughtered, women being horribly raped, and
then fast forwarding to today with the killing of Sinoar,
this creates an opening that I believe we must take
full advantage of to dedicate ourselves to ending this war
(05:46):
and bringing the hostages home.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I don't know if you caught that everybody else, but
what did she say? The first and most tragic thing
that happened was October seventh. If you're a Muslim, voter
you're hearing that in Detroit, Like, what are you exactly
if Gaza's your number one issue?
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Like what exactly are supposed to take away from that?
Speaker 1 (06:03):
I mean, we're talking about a significant number of voters
who literally have family.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Members who are in Detroit yet.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Directly impacted, you know, who may have literally lost family members.
And you know, I maybe I shouldn't harb on this,
but it just really displays to me the outrageous double
standard that she has never, to my knowledge, that anything
about the proven, documented systematic use of rape by the
(06:31):
IDF against Palestinian detainees, for which there is vastly more
evidence than that of systematic rape on October seventh. And
I know these are uncomfortable things to say, but that's
just the fact and the reality.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
And you know that.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Narrative has been used over and over again by her
and so many others to justify everything that has come after.
That I think is important, even as it is uncomfortable
to call it out once again and to point out
on the other side, actually there is multiple even the
Israelis themselves at least attempted to arrest some IDF members
(07:11):
for their rape of a Palestinian detainee. We have multiple
independent reports suggesting this is not a one off. This
was a systematic policy of abuse within this effectively concentration
camp that they have set up. And you know, so
I know a lot of listen. I think the voters
who said there's nothing she could do at this point, like,
(07:31):
I believe them, and I think that that's perfectly understandable
position to take. And you know, I can or others
can say till we're blue in the face, like Trump
would be worse, and I think that's true. Miriam Maddison
is one of his top donors, roughly one hundred million dollars.
She wants to just completely annex the West Bank. So
you were pointing out Israeli is very clear on who
they would rather have as president of the United States,
(07:52):
as like sixty eight percent say they would prefer Donald Trump.
Bib and at Yaho very clear that he would prefer
Donald Trump on the off chance that Kamala Harris actually
done something different than Joe Biden. But you know, I
think all of that amounts to not a lot when
you're talking to people who really care about this, you've
been watching this, or may even have a direct personal
steak in the real check.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
That woman who she was like, look, I'm just voting
against that person, and i want to punish them.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
So that's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I mean, that's a perfectly understandable position, you know, like
you just say, you can say to you like for
till you're blue in the face, as you said, like,
well if it's different, except but that's you know, it's
a different way of thinking, especially if you've got personal steaks.
So she's got real issues. We did mention this about Elon.
Let's put this up on the screen. This is currently
going around. A funded pack by Musk is currently micro
(08:39):
targeting Muslim people in Michigan and Jewish people in Pennsylvania
with opposite messaging about Kamala Harris using zip code targeting.
One on the left says Kamala Harris stands with Israel.
That's too Muslim voters in Michigan to Jewish voters in
Pennsylvania saying two face, Kamala Harris stands with palesigine, not
our ally Israel that has crossed out, and we're true.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Be a little more to face. Comm let's see it.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, I mean, it's obviously like obviously a deeply cynical strategy,
but it also reveals it also reveals that they that
Elon musk At leaves his pack believes this is you know,
an effective, an effective direction and an important fisher within
the Democratic coalition and are doing what they can to
try to exploit it.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Yeah, I don't think that it's funny because it's actually
probably more resonant on the Muslim part. But all the
data that we have right now is that, you know,
American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats. I voted for like sixty
or so, almost seventy percent for Joe Biden last time Aroundeah,
I have not seen a single scrap of like large
scale sample data that outside of like Bill Ackman and
(09:46):
like rich Jews work in finance, that there's been any
sort of grand realigning it.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, it's Trump thinks of Jews in the stereotypical way
that like Democrats are twenty sixteen, we're thinking about Latinos
in life voters of like, oh your brown immigration must
be your number one issue, or oh you're black, like
criminal justice reform must be the only thing that you
care about. He thinks the only thing Jewish voter should
(10:12):
care about is Israel, right, And that's I mean, it
is anti semitic to think, first of all, to associate
every Jew with this out of control genocidal state is
in my opinion, anti semitic. And number two, just to
collapse any large demographic group down to like a single
issue like oh, you're one of those people, this is
what you care about is gross and you know, and racist,
(10:35):
I think in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So you know, which I also said.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
When it came to Democrats stereotyping the same way. So yeah,
he's of course wrong. And when you look at the polls,
majority of American Jews want to cease fire quite a
large number. Also, you know hate bb NA Naho. By
the way, the greatest supporters of bb Nan Yahoo by
religious group in this country are not American Jews. They
are American evangelicals who who support Baby Nanaou And whatever
(11:02):
he wants to do, it must give part blanche.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
So you know this is part of what Donald Trump's
coalition is very aligned on the issue of Israel. They're
very pro Israel pretty much across the board. There's a
very marginal dissent, and you know, their critique is that
Kamala and Joe Biden have not done enough, have not
given bib enough of a blank check.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
That's their position.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
But yeah, since there is somewhat of a fracture in
the Democratic base, especially between Democratic elites and base voters,
Republicans are you know, trying to exploit that understandably as
best that they can. And you know, ultimately, again it's
it comes down to the actual policy and Kamala's complete
(11:47):
unwillingness to break from Joe Biden on an area.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
And again for people who don't.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Really care about this issue, which is a majority of
Americans who don't who aren't going to be voting on it,
you know, she could have done herself some favors too,
just by actually breaking with Biden on an issue, since
that's been something she's really struggled with as well, just
creating some space.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And showing she's her own person.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
So, you know, it's just it's a moral and political
failure on every level, is basically all you can say
about it at this point. All right, let's go ahead
and move on to Israel. So last week we brought
you the news that Israel had assassinated yeah Yah Sinoar
that of course an extraordinary development. He was the you know,
(12:29):
he was the leader of Hamas, especially after the assassination
previously of Ismail Haniah, who had been the head of
the political branch of Hamas. He also was the architect
in large part of October seventh, so incredibly significant develops
their developments there. In the wake of that news, MSNBC shockingly,
one of my old friends, Amanroyle Dean there brought on
(12:51):
our friend dropsite co founder Jeremy Scahill to talk about
the significance of these events, and he really called out
MSNBC on there our own airwaves.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (13:02):
I just want to begin by saying that as we're
speaking tonight, the Israelis are waging an extermination campaign in
the north of Gaza. For the past two weeks, they've
surrounded the area and they've intensified it after the killing
of Jakhas Sinoir. No food or medicine of any kind
has reached most parts of the north. I'm in direct touch.
(13:23):
I'm in with medical officials in the north and with
journalists a colleagues. I understand that at least eighty people
have been killed tonight in a horrifying set of attacks
on half a dozen residential buildings. I've just gotten done
seeing images from the ground where children are being shredded
like meat in a butcher's shop. I don't understand how
(13:44):
any of us, whether we're journalists or not, this isn't
about objectivity, how any of us can watch this genocide
unfolded real time and watch the pontificating of the politicians
running for president and not just cry out this has
to stop. I mean, this has to stop. We've looked
at this. I mean, I know you've id it on
the ground from Gaza. I mean, we're watching a genocide
in real time, and I'm sorry, but on this network
(14:04):
also there are people who have promoted propaganda from Israel.
There are people cheerleading for those running for office who
are lying to the American people about concern for the Palestinians.
And yes, we should talk about Yaha Sinhar, but Yahka
Sinwar is also in many ways the story of Gaza.
You know, yes, this was a violent man, but his
violence was rooted in the fact that he was born
(14:26):
in a refugee camp and Israel, throughout his entire life
waged a war of annihilation against the Palestinians. I'm not
here to defend Yakha Sinwar. I'm here to say that
we can't talk about who yah Ja Sinhwar was or
what Hamas is without talking about seventy six years of colonialism,
of apartheid, of mass killing, of mowing the lawn, of
(14:48):
controlling the calories.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
No lines detected there.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Let me just say, Aiman is such a real one
for bringing Jeremy on.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I in trouble for that one.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Yeah, and Jeremy, I'm quite sure where that was the
last time're going to se Jeremy on smbc's airways for
quite a while. You know, he used to be And
if you guys go and listen to the interview that
Ryan and Emily did with Jeremy. He used to be
a fixture on MSNBC. Rachel Mattow have him on all
the time back in the era when it was the
Bush era, and you know, they were all aligned and
going after George W. Bush and you know, exposing torture
(15:19):
and all the abuses of that era.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
They love to have him on. And then the moment
that it.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Was the Obama era and Jeremy was still doing this
thing and say, hey, he's you know, increased the drone
ward like pointing out the failures there. Suddenly that was it,
he was asked, and he's never heard from Rachel Matdow
since because he did I think something similar of calling
out MSNBC on her program, and she expressed to him
in real time like you can't do that, this is
(15:45):
a problem, and then that was it for his So
I don't know, this was his first return to MSNBC
since that era, which would have been you know, quite
a while ago. But I again don't expect we'll see
him back there for another maybe two decades.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Yeah, exactly. I mean his story like he told with
I mean Ryan too. Ryan was an MSNBC contributor. You
guys were on there and then you know, at a
certain point they made a decision. They're like, this is
the direction.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
We're going in.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Obviously, look at it has worked, right. They are the
number two cable news network. Yes, they have the oldest
audience and all of cable news, seventy two years old
boomer white liberals. These are mostly people who love the network,
but for them like this is genuinely shocking to see
something like this. Anybody who watches our show or frankly,
he's even on the Internet. You could be a pro
Israel person on the Internet and you would still not
(16:30):
be shocked by something Jeremy has to say. But the
thing is is that on that network and him calling
them out directly on their face, I do think it
has some power, you know, to hear hear it stated
that because it's so foreign, it's such a foreign even
way of thinking.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, That's why Tony E. C.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Coats and his book and his interview rounds have been
so significant too, is that, you know, that perspective is
just mostly almost completely absent from elite media airwaves, whether
it's MSNBC, New York Times, I'm, CNN, Fox News, et cetera.
So so anyway, it was quite quite striking to see
that perspective offered there.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
I really suspect.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Aiman will get in trouble for all Jeremy on because
he already has been under quite a bit of fire,
remember after October seventh, Yeah, they took him off the
air for a while. Obviously, medi got fired for probably
for his approach to that conflict, and especially the aggressive
way that he would question people about the conflict is
probably specifically what got him canned, possibly by the ADL.
(17:31):
People are very influential there, so we'll keep an eye
on that. At the same time, I referenced earlier that
Israel for some reason decided to actually put out the
video of Yeah, I guess and More's final moments. We
can put this up on the screen so we can
take a look at some of this. You know, this
was after he had already been part of a battle
(17:52):
with a tank and the idea have to not find him.
You can see him sitting in that chair and it
looks like his arm is you know, like potentially severed.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Uh yeah, the photo did show.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, it appears to look like it's partially severed. So
he's basically as one arm. He uses that one arm
you'll see here at a moment this is a drone
that's surveilling him. He uses that one arm to throw
a stick at the drone camera. And so, you know,
this video kind of dispelled some of the Israeli mythology
about him. You know, they had portrayed him really as
(18:24):
like a rat hiding in tunnels. They also portrayed themselves
as knowing exactly where he was located and saying he
was surrounded by hostages and some underground bunker, and here
he is actually you know, fighting to the bitter end,
throwing a stick at the drone that's sent into to
assassinate him. And you know, I think that part saga
(18:46):
I'm interested for your reaction here, you know, part is
the Israelis for their domestic audience just seeing him finished.
And in this, you know, in this state where he's
surrounded by rubble and all the level of devis station
like for an Israeli domestic audience, this plays well. And
I think that's probably bebing Aa who's primary concern thought.
(19:07):
But in terms of the global impression, and even especially
among Palestinians, many of whom, according to Poles, had.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Really turned on sinewa Orse. They blame him because they blame.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Him in part for you know, I think they blame
Israel too, but they're like, you brought this upon us,
and they bought into this idea that you're you know,
living this more luxurious life and you're hiding, well, we're
being bombed. This has increased a large amount of sympathy
for him within the Palistinian population and bestowed on him
a sort of like valor that is really propaganda had
(19:39):
effectively robbed.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Him up proof.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
I'm just struck by the difference between the US and
between Israel. Here, let's put this up on the screen.
This is from the Wall Street Journal. It says in
depth hamas leader may have won wider support than when
he was alive. And there's just so many differences. If
you look at the way that the US operated against
Osamb and Laden. For example, there's a photo allegedly of
Bin Laden's face like split it half, like a and
cake or something that when he was shot by those
(20:03):
Navy seals and steal Team six, and that was never
released to the public. They made great effort to make
sure that he could never be seen as a martyr
or to give Isis, which was big at that time,
any propaganda or al Qaeda, and they may buried his
body at sea, you know, make sure that there was
never any grave that people could flock to. It was
(20:23):
just a very different reaction. And I mean, what I
would point out is people celebrated here. I was there
at the White House to night that Bin Laden was killed.
It's one of the craziest, honestly moments of my life
just remembering what that was like. You know, for the
country and for everything. It's not like people didn't celebrate
and Obama didn't get the political bump that he needed,
I guess, you know, if we're going to talk in
crafts terms. But there was also a lot of thought about, hey,
(20:45):
if we're going to do this, then we shouldn't release video.
We should make sure that this doesn't become like a
major thing in the Arab world or for people who
are radical Islamists to be able to flock around. And
this was like the opposite reaction that Israel decided to pursue.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I would say even with that, I believe the bag
Daddy video was never released, you know, by Trump. So
it's not like Trump, I mean, obviously very different person
than Obama and the way that he thought about things,
even he never did that, you know, whenever Bagdaddy was killed.
So that's just the major difference in the way that
our countries look at these things. And I think probably
because we have more experience with a twenty year g
(21:20):
WAT you know, blowback campaign of what happened when we
did try to have all these celebratory actions during the
Iraq War and we found out hard in two thousand
and five and two thousand and six, what that looks like.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
I think there's also just.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Such as a gulf, massive gulf between how the Israeli
domestic audience consumes these things versus how the global audience
consumes these things. You know, when you look at the
polling and you have you know, the preponderance of opinions
saying we weren't tough enough in Gaza and we haven't
you know, been brutal enough in Gaza. That's why we
from the beginning had this question like why are they
why aren't they taking the phones of the idea of
(21:55):
soldiers so they can stop recording their war crimes, you know,
And the answer is because they actually, from a domestic
political standpoint, they liked the recording of the death, destruction,
extermination for crimes. They liked it. Those soldiers that were
posting these things became like, you know, heroes who were
fed it at these various way let's resettle Gaza conferences.
(22:16):
So the victory that's on offer to the Israeli people
is one of utter annihilation. And so the more that
those images of annihilation are shown to the Israeli domestic audience,
the you know, the better BB does in the polls,
and the more he's able to hold on to power,
because that's that is the real victory that he is
(22:37):
promising them. So I think that's part of why I
saw some people theorizing that maybe the idea of hate
phoebe and so they leaked this to like undermine what
he'd been saying. But I don't buy that. I think
they this is to feed the Israeli domestic audience who
loves to see him there in the rubble in his
final moments. And you know, the Wall Street Journal again
(23:00):
to cite a very mainstream publication here and their analysis,
they interviewed a number of individuals. One one, Gosen, said
that once they saw the footage, it changed his mind
about Sinwar. He said it showed he was fighting until
the very end. Another analyst said it makes a difference
to people in the Arab world that he was above ground,
that he didn't escape, that he was fighting. How and
(23:21):
where he died also refutes the Israeli narrative of Sinwar
abandoning the people of Gaza. Many people feel Israel can't
pretend this is a big achievement because his killing wasn't
planned or done through using intelligence, so you know, pretty
I think it's pretty revelatory their decision to release this
video on what it says about Bibe's mindset and Israeli societies.
(23:42):
At the same time, you know, there was let's put
this up on the screen. Apparently Bibe's own house came
under attack. Israel's government said that a drone Hesbaled drone
targeted Prime Minister Benjamin netna Who's house on Saturday. There
were no casualties, but you know, an attempted assassination here
on bbnatnah who.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
Certainly.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Israel's military said dozens of projectiles were launched from lebanon,
day after HESBLAD announced a new phase in fighting. Netnahu's
office said that drone targeted his house in the Mediterranean
coastal town of I don't know how to say this, Cesaria.
Maybe yeah, neither he nor his wife was there. Wasn't
clear if the house was hit, and of course we
know from the military sensors. He will not allow you
(24:23):
to report whether the house was hit or not. That's
something they're very sensitive about showing any damage from attacks
from Iran or from HESBLA. We can also put this
up on the screen. Israel taking a significant hit in
terms of one of their top IDF commanders. This is
Colonel Asan Doxa. It says lieutenant colonel, but it was
actually a full colonel Asan Dosa, commander of Israel's foreign
(24:46):
our first brigade, killed today in what this individual describes
as a precise ambush by Palestinian fighters in Jabalia. This
colonel very significant saga because he was really in charge
of that assault on Jabalia refugee camp. So that's why
it's quite noteworthy that he was killed by Hamas or
(25:06):
other Aligne fighters there.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Well, also a little bit of a preview, what does
it look like that's a you have got the army
to come in refugee camp.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
He was killed by an IED.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
So they're learning exactly the same problems that the US
forces learned in Iraq.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
We were.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Some of the initial reporting said that some of the
IED was actually assembled with unexploded ordinance that the israe
Israel had dropped onto the Hongaza, which again same thing
that people learned in Afghanistan. That is a classic play
out of Afghanistan in Iraq. You can ask anybody who
served over there, like these things are very deadly. And
the more that they operate there and in Lebanon against
(25:42):
Hesbola much more competent you know, enemy, which has already
proven the ability to strike at them effectively, even hit
Beebe's house. I mean, already they have accomplished more like
better tactics against the IDF and their ability to penetrate
Israeli defenses than anybody in Hamas ever could have dreamed of.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
You know, in the war. I'm just talking about, you know,
post October seventh.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
So clearly they've got a big problem ahead of them,
and the Israelis are really getting a taste of what
this looks like.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
And finally, when I want to lose sight of the
continued assault on Gaza, this is one of the deadliest
strikes that we've had in quite a while.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
At least eighty people killed in Israeli missile strikes on
a school compound in Gaza City. Six thousand displaced people
were sheltering there. It was hit as they prepared for
the morning prayers, reportedly once again caused a fire. Video
from the scene, according to The Guardian, showed horrific loss
of life, with body parts, rubble and destroyed furniture scattered
(26:41):
across blood soaked mattresses. So you know, here we are
obviously more than a year after October seventh, and yes,
Amas is able to you know, to kill this colonel
who was quite significant. So they have not been defeated.
I don't think they're probably anywhere close. I don't have
(27:02):
always thought that it's probably not really possible to thoroughly
defeat Hamas. But Israel right back in Gaza City, Northern Gaza,
and you know, continuing this campaign of devastation annihilation, also
telling people once again to relocate, but in some instances
shooting them as they try to flee, floating this idea
of starving the population. There was a pr ploy effectively
(27:25):
last week where the US seemed to pressure Israel to
let them aid into northern Gaza. None had come in
since the beginning of October. There was a photo op
with fifty eight trucks, but all of the reports on
the ground suggested that none of that actually went to
northern Gaza.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
So that's where we are.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Yeah, all right, we got kin clip is Steen standing by.
Let's just get to it.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Very happy to be joined this morning.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
By journalist Ken Clippenstein, who may have just gotten himself
in trouble with the FBI yet again.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Ken, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Good just see you man. Hey, guys, good to be back.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
So effectively, Ken, you decided to publish some leaked US
intelligence documents which we're assessing Israel's likely response to Iran,
which we're still waiting to see what they have in store,
and there's been a big public debate about that.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
First talk to us.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Here's the piece that you posted on substack Israel props
for strike on Iran, top secret leak reveals.
Speaker 4 (28:16):
Read the US intelligence reports the media won't publish.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
So there's a lot about this that is quite significant,
including what is actually in the documents themselves. But just
talk to us a little bit about your decision to
go ahead and publish these documents, which is a move
that other mainstream outlets have not taken.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Yeah. So I got a copy of this from my
friend early on Thursday, and I thought to myself, oh, well,
this is already circulatding on social media. This would be
up in a matter of time. And by Friday morning
I realized not only have the documents not been published
in any major media outlet. The media had even talked
about it then, and it wasn't until that afternoon. This
(28:54):
was like more than twenty four hours after I'd been
circulating that Axios had the first story on it. Barackravid
reporter is very close to the White House. And what's
interesting is in his report they just describe they're just
call it, I call it, you know, trust us journalism,
Like here's what it says. You don't have to see it.
They didn't publish underlying intelligence reports. Subsequent to that, virtually
(29:16):
every major media outlet has now reported on it became
impossible to ignore after the Axios story, and I published
a few minutes after Axios. None of the other outlets,
not one has published the underlying intelligence report. And the
reason that that matters is because you're forced to sort
of rely on the media's paraphrase, not just the accuracy
(29:37):
of it, but even assuming that you know they have
the best of intentions and they're not too close to
the White House like I think Revid Barackravid is, but
just that they would understand what the general public is
interested in, and you know, just by pure accident, maybe
they don't. And I think the reporting on. This shows
that they don't know because they're getting key facts about
it wrong. So, for example, the intelligence reports come from
(29:58):
what's called the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which deals with
satellite imagery and analysis. It's been reported in both CNN
and Reuters. I'm not making this up. You can go
look it up that this was from the end. They
mentioned this coming from the NSA, which is factually untrue.
Total it shows you the problem with not giving people
the underlying records. Media ends up reporting, repeating each other,
(30:18):
and it becomes an echo chamber and they're not they're
not able to check their underlying facts because nobody has
the source material. Get to the source material, then, Ken,
what can we learn from it?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Exactly as just saw the rite up around what the
potential sites and all that could look like, and you
lay that out.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
For the audience. Yeah, what this shows is that despite
all the happy talk about our ironclad relationship with Israel
and how we have total trust, so on and so forth,
we are spying on each other aggressively. And it's not
just the satellite intelligence. It is human intelligence, you know, spies,
it is cyber intelligence, it's all sorts of different things
(30:54):
to paint a mosaic picture of what Israel is up
to because we can't take them at their word. We
don't take any nation state at its word. But in
the context of the conflict that you guys were just
describing in the previous segment, the stakes are really high,
and so it becomes important to look at not just
what are the officials saying and what are they saying
to us in private, but to look at their military exercises.
(31:17):
They were doing mid air refuel exercises, which is what
you would need to do if you were going to
strike your on because the distance from Tel Aviv from
Israel is far enough that they couldn't make it in
with one fuel tanker. And so you're looking at a
bunch of different characteristics, military readiness, special operations. This stuff
(31:39):
is really complicated, and so it shows that we, the
US intelligence community, the Pentagon is looking at every one
of these domains that might be indicative of an Israeli move.
And I think what this should show you is this
stuff is complex and it's not as straightforward as perhaps
Biden suggested. When they asked him, I said, do you
know about what Israel's going to do? He goes yes,
and yes, there are all kinds of different factors you
(32:00):
have to look at to try to make that judgment,
and that puts us in a dangerous position because it's
not a straightforward question about if we know what they're
going to do or not.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
The news outlets, all of them who chose not to
publish these documents, have they given any rationale for that decision?
And what do you think that their rationale would be?
Do you think part of it is just like when
I look at these documents, you know, they require some
understanding of underlying lingo, etc. To really makes sense of them,
(32:29):
So you have to be somewhat of an expert to
really glean much from them. Do you think that maybe
they just have the sense like, oh, the general public
isn't really going to understand these documents anyway, so we
need to encapsulate for them what it is and what
it means.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah. I don't have a problem explaining what the significance
is because, as you say, these are very technical documents.
They have all kinds of notations and markings on them
that are not something that you know, the naked eye
is that an ordinary person is going to know what
it means. But the problem is they're getting it wrong.
I mean, I just looked at the Times right up.
You could see a number of factual errors in it.
And as with science, the best thing for discourse is
(33:06):
to have it openly so that we can check each
other's errors. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes.
But when you don't put that underlying record out there,
then that conversation becomes difficult to have because people are
going off of something that not everyone can see. So
to answer your question, what was their rationale? In two
cases there were admirably frank mentions in I think it
(33:27):
was the CNN's article and ABC News' article where they say,
we are not publishing the underlying documents, and in both
cases they want to have further they said, we are
not even going to quote directly from them. What that
says to me is that they're saying, oh, look how
responsible we are. And that's an unhealthy place for the
media to be, to see itself as an adjunct of
the national security state. I don't think it means I
(33:48):
don't care about the country that I'm publishing these things.
My own view is it's already out there, guys. I
mean anyone can see it on Twitter. It's like we're
engaged in this theater of acting like, oh, by withholding
this somehow we're helping the secrecy. We're helping the task
of the US military, which is just absurd. So I
think that all of this is an outgrowth of what
I talked about last time I was on the show
(34:08):
about the Jdvans DOTSA and the media's perception that it
is deputized into some kind of national security responsibility on
the part of the federal government, which I think is
really unhealthy for the media to see itself.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
As Yeah, I remember, you know, so when we had
the disc club, the discord leaks that that was another
thing is you were getting to a very much way
you talked about. We settled on quoting from them because
I think, like you said, that's very important. At that time,
there was still like some consternation around whether that would
have actually like endangered troops because I wasn't as public
as the one you're talking about. But as you said,
if it's actually one hundred percent out there, it's out
(34:45):
there and it's not just media outlets that have it,
then you're not doing anybody any favors by just towing
the line for the national security state.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
That's what I think is really important. Yeah, I completely agree,
and you can tell the media they just don't want
to talk about this. I more than twenty four more
than twenty four hours after this thing was already circulating,
that we know, before they even had the first report
just vaguely mentioning it. You know, my editor and I
were able to verify the authenticity of it based on
the source of the intelligence community within about several hours.
(35:15):
And you know, I hope I don't have better sources
than the New York Times in the Washington Posts, because
we're in real trouble if those guys just don't have anybody.
So I'm guessing they could have done this all more quickly,
But it seems like there was only any motion after
my story in Axios's story came out and it sort
of became untenable to pretend it wasn't happening anymore. But
this view that the media is separate from the rest
of the public and seeing this stuff unfold on social
(35:37):
media is just indicative of this, you know, very unhealthy
self image that I think that the press has.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Yeah, let's talk about a little bit about where these
documents came from, and could put F two up on
the screen us apparently investigating the leak of these documents.
And you know, I also think that this reveals a
little bit too, because it's obviously not that the New
York Times on wash and posts never publish leaks out
of the National security state. It's just usually those leaks
(36:04):
are authorized leak of things that those groups want out
to the public.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
But because you have.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
This as an unauthorized leak, something that these agencies, you know,
find to be embarrassing to put out there, because you know,
it reveals what we think of these planes. Also reveals,
as you said, that even with this close ally, we're
still having to spy on them to figure out what
the heck that they're up to. Just speak a little
bit to that in the response here where they're launching
this investigation and try to figure out who leaked these
(36:32):
documents and if you have any insight into how high
level the individual would have to be to have gained
access to these documents.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
My understanding is that I don't think this has been
reported yet, is that the sense of the investigators is
that this must have been a relatively low level individual
similar to Jack Tshierra, the US Airmen that was responsible
for the Discord leaks. That's kind of the preliminary assessment
right now, but certainly the view that this was an
insider within the US intelligence community. I've seen a lot
(37:01):
of speculation about, you know, where this going to come from.
I mentioned before some of the errors in reporting I've
seen again and again it asserted that the possibility that
this was from an Iranian hack, which is absurd because
these are top secret documents which live on a server
call on a system called JWIX, the US Military intelligence system,
which is air gapped, so by definition, it couldn't have
(37:22):
been hacked. It's not connected to the Internet, and that's
something you can tell at a glance. Anyone who understands
how the top secret system works knows that these things
are put in skiffs, you know, secure compartmented information facilities
that are not in any way connected to the Internet
that you have to physically go into a you know,
vault to look at. That's that's you know, cordoned off
(37:45):
from the rest of the world. So the fact that
the media is getting these very basic facts wrong is
both embarrassing and a reminder of how important it is
to be vetting the records that their claims are based on,
because this is elementary stuff. I'm not trying to just
ding them on. You know, the errors that invariably occur
when you're reporting on something in real time, that's unavoidable.
(38:07):
But to but to to say this is an iraniant
hack just misunderstands the very basis of how the US
intelligence system even works.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Well said, Ken, thank you so much for sharing with
us you're reporting. Tell people how they can follow you
in and support your work.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
We run a substock and that's at Ken Klippenstein dot
substack dot com.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Always great to see you, my friends.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Good luck with that next visit from the FBI and
that second Yeah you got that guy, are going to
be buddies.
Speaker 3 (38:39):
Yeah, I'll put out some coffee for you. You got
to record it. You got to record it. That's I
got to get a ring camera this time. So just memorize, lawyer.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
I have nothing to say, listen, I just have to say,
you have some balls, my friend, and I really respect
the hell out of you for it.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
All right, take care, can We'll see you soon, bio.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Thank you guys so much for watching, we appreciate you.
Become a premiusubscriber if you can't otherwise from Steam
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We also want to just take a quick look at
how Kamala Harris is bearing with a group that really
could be pivotal, especially in the state of Michigan, which
is Arab American voters. There was recently a focus group
that was convened and wasn't great for Kamala Harris because
every single panelist said they will not vote for Kamala
(00:46):
Harris and that at this point, given her support for
Joe Biden's policies Visavi Israel's Jonasid in the Gaza strip,
there is nothing she could do at this point that
would win them back.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Let's take a listen to how that went.
Speaker 5 (00:57):
Who was voting for Donald Trump and four it's possible,
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yeah, it's definitely not by Harris, that's for sure.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
Who's voting for Kamala Harris here? Absolutely no, No, not possible.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
There's nothing she can do or say for us to
change our mind.
Speaker 5 (01:17):
Who's voting third party in twenty twenty four, good chance,
so Jill Stein slightly.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
It's also possible to this less, we'll just abstain from
voting altogether. But we do know that that's not the
best political strategy.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
You know, why are you voting for Donald Trump? Because
my main goal is to get someone who is actively
funding a genocide out of office. Is your vote for
Donald Trump a vote endorsing Donald Trump? Or is it
a vote against Kamala Harris?
Speaker 4 (01:46):
Against Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Donald Trump has said he will reinstate the Muslim ban,
so that last time he's said that he wants Natagnell
who to finish the Jobnald Trump said a lot of
things his first time around that terrified me. The campaign
that the Democrats ran was that Donald Trump pays us.
I felt safe well in the country when Trump was
(02:11):
in office. I don't feel safe right now with Kamala
in office. So I mean that to me speaks more.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
He's donning and We've seen polling among Arab Americans in
Michigan and other swing states that suggests a majority of
them may in fact vote for Ji Jill Stein. And
you've seen the Democrats actually launch their first ever ad
campaign specifically against Jill Stein. So you know, it's not
(02:37):
surprising necessarily to hear these voters say, yeah, there's nothing
she could do, like it's too much, it's too long,
She's she had a chance to separate herself from this policy,
and at every opportunity she's done the opposite. At every
opportunity she's chosen a signal no, I will do exactly
what Joe Biden did. So, you know, if Democrats lose
(02:59):
Michigan because of this voting block, they have no one
but themselves to blame, Like, don't blame Jill Stein, don't
blame third parties, don't blame Donald Trump even you know,
you have yourselves to blame for number one, backing and
absolutely immoral policy, and number two.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
You know, just completely.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Ignoring what was a massive movement against this policy in
including you know, huge numbers of activists on the ground,
including a massive amount of energy, including if you just
look at the polls, like overwhelming majority of people want
certainly a ceasefire, but also to withhold weapons from Israel
(03:45):
to to you know, to end this core that we've
all seen in our social media feeds every day. So
I'm glad that they talk to these voters, and I'm
glad Democrats will have to look at that on their
favorite network and understand that you don't get to lecture
these people about who they're going to.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
But in reality, what happens, They're just going to run
ads about how Jill Stein is bad. I mean, the
Stein campaign or the anti Stein campaign might be the
most vicious that I've ever seen it. There's a New
York Times hit piece out this morning. There's the Democratic ads.
They've got Democratic activists now actively trying to smear her
every single day on the timeline and this is exactly why.
(04:20):
But as you said, it's actually on Kamala. If you
look at the way that she even talks about the issue.
Here she is being asked in Detroit about Israel, Palestine,
about Gaza, about message to Muslim voters.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Take a listen, how risky is it that you could
lose the election?
Speaker 6 (04:37):
Well, it is undeniable that it is something that everyone
is aware of what is happening there. I speak publicly
all the time about the fact that there are so
many tragic stories coming from Gaza, and of course, the
first in this phase of everything that has happened, the
first most tragic story is October seventh and what happened
(05:03):
that day, and then what has happened since. And I
think what's critically important as we look at this moment
is one acknowledging the tragedy of what has happened in
Gaza in terms of the extraordinary number of innocent Palestinians
have been killed, and taking that seriously and speaking truth
about that. In addition, of course to what I said
(05:25):
about what happened on October seven, in terms of twelve
hundred innocent Israelis being slaughtered, women being horribly raped, and
then fast forwarding to today with the killing of Sinoar,
this creates an opening that I believe we must take
full advantage of to dedicate ourselves to ending this war
(05:46):
and bringing the hostages home.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I don't know if you caught that everybody else, but
what did she say? The first and most tragic thing
that happened was October seventh. If you're a Muslim, voter
you're hearing that in Detroit, Like, what are you exactly
if Gaza's your number one issue?
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Like what exactly are supposed to take away from that?
Speaker 1 (06:03):
I mean, we're talking about a significant number of voters
who literally have family.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Members who are in Detroit yet.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Directly impacted, you know, who may have literally lost family members.
And you know, I maybe I shouldn't harb on this,
but it just really displays to me the outrageous double
standard that she has never, to my knowledge, that anything
about the proven, documented systematic use of rape by the
(06:31):
IDF against Palestinian detainees, for which there is vastly more
evidence than that of systematic rape on October seventh. And
I know these are uncomfortable things to say, but that's
just the fact and the reality.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
And you know that.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Narrative has been used over and over again by her
and so many others to justify everything that has come after.
That I think is important, even as it is uncomfortable
to call it out once again and to point out
on the other side, actually there is multiple even the
Israelis themselves at least attempted to arrest some IDF members
(07:11):
for their rape of a Palestinian detainee. We have multiple
independent reports suggesting this is not a one off. This
was a systematic policy of abuse within this effectively concentration
camp that they have set up. And you know, so
I know a lot of listen. I think the voters
who said there's nothing she could do at this point, like,
(07:31):
I believe them, and I think that that's perfectly understandable
position to take. And you know, I can or others
can say till we're blue in the face, like Trump
would be worse, and I think that's true. Miriam Maddison
is one of his top donors, roughly one hundred million dollars.
She wants to just completely annex the West Bank. So
you were pointing out Israeli is very clear on who
they would rather have as president of the United States,
(07:52):
as like sixty eight percent say they would prefer Donald Trump.
Bib and at Yaho very clear that he would prefer
Donald Trump on the off chance that Kamala Harris actually
done something different than Joe Biden. But you know, I
think all of that amounts to not a lot when
you're talking to people who really care about this, you've
been watching this, or may even have a direct personal
steak in the real check.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
That woman who she was like, look, I'm just voting
against that person, and i want to punish them.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
So that's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I mean, that's a perfectly understandable position, you know, like
you just say, you can say to you like for
till you're blue in the face, as you said, like,
well if it's different, except but that's you know, it's
a different way of thinking, especially if you've got personal steaks.
So she's got real issues. We did mention this about Elon.
Let's put this up on the screen. This is currently
going around. A funded pack by Musk is currently micro
(08:39):
targeting Muslim people in Michigan and Jewish people in Pennsylvania
with opposite messaging about Kamala Harris using zip code targeting.
One on the left says Kamala Harris stands with Israel.
That's too Muslim voters in Michigan to Jewish voters in
Pennsylvania saying two face, Kamala Harris stands with palesigine, not
our ally Israel that has crossed out, and we're true.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Be a little more to face. Comm let's see it.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, I mean, it's obviously like obviously a deeply cynical strategy,
but it also reveals it also reveals that they that
Elon musk At leaves his pack believes this is you know,
an effective, an effective direction and an important fisher within
the Democratic coalition and are doing what they can to
try to exploit it.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Yeah, I don't think that it's funny because it's actually
probably more resonant on the Muslim part. But all the
data that we have right now is that, you know,
American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats. I voted for like sixty
or so, almost seventy percent for Joe Biden last time Aroundeah,
I have not seen a single scrap of like large
scale sample data that outside of like Bill Ackman and
(09:46):
like rich Jews work in finance, that there's been any
sort of grand realigning it.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, it's Trump thinks of Jews in the stereotypical way
that like Democrats are twenty sixteen, we're thinking about Latinos
in life voters of like, oh your brown immigration must
be your number one issue, or oh you're black, like
criminal justice reform must be the only thing that you
care about. He thinks the only thing Jewish voter should
(10:12):
care about is Israel, right, And that's I mean, it
is anti semitic to think, first of all, to associate
every Jew with this out of control genocidal state is
in my opinion, anti semitic. And number two, just to
collapse any large demographic group down to like a single
issue like oh, you're one of those people, this is
what you care about is gross and you know, and racist,
(10:35):
I think in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So you know, which I also said.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
When it came to Democrats stereotyping the same way. So yeah,
he's of course wrong. And when you look at the polls,
majority of American Jews want to cease fire quite a
large number. Also, you know hate bb NA Naho. By
the way, the greatest supporters of bb Nan Yahoo by
religious group in this country are not American Jews. They
are American evangelicals who who support Baby Nanaou And whatever
(11:02):
he wants to do, it must give part blanche.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
So you know this is part of what Donald Trump's
coalition is very aligned on the issue of Israel. They're
very pro Israel pretty much across the board. There's a
very marginal dissent, and you know, their critique is that
Kamala and Joe Biden have not done enough, have not
given bib enough of a blank check.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
That's their position.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
But yeah, since there is somewhat of a fracture in
the Democratic base, especially between Democratic elites and base voters,
Republicans are you know, trying to exploit that understandably as
best that they can. And you know, ultimately, again it's
it comes down to the actual policy and Kamala's complete
(11:47):
unwillingness to break from Joe Biden on an area.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
And again for people who don't.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Really care about this issue, which is a majority of
Americans who don't who aren't going to be voting on it,
you know, she could have done herself some favors too,
just by actually breaking with Biden on an issue, since
that's been something she's really struggled with as well, just
creating some space.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And showing she's her own person.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
So, you know, it's just it's a moral and political
failure on every level, is basically all you can say
about it at this point. All right, let's go ahead
and move on to Israel. So last week we brought
you the news that Israel had assassinated yeah Yah Sinoar
that of course an extraordinary development. He was the you know,
(12:29):
he was the leader of Hamas, especially after the assassination
previously of Ismail Haniah, who had been the head of
the political branch of Hamas. He also was the architect
in large part of October seventh, so incredibly significant develops
their developments there. In the wake of that news, MSNBC shockingly,
one of my old friends, Amanroyle Dean there brought on
(12:51):
our friend dropsite co founder Jeremy Scahill to talk about
the significance of these events, and he really called out
MSNBC on there our own airwaves.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (13:02):
I just want to begin by saying that as we're
speaking tonight, the Israelis are waging an extermination campaign in
the north of Gaza. For the past two weeks, they've
surrounded the area and they've intensified it after the killing
of Jakhas Sinoir. No food or medicine of any kind
has reached most parts of the north. I'm in direct touch.
(13:23):
I'm in with medical officials in the north and with
journalists a colleagues. I understand that at least eighty people
have been killed tonight in a horrifying set of attacks
on half a dozen residential buildings. I've just gotten done
seeing images from the ground where children are being shredded
like meat in a butcher's shop. I don't understand how
(13:44):
any of us, whether we're journalists or not, this isn't
about objectivity, how any of us can watch this genocide
unfolded real time and watch the pontificating of the politicians
running for president and not just cry out this has
to stop. I mean, this has to stop. We've looked
at this. I mean, I know you've id it on
the ground from Gaza. I mean, we're watching a genocide
in real time, and I'm sorry, but on this network
(14:04):
also there are people who have promoted propaganda from Israel.
There are people cheerleading for those running for office who
are lying to the American people about concern for the Palestinians.
And yes, we should talk about Yaha Sinhar, but Yahka
Sinwar is also in many ways the story of Gaza.
You know, yes, this was a violent man, but his
violence was rooted in the fact that he was born
(14:26):
in a refugee camp and Israel, throughout his entire life
waged a war of annihilation against the Palestinians. I'm not
here to defend Yakha Sinwar. I'm here to say that
we can't talk about who yah Ja Sinhwar was or
what Hamas is without talking about seventy six years of colonialism,
of apartheid, of mass killing, of mowing the lawn, of
(14:48):
controlling the calories.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
No lines detected there.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Let me just say, Aiman is such a real one
for bringing Jeremy on.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I in trouble for that one.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Yeah, and Jeremy, I'm quite sure where that was the
last time're going to se Jeremy on smbc's airways for
quite a while. You know, he used to be And
if you guys go and listen to the interview that
Ryan and Emily did with Jeremy. He used to be
a fixture on MSNBC. Rachel Mattow have him on all
the time back in the era when it was the
Bush era, and you know, they were all aligned and
going after George W. Bush and you know, exposing torture
(15:19):
and all the abuses of that era.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
They love to have him on. And then the moment
that it.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Was the Obama era and Jeremy was still doing this
thing and say, hey, he's you know, increased the drone
ward like pointing out the failures there. Suddenly that was it,
he was asked, and he's never heard from Rachel Matdow
since because he did I think something similar of calling
out MSNBC on her program, and she expressed to him
in real time like you can't do that, this is
(15:45):
a problem, and then that was it for his So
I don't know, this was his first return to MSNBC
since that era, which would have been you know, quite
a while ago. But I again don't expect we'll see
him back there for another maybe two decades.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Yeah, exactly. I mean his story like he told with
I mean Ryan too. Ryan was an MSNBC contributor. You
guys were on there and then you know, at a
certain point they made a decision. They're like, this is
the direction.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
We're going in.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Obviously, look at it has worked, right. They are the
number two cable news network. Yes, they have the oldest
audience and all of cable news, seventy two years old
boomer white liberals. These are mostly people who love the network,
but for them like this is genuinely shocking to see
something like this. Anybody who watches our show or frankly,
he's even on the Internet. You could be a pro
Israel person on the Internet and you would still not
(16:30):
be shocked by something Jeremy has to say. But the
thing is is that on that network and him calling
them out directly on their face, I do think it
has some power, you know, to hear hear it stated
that because it's so foreign, it's such a foreign even
way of thinking.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, That's why Tony E. C.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Coats and his book and his interview rounds have been
so significant too, is that, you know, that perspective is
just mostly almost completely absent from elite media airwaves, whether
it's MSNBC, New York Times, I'm, CNN, Fox News, et cetera.
So so anyway, it was quite quite striking to see
that perspective offered there.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
I really suspect.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Aiman will get in trouble for all Jeremy on because
he already has been under quite a bit of fire,
remember after October seventh, Yeah, they took him off the
air for a while. Obviously, medi got fired for probably
for his approach to that conflict, and especially the aggressive
way that he would question people about the conflict is
probably specifically what got him canned, possibly by the ADL.
(17:31):
People are very influential there, so we'll keep an eye
on that. At the same time, I referenced earlier that
Israel for some reason decided to actually put out the
video of Yeah, I guess and More's final moments. We
can put this up on the screen so we can
take a look at some of this. You know, this
was after he had already been part of a battle
(17:52):
with a tank and the idea have to not find him.
You can see him sitting in that chair and it
looks like his arm is you know, like potentially severed.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Uh yeah, the photo did show.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, it appears to look like it's partially severed. So
he's basically as one arm. He uses that one arm
you'll see here at a moment this is a drone
that's surveilling him. He uses that one arm to throw
a stick at the drone camera. And so, you know,
this video kind of dispelled some of the Israeli mythology
about him. You know, they had portrayed him really as
(18:24):
like a rat hiding in tunnels. They also portrayed themselves
as knowing exactly where he was located and saying he
was surrounded by hostages and some underground bunker, and here
he is actually you know, fighting to the bitter end,
throwing a stick at the drone that's sent into to
assassinate him. And you know, I think that part saga
(18:46):
I'm interested for your reaction here, you know, part is
the Israelis for their domestic audience just seeing him finished.
And in this, you know, in this state where he's
surrounded by rubble and all the level of devis station
like for an Israeli domestic audience, this plays well. And
I think that's probably bebing Aa who's primary concern thought.
(19:07):
But in terms of the global impression, and even especially
among Palestinians, many of whom, according to Poles, had.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Really turned on sinewa Orse. They blame him because they blame.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Him in part for you know, I think they blame
Israel too, but they're like, you brought this upon us,
and they bought into this idea that you're you know,
living this more luxurious life and you're hiding, well, we're
being bombed. This has increased a large amount of sympathy
for him within the Palistinian population and bestowed on him
a sort of like valor that is really propaganda had
(19:39):
effectively robbed.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Him up proof.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
I'm just struck by the difference between the US and
between Israel. Here, let's put this up on the screen.
This is from the Wall Street Journal. It says in
depth hamas leader may have won wider support than when
he was alive. And there's just so many differences. If
you look at the way that the US operated against
Osamb and Laden. For example, there's a photo allegedly of
Bin Laden's face like split it half, like a and
cake or something that when he was shot by those
(20:03):
Navy seals and steal Team six, and that was never
released to the public. They made great effort to make
sure that he could never be seen as a martyr
or to give Isis, which was big at that time,
any propaganda or al Qaeda, and they may buried his
body at sea, you know, make sure that there was
never any grave that people could flock to. It was
(20:23):
just a very different reaction. And I mean, what I
would point out is people celebrated here. I was there
at the White House to night that Bin Laden was killed.
It's one of the craziest, honestly moments of my life
just remembering what that was like. You know, for the
country and for everything. It's not like people didn't celebrate
and Obama didn't get the political bump that he needed,
I guess, you know, if we're going to talk in
crafts terms. But there was also a lot of thought about, hey,
(20:45):
if we're going to do this, then we shouldn't release video.
We should make sure that this doesn't become like a
major thing in the Arab world or for people who
are radical Islamists to be able to flock around. And
this was like the opposite reaction that Israel decided to pursue.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I would say even with that, I believe the bag
Daddy video was never released, you know, by Trump. So
it's not like Trump, I mean, obviously very different person
than Obama and the way that he thought about things,
even he never did that, you know, whenever Bagdaddy was killed.
So that's just the major difference in the way that
our countries look at these things. And I think probably
because we have more experience with a twenty year g
(21:20):
WAT you know, blowback campaign of what happened when we
did try to have all these celebratory actions during the
Iraq War and we found out hard in two thousand
and five and two thousand and six, what that looks like.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
I think there's also just.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Such as a gulf, massive gulf between how the Israeli
domestic audience consumes these things versus how the global audience
consumes these things. You know, when you look at the
polling and you have you know, the preponderance of opinions
saying we weren't tough enough in Gaza and we haven't
you know, been brutal enough in Gaza. That's why we
from the beginning had this question like why are they
why aren't they taking the phones of the idea of
(21:55):
soldiers so they can stop recording their war crimes, you know,
And the answer is because they actually, from a domestic
political standpoint, they liked the recording of the death, destruction,
extermination for crimes. They liked it. Those soldiers that were
posting these things became like, you know, heroes who were
fed it at these various way let's resettle Gaza conferences.
(22:16):
So the victory that's on offer to the Israeli people
is one of utter annihilation. And so the more that
those images of annihilation are shown to the Israeli domestic audience,
the you know, the better BB does in the polls,
and the more he's able to hold on to power,
because that's that is the real victory that he is
(22:37):
promising them. So I think that's part of why I
saw some people theorizing that maybe the idea of hate
phoebe and so they leaked this to like undermine what
he'd been saying. But I don't buy that. I think
they this is to feed the Israeli domestic audience who
loves to see him there in the rubble in his
final moments. And you know, the Wall Street Journal again
(23:00):
to cite a very mainstream publication here and their analysis,
they interviewed a number of individuals. One one, Gosen, said
that once they saw the footage, it changed his mind
about Sinwar. He said it showed he was fighting until
the very end. Another analyst said it makes a difference
to people in the Arab world that he was above ground,
that he didn't escape, that he was fighting. How and
(23:21):
where he died also refutes the Israeli narrative of Sinwar
abandoning the people of Gaza. Many people feel Israel can't
pretend this is a big achievement because his killing wasn't
planned or done through using intelligence, so you know, pretty
I think it's pretty revelatory their decision to release this
video on what it says about Bibe's mindset and Israeli societies.
(23:42):
At the same time, you know, there was let's put
this up on the screen. Apparently Bibe's own house came
under attack. Israel's government said that a drone Hesbaled drone
targeted Prime Minister Benjamin netna Who's house on Saturday. There
were no casualties, but you know, an attempted assassination here
on bbnatnah who.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
Certainly.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Israel's military said dozens of projectiles were launched from lebanon,
day after HESBLAD announced a new phase in fighting. Netnahu's
office said that drone targeted his house in the Mediterranean
coastal town of I don't know how to say this, Cesaria.
Maybe yeah, neither he nor his wife was there. Wasn't
clear if the house was hit, and of course we
know from the military sensors. He will not allow you
(24:23):
to report whether the house was hit or not. That's
something they're very sensitive about showing any damage from attacks
from Iran or from HESBLA. We can also put this
up on the screen. Israel taking a significant hit in
terms of one of their top IDF commanders. This is
Colonel Asan Doxa. It says lieutenant colonel, but it was
actually a full colonel Asan Dosa, commander of Israel's foreign
(24:46):
our first brigade, killed today in what this individual describes
as a precise ambush by Palestinian fighters in Jabalia. This
colonel very significant saga because he was really in charge
of that assault on Jabalia refugee camp. So that's why
it's quite noteworthy that he was killed by Hamas or
(25:06):
other Aligne fighters there.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Well, also a little bit of a preview, what does
it look like that's a you have got the army
to come in refugee camp.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
He was killed by an IED.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
So they're learning exactly the same problems that the US
forces learned in Iraq.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
We were.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Some of the initial reporting said that some of the
IED was actually assembled with unexploded ordinance that the israe
Israel had dropped onto the Hongaza, which again same thing
that people learned in Afghanistan. That is a classic play
out of Afghanistan in Iraq. You can ask anybody who
served over there, like these things are very deadly. And
the more that they operate there and in Lebanon against
(25:42):
Hesbola much more competent you know, enemy, which has already
proven the ability to strike at them effectively, even hit
Beebe's house. I mean, already they have accomplished more like
better tactics against the IDF and their ability to penetrate
Israeli defenses than anybody in Hamas ever could have dreamed of.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
You know, in the war. I'm just talking about, you know,
post October seventh.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
So clearly they've got a big problem ahead of them,
and the Israelis are really getting a taste of what
this looks like.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
And finally, when I want to lose sight of the
continued assault on Gaza, this is one of the deadliest
strikes that we've had in quite a while.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
At least eighty people killed in Israeli missile strikes on
a school compound in Gaza City. Six thousand displaced people
were sheltering there. It was hit as they prepared for
the morning prayers, reportedly once again caused a fire. Video
from the scene, according to The Guardian, showed horrific loss
of life, with body parts, rubble and destroyed furniture scattered
(26:41):
across blood soaked mattresses. So you know, here we are
obviously more than a year after October seventh, and yes,
Amas is able to you know, to kill this colonel
who was quite significant. So they have not been defeated.
I don't think they're probably anywhere close. I don't have
(27:02):
always thought that it's probably not really possible to thoroughly
defeat Hamas. But Israel right back in Gaza City, Northern Gaza,
and you know, continuing this campaign of devastation annihilation, also
telling people once again to relocate, but in some instances
shooting them as they try to flee, floating this idea
of starving the population. There was a pr ploy effectively
(27:25):
last week where the US seemed to pressure Israel to
let them aid into northern Gaza. None had come in
since the beginning of October. There was a photo op
with fifty eight trucks, but all of the reports on
the ground suggested that none of that actually went to
northern Gaza.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
So that's where we are.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Yeah, all right, we got kin clip is Steen standing by.
Let's just get to it.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Very happy to be joined this morning.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
By journalist Ken Clippenstein, who may have just gotten himself
in trouble with the FBI yet again.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Ken, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Good just see you man. Hey, guys, good to be back.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
So effectively, Ken, you decided to publish some leaked US
intelligence documents which we're assessing Israel's likely response to Iran,
which we're still waiting to see what they have in store,
and there's been a big public debate about that.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
First talk to us.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Here's the piece that you posted on substack Israel props
for strike on Iran, top secret leak reveals.
Speaker 4 (28:16):
Read the US intelligence reports the media won't publish.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
So there's a lot about this that is quite significant,
including what is actually in the documents themselves. But just
talk to us a little bit about your decision to
go ahead and publish these documents, which is a move
that other mainstream outlets have not taken.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Yeah. So I got a copy of this from my
friend early on Thursday, and I thought to myself, oh, well,
this is already circulatding on social media. This would be
up in a matter of time. And by Friday morning
I realized not only have the documents not been published
in any major media outlet. The media had even talked
about it then, and it wasn't until that afternoon. This
(28:54):
was like more than twenty four hours after I'd been
circulating that Axios had the first story on it. Barackravid
reporter is very close to the White House. And what's
interesting is in his report they just describe they're just
call it, I call it, you know, trust us journalism,
Like here's what it says. You don't have to see it.
They didn't publish underlying intelligence reports. Subsequent to that, virtually
(29:16):
every major media outlet has now reported on it became
impossible to ignore after the Axios story, and I published
a few minutes after Axios. None of the other outlets,
not one has published the underlying intelligence report. And the
reason that that matters is because you're forced to sort
of rely on the media's paraphrase, not just the accuracy
(29:37):
of it, but even assuming that you know they have
the best of intentions and they're not too close to
the White House like I think Revid Barackravid is, but
just that they would understand what the general public is
interested in, and you know, just by pure accident, maybe
they don't. And I think the reporting on. This shows
that they don't know because they're getting key facts about
it wrong. So, for example, the intelligence reports come from
(29:58):
what's called the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which deals with
satellite imagery and analysis. It's been reported in both CNN
and Reuters. I'm not making this up. You can go
look it up that this was from the end. They
mentioned this coming from the NSA, which is factually untrue.
Total it shows you the problem with not giving people
the underlying records. Media ends up reporting, repeating each other,
(30:18):
and it becomes an echo chamber and they're not they're
not able to check their underlying facts because nobody has
the source material. Get to the source material, then, Ken,
what can we learn from it?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Exactly as just saw the rite up around what the
potential sites and all that could look like, and you
lay that out.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
For the audience. Yeah, what this shows is that despite
all the happy talk about our ironclad relationship with Israel
and how we have total trust, so on and so forth,
we are spying on each other aggressively. And it's not
just the satellite intelligence. It is human intelligence, you know, spies,
it is cyber intelligence, it's all sorts of different things
(30:54):
to paint a mosaic picture of what Israel is up
to because we can't take them at their word. We
don't take any nation state at its word. But in
the context of the conflict that you guys were just
describing in the previous segment, the stakes are really high,
and so it becomes important to look at not just
what are the officials saying and what are they saying
to us in private, but to look at their military exercises.
(31:17):
They were doing mid air refuel exercises, which is what
you would need to do if you were going to
strike your on because the distance from Tel Aviv from
Israel is far enough that they couldn't make it in
with one fuel tanker. And so you're looking at a
bunch of different characteristics, military readiness, special operations. This stuff
(31:39):
is really complicated, and so it shows that we, the
US intelligence community, the Pentagon is looking at every one
of these domains that might be indicative of an Israeli move.
And I think what this should show you is this
stuff is complex and it's not as straightforward as perhaps
Biden suggested. When they asked him, I said, do you
know about what Israel's going to do? He goes yes,
and yes, there are all kinds of different factors you
(32:00):
have to look at to try to make that judgment,
and that puts us in a dangerous position because it's
not a straightforward question about if we know what they're
going to do or not.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
The news outlets, all of them who chose not to
publish these documents, have they given any rationale for that decision?
And what do you think that their rationale would be?
Do you think part of it is just like when
I look at these documents, you know, they require some
understanding of underlying lingo, etc. To really makes sense of them,
(32:29):
So you have to be somewhat of an expert to
really glean much from them. Do you think that maybe
they just have the sense like, oh, the general public
isn't really going to understand these documents anyway, so we
need to encapsulate for them what it is and what
it means.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah. I don't have a problem explaining what the significance
is because, as you say, these are very technical documents.
They have all kinds of notations and markings on them
that are not something that you know, the naked eye
is that an ordinary person is going to know what
it means. But the problem is they're getting it wrong.
I mean, I just looked at the Times right up.
You could see a number of factual errors in it.
And as with science, the best thing for discourse is
(33:06):
to have it openly so that we can check each
other's errors. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes.
But when you don't put that underlying record out there,
then that conversation becomes difficult to have because people are
going off of something that not everyone can see. So
to answer your question, what was their rationale? In two
cases there were admirably frank mentions in I think it
(33:27):
was the CNN's article and ABC News' article where they say,
we are not publishing the underlying documents, and in both
cases they want to have further they said, we are
not even going to quote directly from them. What that
says to me is that they're saying, oh, look how
responsible we are. And that's an unhealthy place for the
media to be, to see itself as an adjunct of
the national security state. I don't think it means I
(33:48):
don't care about the country that I'm publishing these things.
My own view is it's already out there, guys. I
mean anyone can see it on Twitter. It's like we're
engaged in this theater of acting like, oh, by withholding
this somehow we're helping the secrecy. We're helping the task
of the US military, which is just absurd. So I
think that all of this is an outgrowth of what
I talked about last time I was on the show
(34:08):
about the Jdvans DOTSA and the media's perception that it
is deputized into some kind of national security responsibility on
the part of the federal government, which I think is
really unhealthy for the media to see itself.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
As Yeah, I remember, you know, so when we had
the disc club, the discord leaks that that was another
thing is you were getting to a very much way
you talked about. We settled on quoting from them because
I think, like you said, that's very important. At that time,
there was still like some consternation around whether that would
have actually like endangered troops because I wasn't as public
as the one you're talking about. But as you said,
if it's actually one hundred percent out there, it's out
(34:45):
there and it's not just media outlets that have it,
then you're not doing anybody any favors by just towing
the line for the national security state.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
That's what I think is really important. Yeah, I completely agree,
and you can tell the media they just don't want
to talk about this. I more than twenty four more
than twenty four hours after this thing was already circulating,
that we know, before they even had the first report
just vaguely mentioning it. You know, my editor and I
were able to verify the authenticity of it based on
the source of the intelligence community within about several hours.
(35:15):
And you know, I hope I don't have better sources
than the New York Times in the Washington Posts, because
we're in real trouble if those guys just don't have anybody.
So I'm guessing they could have done this all more quickly,
But it seems like there was only any motion after
my story in Axios's story came out and it sort
of became untenable to pretend it wasn't happening anymore. But
this view that the media is separate from the rest
of the public and seeing this stuff unfold on social
(35:37):
media is just indicative of this, you know, very unhealthy
self image that I think that the press has.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Yeah, let's talk about a little bit about where these
documents came from, and could put F two up on
the screen us apparently investigating the leak of these documents.
And you know, I also think that this reveals a
little bit too, because it's obviously not that the New
York Times on wash and posts never publish leaks out
of the National security state. It's just usually those leaks
(36:04):
are authorized leak of things that those groups want out
to the public.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
But because you have.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
This as an unauthorized leak, something that these agencies, you know,
find to be embarrassing to put out there, because you know,
it reveals what we think of these planes. Also reveals,
as you said, that even with this close ally, we're
still having to spy on them to figure out what
the heck that they're up to. Just speak a little
bit to that in the response here where they're launching
this investigation and try to figure out who leaked these
(36:32):
documents and if you have any insight into how high
level the individual would have to be to have gained
access to these documents.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
My understanding is that I don't think this has been
reported yet, is that the sense of the investigators is
that this must have been a relatively low level individual
similar to Jack Tshierra, the US Airmen that was responsible
for the Discord leaks. That's kind of the preliminary assessment
right now, but certainly the view that this was an
insider within the US intelligence community. I've seen a lot
(37:01):
of speculation about, you know, where this going to come from.
I mentioned before some of the errors in reporting I've
seen again and again it asserted that the possibility that
this was from an Iranian hack, which is absurd because
these are top secret documents which live on a server
call on a system called JWIX, the US Military intelligence system,
which is air gapped, so by definition, it couldn't have
(37:22):
been hacked. It's not connected to the Internet, and that's
something you can tell at a glance. Anyone who understands
how the top secret system works knows that these things
are put in skiffs, you know, secure compartmented information facilities
that are not in any way connected to the Internet
that you have to physically go into a you know,
vault to look at. That's that's you know, cordoned off
(37:45):
from the rest of the world. So the fact that
the media is getting these very basic facts wrong is
both embarrassing and a reminder of how important it is
to be vetting the records that their claims are based on,
because this is elementary stuff. I'm not trying to just
ding them on. You know, the errors that invariably occur
when you're reporting on something in real time, that's unavoidable.
(38:07):
But to but to to say this is an iraniant
hack just misunderstands the very basis of how the US
intelligence system even works.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Well said, Ken, thank you so much for sharing with
us you're reporting. Tell people how they can follow you
in and support your work.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
We run a substock and that's at Ken Klippenstein dot
substack dot com.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Always great to see you, my friends.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Good luck with that next visit from the FBI and
that second Yeah you got that guy, are going to
be buddies.
Speaker 3 (38:39):
Yeah, I'll put out some coffee for you. You got
to record it. You got to record it. That's I
got to get a ring camera this time. So just memorize, lawyer.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
I have nothing to say, listen, I just have to say,
you have some balls, my friend, and I really respect
the hell out of you for it.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
All right, take care, can We'll see you soon, bio.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Thank you guys so much for watching, we appreciate you.
Become a premiusubscriber if you can't otherwise from Steam
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.