4/22/24: Speaker Says Bible Told Me To Fund Ukraine and Israel, US Vetos Palestinian Statehood, Man Self Immolates Outside Trump Trial, UAW Volkswagen Victory, Tucker Calls Out Bari Weiss, Columbia University Protests

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.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage 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. Good morning, everybody,
Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody day.
What do we have RSTL.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Indeed we do. There was a hell of a lot
happening this weekend. Your tax dollars going to foreign wars.
How excited are we about the bipartisan consensus that always
seems to win in Washington. We've got some big news
out of Israel. A couple things to look at. So
the US vetoing a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN
Security Council. We'll talk about the fallout from that. Also,

(00:50):
BB apparently worried about potential arrest warrants coming from the
International Criminal Court, so lots of break down. There've also
got some Trump news for you man self. Ima outside
of his trial last week, but also opening statements start today,
so a lot to break down. There also some interesting
conspiracy theories about what Trump has been up to while
he's in the courtroom. Don't want to miss that one.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
You're going to enjoy it.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, huge victory for labor and the United Auto Workers
in particular, a resounding win at that Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.
Will break down what happened and what it means going forward.
Got a couple of highlights for you from Tucker on
Joe Rogan going in on a few people and floating
us through a few interesting theories.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
Yeah, we'll discuss.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
We've got thoughts on and we've got a great guest
on today, Prump Thoker, to talk about these protests happening
specifically at Columbia that have been become a big subject
of national attention and debate. The President issuing a statement,
Eric Adams issuing a statement. So we will tell you
what the hell is going on there.

Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yes, of course that is the most important story in
the country to our elites. But of course that makes
sense especially with or We're going to begin our show today.
Before we get to that, we've teased in a million
times and it is coming. We've got a big announcement
that's coming soon from Emily and Ryan. You'll hear it
first from them. But of course if you want to
help us out, all of us breakingpoints dot com to
be able to support some of that work. It's a
big announcement that our premium subscribers are going to know

(02:11):
about first, and they're also going to get exclusive access
to whatever that future content may be.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
So just put that out there.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
So if you want to go ahead and sign up,
we would welcome you to do so. But as we
teased everybody on Thursday, a big vote was happening in
the House of Representatives after Speaker Mike Johnson stabbed his
own party in the back and decided to pass aid
for Ukraine and for Israel, using an unprecedented parliamentary maneuver
which basically allowed Democrats to vote for the Ukraine aid

(02:39):
Republicans to vote for.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
The Israeli aid package.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
It all together and create the greatest uniparty war funding
that Washington has ever seen. And they did not disappoint
in their display of dual loyalty.

Speaker 3 (02:51):
Let's go and put this up.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
There on the screen as the votes passed through the
House of Representatives that officially got the bill. Across the aisle,
you see Ukraine flags that are all across chantings Slava Ukraine.
You've got non American flag in site there by the way,
on the flag of the House Representatives. And don't worry,

(03:12):
there Israel flags on the other side too, so don't
act like they didn't exist there.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
They're being passed out. What some representatives Crystal were.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Actually facetiming Ukrainian soldiers who are on the front line,
just to say you're welcome.

Speaker 3 (03:24):
We finally have accomplished it for you.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
And I guess the main takeaway that we can have
from this is just the absolute level of dedication that
these people have to moving heaven and earth to spend
hundreds of billions for foreign nations so that they can
conduct war. They've never done it once for the rest
of us, but for this, of course, we can break precedent.
Screw you know. There's no talk of filibuster or any

(03:49):
of that other stuff. Yeh, whenever it comes to this,
sixty some billion dollars from Ukraine, twenty six billion dollars
for Israel, the vast majority of that being fed entirely
to the military industrial complex and to these nations with
it comple leet blank check that's given to them.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
Which is something they weirdly are like bragging about, like
that's a selling point, Like, don't worry, this is a
lot of this money is going to go to the
military industrial complex. Don't you feel great about that?

Speaker 4 (04:10):
Now?

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Listen, when it comes to you getting healthcare, you're getting
higher wages. When it comes to you know, making sure
seniors can live on Social Security, your people can afford childcare.
You've got universal access to preschool, or people can even
just take paid leave if they, you know, are having
a baby. None of that. We can't get that done.
We don't have the money, et cetera, et cetera. It's

(04:31):
too difficult, it's too hard. But they will move heaven
and earth to make sure that we continue funding wars,
whether it is Listen, with regard to Ukraine, I'm incredibly
sympathetic to the Ukrainians. I think it was wrong and illegal,
the Russian invasion, But we have to be real about
the fact at this point that number one, we're the
ones who have dragged them to continue this war by

(04:54):
thwarting diplomatic negotiations. Number Two, there is no end in sight.
There's not even a fig leaf of hey, once we
give them this money, then victories around the corner. There's
none of that. And number three, their own people at
this point, the military age men of their own population
do not want to fight. So we know the reports

(05:16):
about people who are disabled, who are too old, who
have mental disabilities, being pulled off the street and sent
to the front lines, and we're celebrating putting the guns
in their hands. We're celebrating with regard to Israel. Look
at what has happened here. I mean, according to Euromag,
human rights min are over forty thousand Palestinian scaled. There

(05:38):
was just we're going to cover this later. A strike
on two strikes on Rafa killed twenty two people, eighteen
of them children. The entire Gaza strip is annihilated, aid
workers slaughtered, and we're still shipping them weapons as if
none of this has happened. It's outrageous. I mean, they're
really I'm not surprised by it. I knew at some

(05:58):
point they would figure out how to get this done.
But you know, if you want a glimpse into why,
politicians like Mike Johnson. He's always been fervently Zionis. I mean,
the first thing he did when he became speaker members
call met and Yahoo and passed some anti Semitism resolution.
That one's not surprising. But he did a one eighty
on Ukraine and put this next piece up on the screen.

(06:19):
You wonder why, because this is the media treatment you
get by passing Ukraine aid. Johnson became an unlikely church Hill.
There is nothing but plaudits from the media for funding
wars over and over and over again. Remember how Joe
Biden one good thing Joe Biden did withdrawing from Afghanistan.

(06:41):
Relentlessly trash for that, even though it was overwhelmingly what
the American people wanted. Here Johnson going against, especially on Israel.
I'll show you the pulling and a little bit what
the American people wanting, and suddenly all their vaunted concern
for democracy evaporates when it comes to sending your hard
on tax dollars into these conflicts to slaughter for children.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah, I will be honest, this is the blackest pill
that I've had in a really long time. After all
the work that we've done here on the show, that
the media and others. Even they have been forced to
admit the failure of the cause in Ukraine, they still
decide to do sixty billion dollars. What so that and
this is the worst park Crystal. This sixty billion dollars
will have a single objective. It will prolong this war

(07:25):
for about one more year. According to the funding statistics
that have come out, this will buy them approximately half
of their failed counter offensive. The net result of this
is going to be probably a bunch of fifty to
seventy year old Ukrainian men who are going to lose limbs. Now,
after that period dries up, and they continue to fail
on the front line and continue to have a five

(07:46):
to one artillery disadvantage against the Russians, and the Russians
continue to recoup all of the losses that they've already
had in their military ravevamp their military industrial complex, have
their economy grow according to the if a nonpartisan source,
more than the entire European Union. After all of that
is now clear, a year from now, what do you

(08:07):
think is going to happen? Sixty billion will pale to
what they are going to ask for now to rebuild Ukraine.
Somebody's got to pay for all those limbs, and for
all those dead guys, and for pensions and forever whatever survives,
whatever rump of the Ukrainian state does eventually make it
out of here, we will then be on the hook
for that.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
It never ends. This has no purpose.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
Now, if they were using this for defensive purposes, maybe, okay,
maybe it would have some sort of justification. But Zelenski
does not commit to defense. Instead, he says, this will
enable us for victory. How many times do we have
to hear these fake cries of victory. They failed in
the counter offensive. They have one of the most tactically
inefficient and incompetent armies in the world. They have not

(08:51):
able to use NATO tactics. Their weapons have made no
difference whenever they were flushed. Their lead general, the head
that they replaced, their military commander with.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
His nickname is the Butcher.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
Not by the Russians, the people you would want him nickname,
the Butcher, by his own people. That's what they call
him the Butcher, because his entire strategy is to just
throw as many people into this as possible on Israel
as well, I mean even zoom out.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Just from Israel's own actions.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
What have they done to make America more safe, nothing
invite more attacks on American service members World War III.
Multiple are dead now as a result of our posture
in the Middle East in retaliation for Israel's actions, tens
of billions of dollars that has been spent deploying US
military and naval assets. The defense against the Iranian attack

(09:38):
alone costs the United States one point three billion dollars
in missile interceptors and including missiles that cost some twenty
four million dollars each deployed by the US to shoot
down Iranian ballistic missiles, only to then invite in Israeli
strike out on Iran with God knows what the hell
is going to happen in retaliation.

Speaker 3 (09:56):
So now what you know, where.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
Are we Why are we all paying for this to
continue whenever we clearly could put an end to it
if we wanted. So in both cases, you have wars
that are making America less safe, that are bad for
the populations I would.

Speaker 3 (10:10):
Say, both of Israel and for the population of Gaza. Yeah,
which I could easily make that case.

Speaker 2 (10:15):
The only people who are benefiting are the war manufacturers
and the religion of the dual loyalty leadership class in
this country, and I'm going to continue to use.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
That really triple loyalty a vice.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
What I would say is this is that this is
you know Trump. I always go back.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
I went back to read about seven years ago. He
gave a speech which clearly didn't believe, but it was
a good speech done the last It was his first
foreign policy speech, and he has a line in there
which has always stuck with me is that we will
not worship no longer at the false song of globalism.
And that's when I see Ukrainian and Israeli flags being
waived on the floor of the United States House of Representatives,

(10:51):
When I see our Speaker of the House with two
flags on his lapel, hell not a lapel, neither of
which are the United States flag, but are two nations
which he just broke parliamentary procedure to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars to. I can say nothing else than
these people are loyal to a foreign government and not
to our own. Now, Speaker Johnson actually loyal to even

(11:11):
higher authority than any nation. Gave a justification in particular
for some of this, Israel aid on Newsmax.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 5 (11:18):
Israel is a critical ally of ours, and I think
most people understand the necessity of this funding. They're fighting
for their very existence. They're the only stable democracy in
the Middle East. I mean, of course, for those of
us who are believers, it's a biblical admonition to stand
with Israel. We will and they will prevail as long
as they're there with them. And this is an important,
very important symbolic gesture and a very important replenishment of

(11:40):
their stockpiles, for example of the Iron Dome. The reason
they shot down all those drones and missiles in the
last attack by Iran is because we assisted with that.
I think the American people understand the importance of that.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Did you guys hear that line?

Speaker 2 (11:50):
For those of us who are believers, it is a
biblical admonition to stand with Israel. It's like, well, if
it's in the Bible, I guess there ain't getting around that.

Speaker 6 (11:59):
This is this is literally out of his mouth the
speaker of the House of Representatives, the third in line
for the American presidency, who believes that he is like
what some hand of God?

Speaker 3 (12:10):
And don't let's not let this go either.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
John Hagey, who is the pastor who leads the ten
million Christian group you know for Israel, was here in
Washington just two days before and met with Speaker Johnson,
probably to give him the language that he needs. And
all of the reporting that we've gotten since Crystal is
that the way that Johnson arrived at this is that
he prayed on him. And listen, you know, I'm not

(12:33):
going to put down people who are religious and who pray.
I think that's fine, But I would just simply ask
that in the United States of America, a country with
a separation of church and state, that we arrive at
policy decisions through reason, intellect, and you know, possible debate,
rather than from biblical admonition.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
My simple request, Well, what this means is that it
actually does not matter to Speaker Johnson what Israel does
doesn't matter. Doesn't matter whether it is truly a genocide,
doesn't matter, whether there are war crimes, doesn't matter, whether
it's good for America's interest or not. It doesn't matter

(13:13):
because for him it's a quote biblical admonition. You can't argue.
I mean, there's no debate with that. That's just like no,
my fervent, ideological, unshakable belief is that God requires me
to support Israel, no matter the cost or consequence for Palestinians,
no matter the cost or consequence for Americans. And this

(13:36):
is one of the most powerful people in the country,
if not the world, who is making policy decisions this way, Like,
what can you even say about that? And you see
how motivating this is among a certain segment of the
Republican base as why I keep talking about this, but
I think it's so extraordinarily revealing. When there was polling

(13:57):
asking by religious demographic group, how do you feel about
the net Nyahu government? Not even about Israel or you
know what's happening in Gaza, but just the net Nyahu government.
The religious group that gave him the highest approval ratings
was not Jewish people. It was by a mile white
Evangelical Christians. So that's, you know, that's what's motivating him

(14:18):
with regard to Israel. I think that's an important part
of how he ended up flipping on a dime with
regard to Ukraine as well, because he realized, in order
to fulfill his biblical admonition to support Israel no matter what,
he was also going to have to play ball with
Democrats on the Ukraine Bill. Let's not forget the way
he also flipped on a dime with regard to making
sure Americans can continue to be surveilled. And you know

(14:41):
the other piece of this saga is that he talks about,
in addition to his religious faith, he also talks about
how the Intel Committee, how the Intelligence Agency, how they
really you know, they really got to him, what they
had to say to him. And we've seen this a
lot of times. You saw this with Trump as well.
It's so easy to roll these people. It's so easy
to scare them and manipulate them, saying we saw the

(15:03):
same thing with Obama too, by the way, when he
was Prisident of the United States. Especially when you have
someone who was inexperienced, who hasn't been around the block,
who hasn't seen these tactics which are rolled out by yes,
the deep state over and over and over again, they
get rolled so easily, especially when his religious belief also

(15:23):
leads him in the direction of wanting to pass both
the Israel Aid and the Ukrainian AID in order to
make sure that Israel is getting their dollars to keep
bombing babies.

Speaker 2 (15:34):
If you guys want an inside of you into this.
There's a book called Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward. It
was written back in twenty ten. It's specifically about the
decision that Obama was forced into to do the surge
in Afghanistan, the way that David Petraeus, Stan McCrystal, Mike mullen,
and the Joint chiefs of Staff, the US Intelligence Community

(15:54):
of the CIA basically set Obama up for complete failure.
If he didn't then I promise to a surge, and
we had a chance at that time to actually pull
out of the country, and instead we escalated for that.
I highly recommend people read that because that is mechanically
the exact way that you, even as the president, can
get set up by these people. And tuckers some thoughts

(16:15):
on that too, by the way, which we'll get a
little bit in the show, but we would be remiss
if we didn't highlight a little bit of how again,
we came to this decision. Let's put this police up
there on the screen from CNN. They confirm it. Quote
he was torn between having to save his job and
do the right thing. Congressman Mike McCall said, quote, he
prayed over it. Prayer apparently the way that Speaker Johnson

(16:38):
arrived at this. Now, let's take a look at the poll,
shall we, you know, in the ostensible way that we
live in a democracy. Let's go and put this up
there on the screen. Here's what we've got on Israel.
This is April twelfth, twenty twenty four. Should more weapons
and supplies to Israel? Should we send more? Should or
should not? All should?

Speaker 3 (16:56):
Forty sixty should not?

Speaker 2 (16:58):
Democrats thirty two percent should, Sixty eight percent say should not.
Independence thirty eight percent say should, sixty four percent say not.

Speaker 3 (17:06):
Republicans No, not that much difference at all.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Republicans fifty five percent say should, forty five percent say
they should not. And what's also important to keep in
mind for that plus ten is that even nearly half
of the Republicans are saying there we shouldn't send more
weapons to Israel. Now, in terms of the look at
the vote, where we actually have the amount of military
that's being sent to Israel, you have some plus sixty

(17:32):
four members who actually end up voting then four the
actual military eight to Israel in no way representative of
their base. And the exact same thing holds true for Ukraine.
Let's go and put this up there on the screen,
and what do we find. This is just from the
latest poll that happened on Ukraine, where we see, amongst

(17:53):
US adults, only twenty seven percent say that we are
doing too little for Ukraine. Thirty three percent say, quote
about the right amount, and that was prior to the package,
and too much is now the majoritarian position at thirty
seven Only Democrats forty four percent say we're doing too little.
Amongst Republicans, fourteen percent say we're doing too little, twenty
nine percent say about the right right about right, and

(18:16):
fifty five percent say that we are doing too much. So,
as we can all see very clearly, the Republicans were
a majority of the Republicans in the House of Representatives
voted against Ukraine aid, were rolled by their speaker to
work with Democrats, and basically here Democrats just are much
more willing I guess to ignore some of their base
on that question, but then work also with Republicans who

(18:37):
overwhelmingly voted for the Israeli. So you have two parties
basically behold into two foreign nations. Loyalty, try loyalty, I
guess across all of this and work in tandem to
make this push to the United States Senate, where tomorrow
on Tuesday, it's almost certainly going to become the law
of the land. And they're already salivating at the Pentagon

(19:00):
over shipping long range weapons to Ukraine, long range weapons
in US stockpiles, long range weapons which will be used
to strike inside of Russian territory or the crimean grid bridge.

Speaker 3 (19:11):
And who do you think is going to bear the
cost of that?

Speaker 2 (19:14):
It's the United States of America if Ukraine gets itself
in a bigger conflagration.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
So let me ask you a question, Sager, because I
am a little conflicted about how to think about this. So,
as you just pointed out, you know, the Democratic base
is first of all, they've been overwhelmingly in favor of
a ceasefire. A majority of Joe Biden voters say yes,
this is a genocide, and they are overwhelmingly opposed to
shipping more military aid to Israel. Certainly, the numbers of

(19:39):
Democrats in the House that voted against this Israel aid
package do not reflect the sentiment of the base. So
that's on the one hand. On the other hand, compared
to previous aid military aid to Israel, thirty seven voting.
Thirty seven Democrats specifically voting against it is a significantly

(20:01):
higher number than previously. I think the last time there
was a question about like replenishing Iron Dome, sending a
billion dollars for that, I was like nine Democrats who
voted against it. So how do you look at that?
And especially when there were you know, it wasn't just
like AOC and ilhan Omar. You had a number of
longtime members who are in leadership positions who even voted

(20:22):
against that. So how do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (20:24):
I think exactly what I do in Ukraine doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
The majority of Republicans, the party in power in House
of Representatives voted against A to Ukraine.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
Didn't matter. The speaker wanted it, so do the Democrats.
It doesn't like our We could have a.

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Majority Democrats who are going to oppose Israel and they
would still find a way to make it pass. That's
what you should take away from this is like party
politics does not matter when the uniparty actually wants something.
It only matters whenever we're talking about mortgage rates or
housing assistants or basically anything that would actually help any
of us. If they wanted to get it done. They
will get it done. The majority of the American public

(21:00):
thinks we're doing too much for Ukraine, and that was
before the sixty billion dollars that we just shipped over there.
The vast majority of Republicans say and oppose this military
aid for Ukraine.

Speaker 3 (21:12):
It doesn't matter, you know. Trump can bamboozle them. Danglo
will stop the steal in.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Front of their eyes, and they'll forget whenever it comes
to election day. Aside for some young people, most people
are going to vote on abortion, and most people are
not going to are going to remember that, are not
going to remember this whenever it comes time to the
ballot box. I already saw a clip of AOC I
think with Mehdi Hassen and he was like, what do
you say to somebody who is not going to vote
for Biden? Yeah, And she's like, well, I am on
the side of democracy, you know, not only here but

(21:38):
across the world. I'm like, okay, all right, cool, I mean,
there's just nothing that will ever happen where you're not
going to vote against the Republicans. Most Republicans vote exactly
the same way on the margins. There may be some
but at the end of the day, they can stablish.
They don't even stablish in the back, they stablish in
the front, and they twist the knife and then they
they give the you know, the knife over to us,
and then they accuse you of being the one who's

(21:58):
in the wrong, and they're like, why are you committing
violence when all this is happening, Yeah, which is why
you have to go and vote in order to bandit
yourself up.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
I do think there's a bit of a warning sign
here though, for Israel on the other hand, because you know,
there used to be this total lockstep uniformity that no
one broke from, and that you know, anyone who did
knew that was going to be the end of their
political career. And even with a pack that Israel lobby

(22:26):
threatening to spend one hundred million dollars in primaries against
anyone who even thinks of dissenting, even with that kind
of firepower trained at now you know, all thirty seven
of these individuals who voted against this funding, they still
were willing to do it and still feel like they'll
be able to hold onto their seats and that you
know that it was worth paying that price, or that

(22:47):
there's enough energy on the other side to make up
for the fact that they could have that money spent
against them. So I do think as disheartening and depressing
as this is, there is a bit of a warning
sign here for Israel and that they just don't have
quite the lockstep control that they once did.

Speaker 3 (23:05):
I don't disagree.

Speaker 2 (23:06):
I think twenty five thirty years from now, you're right.
Yeah again, I just point to Ukraine. You can lose
the public and they'll still get it done for you.
So in the near term, folks, sign up, because if
it's up to these people, we would die for foreign
countries before we would ever die, you know, for any
of our own interests. And that is the clearest takeaway
that we have. I would be remiss if I didn't

(23:30):
leave out President Donald Trump's role in making sure that
this Ukraine aid actually happened. There's been a lot of
you know, papering over by the magabase as to how
exactly Trump went from a guy who spoke again a
four Ukrainian peace, remember in the famous CNN moment on
the town hall when he said, I'm for you know,

(23:51):
stopping the dying.

Speaker 3 (23:52):
I want to find peace.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
I would have peace there in a second, the democratic
liberal media is like, oh, well he would pull money
away from Ukraine on day one. Well, you know, he
also was the one who shipped a lot of lethle
aid to Ukraine back in twenty fifteen. But Mike Johnson
and others and Lindsey Graham basically convinced Trump to endorse
some bs lend lease loan program to the most corrupt
and poor nation.

Speaker 3 (24:14):
In all of Europe.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
And let's not forget Lindsey Graham here now saying that
it was Trump. Trump himself is the one responsible for
getting this through the House. Let's take a lisson.

Speaker 7 (24:24):
So, with all due respect to Senator Events, he's wrong.
We were told within four days Key would fall.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
But is he wrong about the math? Yea. Is he
wrong about the production?

Speaker 7 (24:35):
Yeah, he's wrong the whole concept that we can't deal
with multiple problems. In World War Two, we fought the
Germans and the Japanese. We have an industrial base that
needs to be retooled. But the Ukrainian military, with our help,
has killed about fifty percent of the combat power of
the Russians. If you pull the plug on Ukraine, Coach,

(24:57):
you don't have enough capability. There goes Taiwan. Ukrainians are
fighting like tigers. This aid package has a loan component
to it. This would not have passed without Donald Trump.
I want to thank the House Speaker and the King
Jeffrey's working together in a bipartisan fashion to give weapons
to Ukraine to buy to fight that matters to us

(25:18):
and prosident Trump has created a loan component to this package.
It gives us leverage down the road. So this idea
that we can't help U Traine, Israel and Taiwan at
the same time, I reject that.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
I want to thank President Trump for making this to
go through it now. Listen, According to MAGA Defenders, Crystal,
Trump has been bamboos.

Speaker 3 (25:38):
Trump can Trump cannot fail. It can only be failing.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
And so if Lindsey Graham went down and look, Trump
is an idiot, like, let's be honest on policy, just
doesn't care, it doesn't care about He cares about basically
one thing, trade and I may be immigration on depending
on the day. And so when Lindsay Graham goes down
there and he's.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
Like it be alone, it wouldn't be giving it to them.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Trump's like, wow, alone, Well, that's great as a businessman,
and so what do they do. They write in some
bullshit loan into the text, and then they don't tell
you that Biden is the president after he signs it.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
Oh, and he can just forgive the entire loan.

Speaker 2 (26:07):
Oh and by the way, the loan is interest free
and it has an indefinite period on when you supposedly
get paid back. And so is it alone if there's
no enforcement terms and there's no interest, or is it
a gift. It's a gift, that's what's happening here. And
so it's a complete fake out. And so Trump is
there's two options. Trump is either too dumb to know
the difference between a fake loan and a real loan

(26:28):
and then allow himself to get bamboozled, or he supports
shipping weapons to Ukraine.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
Either has the same net effect to me. So I
don't care. So it's Trump's fault that this is all
went through.

Speaker 2 (26:39):
Yeah, And of course Republican voters they're like freaking sheep,
you know, they're just gonna sit there and eat the
grab bo, like, oh, it's so terrible with the liberal
media is saying about mister Trump here, It's like, no,
this is on Trump. Lindsey Graham ate the rhino. Trump
is the one who decided to let it pass. So
let's all just be real clear why it's gonna happen.
If Trump gets reelected, who does he actually listen to

(27:00):
And is he still you know, so dumb to be
able to allow himself to be fooled. And if you
are fine with that, cool, but just be real honest
about what your voting.

Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah, the hope. Consistently, whenever Trump goes against what, you know,
what he promised the base, it's always, oh, it's not
his fault and the versisioner's fault. It's this person that's
a deep state, it says, it's that like, this is
an adult man who was president of the United States
at some point he has to be responsible for his

(27:27):
own actions. And you know, so Marjorie Taylor Green, she
was against all of this, and she's been very you know, unspoken,
et cetera, et cetera, and on this I'm actually, you know,
on the same side of her, But she never points
the finger at Donald Trump and his culpability here. That's
somehow left out of her analysis. When yeah, you got

(27:48):
Lindsey Graham there on TV saying listen, I want to
thank Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jefferies, and Donald Trump. Wouldn't happened
without Trump, And somehow that gets left out of the
critique hear from those on the Republican side who are making.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
A critiqus genius.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
And again we have the evidence that Trump endorsed it,
because he literally went to Mike Johnson, went down to Marlago,
did a joint press conference with Donald Trump where Trump
endorses on tape the so called loan idea.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 8 (28:16):
They're talking about it, and we're thinking about making it
in the form of a loan instead of just a gift.
We keep handing out gifts of billions and billions of dollars,
and we'll take a look at it. But much more
importantly to me is the fact that Europe has to
step up and they have to give money. They have
to equalize. If they don't equalize, I'm very upset about
it because they're affected much more than we are. The
Ukraine situation would have never happened if ice president would

(28:39):
have never ever happened. And everybody says that, including Democrats,
that it happened to such an outrage people, millions of
people are dead right now, both sides. Millions of people
are dead.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
People keep pointing to that as if it's some evidence
for why he's changed his position. No, okay, I agree
with him on Europe. It doesn't matter. That's not what
you said. What matters is that you endorse the loan. Now,
for example, Matt Gates and others were trying to claim
that what we're about to show you was a Trump
saying he was against the bill. Let's put this up
there on the screen. He says, why is in Europe
giving more money to help Ukraine? Why is it the

(29:10):
United States is over one hundred million dollars into the
war and we have an ocean between us in a separation.
Why can't Europe equalize? Blah blah blah blah blah. As
everyone agrees, Ukrainian survival and strength should be much more
important to Europe than us, but it is also important
to us.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
Oh, it is also important to us. Now.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
The only thing that he's even slightly critical of is
when he says, I am the only one who speaks
for me, and while it's a total mess caused by
crooked Joe Biden, blah blah blah, if I were president
of this war would have never started. That was because
Mike Johnson was going all over Washington saying, hey, if
you don't support this bill, then you're against President Trump.

Speaker 3 (29:44):
But he didn't come out against the bill. So look,
let's be very clear.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Trump came out very clear, very very clearly against the
Border aid the border deal previously, and he killed it, right,
So he also came out against Faiza, and he killed that.

Speaker 3 (29:59):
Whenever you killed the vote. He had the.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
Full capacity to kill this bill if he wanted to,
and he didn't, which means he's responsible for letting this pass.
He endorsed it, and now he should bear the consequences,
just like Joe Biden does whenever and whenever he's president
to we should not expect anything else from him.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Yeah, and please spare me the whole Like Donald Trump
is the anti war candidate, bullshit, There is no anti
war candidate in terms of Biden and Trump or in
terms of RFK Junior. You could look at Jill Stein
Cornell West, but you know, likelihood is that they're going
to have a relatively minimal impact, you know, with regards
to the comments about Europe. Also Michael Tracy, who shout

(30:40):
out to him, He's always does a great job actually
reading through these bills and pulling out the important pieces
and you know, outlining some of these key bipartisan dynamics.
But you know, calling for Europe to spend more on
NATO or calling for Europe to spend more on Ukraine
isn't a position in favor of, you know, stepping away
from NATO or step away from Ukraine and trying to

(31:01):
bring that war to a close. It's a position in
favor of more funding. So he's not saying we don't
we shouldn't fund it, we should move forward. He's saying,
we obviously we're going to continue funding it. We just
want the Europeans to also fund it additional amounts. So,
you know, being hard on Europe is actually not consistent
with a position in favor of we need to be

(31:24):
looking for an offer, if we need to be looking
for some sort of a diplomatic conclusion to this. And
you know, I will with regard to Ukraine, I'll just
I'll never be over the fact that we undercut those
original diplomatic negotiations because now it is in nowheresville. You know,
now the deal that they would get would be far inferior.

(31:45):
You know, now there is no real negotiating leverage for
Putin and the Russia. At that point, they were on
the back foot. Things hadn't gone the way that they planned.
It didn't look good, so it would have been a
much stronger negotiating position. Now it's just an endless mess.
And that's the approach they're taking to it is, let's
just continue to fund this. We don't need a plan

(32:06):
to conclude it. We're just going to continue sending an
entire you know, multiple generations of Ukrainian men to the slaughter.
And then obviously, you know, with regard to Israel, it's
just a horror. It's just a horror. It's an indefensible horror.
The last thing I want to make sure to mention,
which it's incredible, This isn't even really in the show today,
but you know, this whole escalation with a run, which

(32:27):
I think was very intentionally timed as well, is part
of how the Israel Aid was able to sail through
as well, because guess what, you know, suddenly, because Israel
starts this provocation by assassinating top Iranian commanders at their
consulate building, which is you know, a dramatic contravention of

(32:47):
the Vienna Convention, international law, et cetera. They do that
Irat and response Israel's responding. Nothing gets the bipartisan consensus
going more quickly than one of the official bad guys nations,
you know, going after our big ally in the Middle East.
So when we're talking about that, we're not talking about
the suffering and gods, we're not talking about the World

(33:09):
Central Kitchen Aid workers who were just massacred. We're not
talking about the apparently imminent ground invasion of Rafa, which
we'll get to in just a bit. And so that's
also part of the cover that was provided that allows
this aid to sail through as well.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yes, very well said.

Speaker 1 (33:26):
So let's move on to some updates out of Israel.
So the US has claimed, especially under Joe Biden, that
we support a two state solution ultimately to the Israel
Palestine conflict. So you might think that they would be
in favor of a UN Security Council vote for Palestinian statehood.

Speaker 3 (33:48):
You would be wrong.

Speaker 1 (33:50):
The US vetoed Palestinian statehood recognition in the Security Council.
Let's seek a listen to how the State Department spins
these two very contradictory, apparently positions.

Speaker 9 (34:00):
How are you guys going to vote so, Matt. Since
October seventh, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace
in the region can only be achieved through a two
state solution with Israel's security guaranteed, and it remains our
view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the

(34:23):
Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian authority, with the support of the United States and
other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach
cantangibly advanced Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.
We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions
in New York, even with the best intentions, will not

(34:45):
achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in
the report of the Admission Committee, there was not unimidity
among the committee members as to whether the applicant met
the criteria of membership set forth in Article four of
the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to

(35:06):
whether the applicants can meet criteria to be considered as
a state, and Matt, as you also know, We've long
called on the Palestine authority to undertake necessary reforms to
establish the attributes of readiness for statehood. And note that Hamas,
which is, as you all know, a terrorist organization, is
currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be

(35:29):
an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution,
and for that reason, the United States is voting no
on this proposed Security Council revolution. As an expert of
the UN, I will also I will also just so
note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of

(35:49):
statehood would also require the United States to cease its
funding to the United Nations.

Speaker 1 (35:54):
So you gotta love that mon who says I just
googled expeditions how many years since Oslow. It's just such
a farce at this point and the way this went down,
so we vetoed this resolution. There were twelve who voted
in favor. The US was opposed alone by the way,
and there were two abstentions, UK and Switzerland. Notably US allies, France, Japan,

(36:17):
and South Korea all supported the resolution. Ken Klippenstein and
Daniel bogoslaw Over at the Intercept had some good reporting
about some of the diplomatic pressure that was being applied
in advance of this vote. Can put this up on
the screen. By the way, though it doesn't appear that
this diplomatic pressure was very successful, since there were no
other votes against, only two abstentions and a number of

(36:40):
US allies that actually voted in favor of Palestinian statehood.
The headline here leaked cables show White House opposes Palestinian
statehood despite Button's pledges supported two state solution. Cables argued
that Palestine should not be granted UN member status. They
put pressure in particular on Ecuador, which is the rotating

(37:02):
member on the UN Security Council, and they said in
language very similar to what you heard there from the
State Department.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
Goal.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
It remains the US view that the most expeditious path
toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in
the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors.
We believe this approach can tangibly advanced Palestining goals in
a meaningful and enduring way. So expeditious approach, in spite
of the fact that this quote unquote expeditious approach has
been attempted for decades at this point with no conclusion.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
So there you go.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Okay, all right, very interesting, and this is part of
why the entire thing is ridiculous and why Matt Lee
really just underscored it. Where what is our policy for
this war and for this goverment. We keep saying that
the end result of this war has to be a
two state solution. It's like, well, okay, which one West
Bank is going to have a like the Palestinian authority,

(37:56):
which barely has any authority, They're going to be the
one who have representation in the United Nations. These people
if we are to give them a nation or to
recognize a nation, to recognize a false nation with a
false government that has no actual public support, in my opinion,
would be ten times worse. Like, if we're going to
do this, then we actually have to do it, and
it's obviously going to have to include Gaza as well,

(38:19):
and we will have to ensure actual security conditions and
some sort of public expression.

Speaker 3 (38:24):
Otherwise this entire.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
Thing is completely meaningless and it will fall apart and
we will have somewhat one Guido situation. Yeah, in Venezuela,
with nonsense that the United Nations.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Always puts the burden and the problems on the Palestinian
side when you have BB out there on the regular like,
I will make sure that we thwart ever having a
two state solution that somehow never gets mentioned in any
of this as the obstacles to peace in the situation.
We got some more news on the State Department. Let's

(38:56):
put this up on the screen. The US is going
to sanction one specific IDF unit for human rights violations
in the West Bank. This is pursuant to that we
covered this last week, this pro public report that Tony
Blincoln had been sitting with a report from the State
Department panel that is meant to look into human rights
abuses that found a number of IDF units and Israeli

(39:20):
police units that had engaged in horrific human rights violations torture, rape,
other abuses. And so I guess, under pressure, they've decided
to do this sort of really truly symbolic sanctioning of
this one unit. I'll read this to you. It says
US Secretary of State Tony Blincoln expected to within days
announce sanctions against the IDF's Netsa Yehuda battalion for human

(39:43):
rights violations in the occupied West Bank. Why it matters,
it would be the first time the US imposed sanctions
on Israeli military unit. They will ban the battalion's members
from receiving any kind of US military assistance or training.
And this particular battalion, they say, was formed as a
special unit for ultra orthodox soldiers. All of its members
are men, and it's kind of known for having a
lot of radicals involved. You've had a lot of the

(40:05):
quote unquote hilltop youth. These are these young, radical, right wing,
often violent settlers who weren't accepted into any other combat
unit in the IDF. They're in this battalion. One specific
incident that's been documented was the death of an eighty
year old Palestinian American Omar Asad, in January twenty twenty two.
He was arrested by Netsa Yehudah soldiers at a checkpoint

(40:28):
in his village in the West Bank late at night.
He refused to be checked, so soldiers handcuffed and gagged him,
an eighty year old, and left him on the ground
in the cold, and predictably he died. So, you know,
my read is that these sanctions are totally meaningless. It's
similar to the you know four Israeli settlers who were
sanctioned previously by the Biden Administration's attempt to sort of

(40:50):
like pretend like they're serious about violence against Palestinians. But
what kind of checks are in places? We're shipping billions
of dollars to Israel to make sure this battalion doesn't
benefit from any of it. Nevertheless, there's an all of
government freak out on the Israeli side about this tiniest
of sanctions for documented human rights abuses. Let's put this
up on the screen from Phoebe, he says, And this

(41:12):
is the Google Translate version, by the way, So if
there's any like slate mistranslations, that's why sanctions must not
be imposed on the IDF. In recent weeks, I've been
working against the imposition of sanctions on Israeli citizens, including
in my conversations with senior American government officials. At a
time when our soldiers are fighting the monsters of terror,
the intention to impose a sanction on a unit in

(41:33):
the IDF is the height of absurdity and a moral low.
The government, headed by me will act by all means
against these moves. There was also a statement from Benny Gantz.
Lest you think that they're not on the same page
on many things, they mostly are. So what do you
make of all that? Sager?

Speaker 2 (41:49):
Yeah, I mean I just think the entire thing is
ridiculous because we're trying to single out some unit in
the IDF based on or in the West Bank, which
is right, this is all.

Speaker 3 (41:57):
The other problem is that we try and split apart.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
GE's what I was talking about West Bank from Gaza
as if it's not the same military that's involved in
all this, and it's not all part of the same policy,
So what is the question, what are we going to do?
Do we actually And at the same time, I would
almost rather not do something like this because then it
just heightens the contradiction of sending billions of dollars to
the IDEF and through the Israeli military. If they're going

(42:20):
to only continue to fund said IDF unit and there's
no enforcement mechanism, then what is the point of this
entire thing?

Speaker 3 (42:27):
It just views it. It makes it even more impotent
than previously.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
If you give somebody money when you acknowledge that they're
a criminal, it's almost worse than just lying to everybody.

Speaker 1 (42:36):
Well, yeah, it's a perfect way to pretend like the
problem is in a whole of government policy, that it's
a few bad apples, it's a few violent settlers, it's
this one particular battalion that has a lot of hilltop use,
rather than I mean, we saw the first of all,
you see the utter annihilation in Gaza. You see the

(42:58):
Where's Daddy software program looking to target families, children, women,
waiting for militants to go home before you target them.
We see the AI algorithmic generation. Overall, we see the
announcement of a complete siege, starving a population of millions,
in some cases to death. Okay, And then we pretend like, oh,

(43:21):
it's these few bad apples and we're very concerned about it,
and we're going to sanction them. So it serves the
Biden administration's interest. Frankly, I think it also serves Bebe's interests.
I just we didn't just didn't make it in the
poll because there's so much other stuff to cover. But
apparently Bibe's political standing in Israel in the context of
post October seventh was number was stronger. Poll numbers are
coming up. You know, he's basically neck and neck now

(43:43):
with his primary opponent as previously he was losing in
a landslide, and I think that these little, you know,
pretend fights between him, just theatrical fights between him and Biden,
where he gets to stand tough and effectively humiliate Joe
Biden by the way, over and over and over again.
I think those have served his domestic political standing. So

(44:03):
congratulations everyone, Your little Kaboki theater here is working out
perfectly for the nt YAHOO government.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
I think that bb and Zelenski are similar. Their only
authority to the eyes of the public is their ability
to builk the United States for billions. So as long
as they are able to continue to have the US
security establishment at fund your war, then your position as
like the grifter in charge is cemented. Now, if he

(44:28):
genuinely was failing in that regard, then yeah, you know,
people would be able to come against him. But he's
able very masterfully to play against America and also keep
the handout and take the dollars.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
That's a very difficult balancing.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
Act, one which he is on tape admitting he's very
good at saying what America is very easy I know
to who.

Speaker 1 (44:46):
Can deny it?

Speaker 3 (44:47):
He says it?

Speaker 1 (44:47):
Who can deny it? Yeah? No, that's right.

Speaker 3 (44:50):
He can.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
On the one hand, you know, act all outraged on
Twitter about this like totally meaningless sanction reportedly being issued
by the State Department on the They're going to do
whatever the hell he wants, bomb American and American aid worker,
bomb is bomb Iran when we begged him reportedly not
to hospitals. Whatever. He can do whatever he wants, and

(45:15):
there's still you know, a whole of government effort here
to make sure that he gets his billions in whatever
he wants moving forward. Yes, so yeah, he's playing his
hand masterfully. And the Biden policy bear of bear hugging BBNT,
Yahoo has been such an object failure it is hard

(45:35):
to wrap your head around on every level. Every time
they set out like well, we don't want Israel to
do this, Israel does it, and then there's no accountability
and American lives are put more at risk and more
Gazan's house, that means of Gaza are completely slaughtered. So
just an utter and complete failure from the Biden administration.

(45:56):
It all just plays right into Bibi's hands. There was
an interesting report though that I wanted to share with
you guys. Make of it what you will, So put
this up on the screen. This is a report from
Times of Israel that the Prime Minister's Office PMO had
held an emergency debate amid fears that the ICC that's
the International Criminal Court at the Hague, could issue arrest

(46:19):
warrants for the Prime Minister and others over alleged crimes
in Gaza. This is based on a report on Israeli
Channel twelve, so it says they're increasingly worried about this.
Three ministers and several government legal experts heard this emergency
discussion on how they could potentially fend off the feared
imminent issuing of such arrest warrants. They are pointing to

(46:43):
some of the countries that have been very critical of
Israeli atrocities in Gaza's strip are sort of leading the
push here. Jerusalem is also try to apply pressure, whatever
diplomatic pressure they can, you know, under the radar, to
try to avoid this eventuality. And not only did they
and this was no worthy to meet again, according to
this Israeli TV report, Make of it what you will. Apparently,

(47:05):
he also raised this concern in his meetings last week
with Britain's Foreign Secretary David Cameron in Germany's foreign minister
and Aleeda bare Baka. Is that how you say that
we'll go let's go with it. Yeah, we'll go with that.
So it was a significant enough concern reportedly that he's
raising it with them. Now what does this mean. Listen,
It's not like the ICC can come to Israel and

(47:25):
arrest him, throw them and you know it and being
a dock in the Hague. But you know, it's another
step on the global parias status. It could be very
influential in terms of global opinion, makes them more difficult
for you know, the US enablers to support the things
that he's doing. And also it really constrains your freedom

(47:47):
because now you can't go to one of the countries
in the world where they, you know, do support the
ICC actions because you could actually get arrested if you
set foot in one of those countries.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Yeah, I mean no, that's the actually the biggest I mean,
there's there's a couple of ways, and look at this
is one is like, do I think he's actually gonna
get arrested.

Speaker 3 (48:02):
No, but does it at least put pressure on the government. Yes.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
The other option is that we will just see the ICC,
you know, signatory fall apart because you would travel to
a party nation and they won't comply with it.

Speaker 3 (48:14):
We'll see, you know exactly how that all plays out.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
But regardless, again, this is just a core theme of
like all of our discussion, is that in the interim,
things are going in Israel's way, but in the long term,
twenty thirty years from now, there certainly are not.

Speaker 3 (48:28):
And this is another example. Don't even take my word
for it.

Speaker 2 (48:32):
You've all knowah Harari, who I've got some issues with,
but he wrote the famous book Sapiens. He's the Israeli
not really a scientist. Whatever we can it's a separate conversation.
He wrote an excellent piece. I recommend everybody go and
read in Heartz where he makes this exact same point,
because he himself is kind of a chief arch globalist.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
And he's like, we have a real problem.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
We have delegitimized ourselves in the eyes of the entire world,
and for decades now we will have problems both diplomatically
for our citizens as they continue and think about living abroad.
And you know, any idea of legitimacy in the eyes
of the world has significantly gone down.

Speaker 3 (49:04):
And that's just not something that you really move away from.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
And I think this is just like tip of the
iceberg on that broader problem. Regardless of whether it's enforcement
or not, it almost doesn't matter, you know, for the
future of what future treat future free trade agreements look like,
reciprocal tourism, willingness to do business, willingness to receive a
prime minister, and popularly those things honestly matter even more
to a certain extent for the future of Israel and
for the nation.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
Look at the way young generations of America.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
Yes, that's right, I've changed everything.

Speaker 1 (49:30):
Yeah, it's going to it's not going back, right, Millennials,
gen z, they're not going to view this the same
way that boomers and silent gen did. It's done. I
mean that's we're covering the freak out over these Columbia
protests and what the hell's going on there. The real
story on those protests is just how overwhelming the sentiment
among young people is against arming Israel, against you know,

(49:51):
their their view and mind. And the ICJ finds it
plausible that they're committing genocide with our tax dollars, by
the way, helping to fund the weapons that are, you know,
two thousand pound bombs being dropped on refugee camps, etc.
People don't forget this is a formative political experience for
really millions of young Americans. So in terms of future generations,

(50:14):
I don't think there's any put in that toothpaste back
in the tube. But unfortunately that takes a long time
to come to fruition. In the meantime, you can see
from the numbers in the house how slowly things actually change.
At the same time, we really have our eyes on Rafa,
the threatened ground invasion there. It seems like there are

(50:35):
some indications this may be more imminent, including a strike
multiple strikes there. Let's put this up on the screen.
That happened just a day or so ago. Israeli strikes
on southern Gaza city of Rafa killed twenty two, mostly children.
As they add US advances AID package. I think that's
noteworthy that they include that in the headline and important
they include that in the headline. So out of these

(50:56):
twenty two people who were killed by the IDF in Rava,
eighteen children, three women, one man. Eighteen children, three women
and one man. One of the women who was killed
was pregnant. She was killed. They were able to open

(51:18):
her up and save the baby, thank god, who is
now orphaned at birth. Horrifying situation. And Bibi has been
sort of promising that this Rapha invasion is imminent. He said, cryptically,
quote in the coming days, we will increase the political
and military pressure on Hamas because this is the only
way to bring back our hostages and a chief victory.

(51:40):
Of course, the only way they've actually brought back hostages
was through ceasefire agreement. But never you mind that. He
goes on to say we will land more and painful
blows on Hamas soon, but did not give further details
about what that meant. And that's noteworthy, of course, saw
because he's been saying, oh, in order to finish the
job with Hamas, they're all down in Rafa now, so

(52:00):
we have to we have to do this ground invasion
of raf Warri of over a million Palestinian sheltering right now,
including obviously many women and children, because that's where Hamas is.
So when he says we will land more and painful
blows on Hamas soon, it seems to be a reference
to an imminent ground invasion in Rafa.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
It's very possible, and something that you brought up, but
I want to spend a lot of time on here
is this corrupt bargain being reported by the Israeli press.
Let's go and put this up there on the screen, please,
where the Times of Israel reports very out in the
open that the US has agreed to Israel's plan for
Rafa in return for not carrying out a large Iran strike.

Speaker 3 (52:39):
So what they basically have bargained with US.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
Is, hey, we won't have a huge retalia historic retaliatory
strike on Iran which would draw you in if you
green light at least tacitly our Israeli invasion of Rossa. Now,
the way that we know this is from Egyptian officials
who are telling news outlets to the quote the US
has accepted that plan for an operation in southern Gaza
in return for not carrying out that larger strike. Now,

(53:04):
the reason why this is so important is we are
watching the weaponization here again of the US political system
and it's rapid desire to go to war for Israel,
where they are like, hey, we won't drag us into
a broader war over here if you let us do
whatever we want over here. And I don't think that
these air strikes are an accident, and it actually very

(53:25):
elegantly solves a problem for beeB to be able to
get around that. But think again about what the blackmail
is is that what they have on their side is always,
at any moment, at any time of our choosing, we
can glow blow up an embassy wherever we want, ratchet
things up over here, which will require you to defend
us as long as we continue to get to do

(53:47):
whatever we want over here in Gaza. And that belies
the fact that whatever happens here in Gaza has bleed
on effects over here, as we have already watched the
resumption of Iranian proxy strikes on US military basis that
have happened now after that.

Speaker 3 (54:00):
So again American troops.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Are the ones who pay the cost, as well as
of course Palestinian civilians.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
Yeah, that's right. I mean, this was Palestinian civilians being
held hostage and being sacrificed in the end to reportedly
keep Israel from doing a larger strike on Iran. And again,
according to reports, the Biden people begged bebe not to
do any response to Iran. You know, they were saying, listen,
take the win. We shut down all their stuff nothing
really happened with regard to their retaliatory attacks here, so

(54:28):
just take that win and let's move on. So they
weren't able to succeed with that, they're obviously not willing
to use actual leverage to change Israeli behavior, So according
to this report, they've decided to sacrifice the Palestinians in
Rafa in spite of the fact that this has been
a long time. You know, Biden even used at one

(54:48):
point the red line with regard to Rafa, but doesn't
seem to be a red line any longer. And I
don't think any of us should be surprised if we
see this attack move forward relatively swiftly. Just to give
you another sense of how untenable the US position here
is and all of the Biden administration's supposed concerns for

(55:11):
human rights. Pretty remarkable exchange here where a State Department
spokesperson really doesn't want to answer a question about whether
the Geneva Conventions apply to Israel, does his darnedest to
try to avoid giving a direct answer to what should
be a very simple question that he was asked with seamlessness.

Speaker 4 (55:31):
You're a med monitor. Human Rights monitor reports that Israel
is using drones to lure residents and then shoot them.
They explain the sounds of women screaming in babies crying
were heard late at night on both Sunday and Monday.
When some of the residents went out to investigate and

(55:52):
tried to help, they were shot at by Israeli quadruple
quad copter drones. The sounds that they heard were in
fact recordings played by the Israeli drones with the intent
of forcing the camp residents out into the streets where
they could be easily targeted by snipers.

Speaker 9 (56:11):
I've not seen that report, Sam, so I'm not gonna
comment on it, but broadly not relating to this particular
circumstance at all, because again I haven't seen the report
and I'm not sure if it's accurate or verifiable. At
every conversation that we have with our partners in Israel,
we continue to stress the moral and strategic comparative that
they have to work on deconfliction mechanisms and to ensure

(56:35):
that civilian harm is minimized in every which way possible,
and we'll continue to stress that every way we can.

Speaker 4 (56:41):
Will you look at this report, I'm.

Speaker 9 (56:44):
Sure we'll look at this report, Sam, I don't have
any comment for it on it?

Speaker 10 (56:47):
Right now?

Speaker 4 (56:47):
Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions as apply.

Speaker 3 (56:50):
I've answer your questions.

Speaker 11 (56:51):
Now you have evaded it and your colleague deceitfully responded
to it. Could go to Geneva Conventions. It's a simple question.
Do you recognize the Geneva Conventions of applying to Gaza?

Speaker 9 (57:06):
When you interrupt me, that's not it's not no matter
of you. I'm not going to simple take additional questions
a simple question.

Speaker 10 (57:13):
Show ahead.

Speaker 9 (57:13):
You got two questions.

Speaker 4 (57:14):
I totally contra No, I didn't get to.

Speaker 3 (57:16):
You, did you?

Speaker 10 (57:17):
You?

Speaker 9 (57:17):
You asked a question about your report and you asked
to follow up.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
Please go ahead, and you're refusing to answer it.

Speaker 11 (57:23):
Go ahead to do the Geneva Conventions apply to Gaza
or not everywhere on the planet except for the Palestinians.

Speaker 10 (57:29):
Isn't that right? Me?

Speaker 9 (57:31):
I continue to stress everywhere and everywhere that international and
humanitarian law needs to be abided by and respected going.

Speaker 11 (57:38):
The Geneva Conventions apply.

Speaker 9 (57:40):
You are now interrupting your colleague.

Speaker 12 (57:42):
Go ahead.

Speaker 11 (57:42):
I'm interrupting you. I'm not interrupting you. I'm insisting on
an answer to a critical question.

Speaker 1 (57:47):
Go ahead doesn't want to answer the question. It's very
very testy there in reply. And yeah, and also with
regard to the original report, which is disgusting if you
think about it, like playing sounds of crying babies and
and when people rush out to try to help this,
you know what they think is a struggling child or infant.
Then you know, using that to lure them out and

(58:07):
kill them is like, that's horrifying. The last thing we
wanted to share with you is that some of the
tenor of the discourse in our in the Gray, our
great Israeli allies, the way that the their assault on
Gaza is being discussed. I don't know if you guys
saw this. There was a picture of Palestinians on the
beach in Gaza that created this whole freak out on

(58:30):
the Israeli right. There was a discussion about this on
Israeli television and quite a reaction to it. Let's take
a look at this, and I'll read over the subtitles
here since this is in Hebrew, gut and put it
up on the screen, and I say, these people there
deserve death, a hard death and agonizing death, and instead
we see them enjoying on the beach, having fun. He
goes on these people. There are no innocent people there

(58:52):
in the gaza strip none. They voted for hamas, they
want Hamas, they celebrated, They hand it out candies, some
of them spat at the body, some of them took
selfies with our abductees. There are no innocence there. And
the fact they're now enjoying the beach instead of starving,
instead of being jerked around, instead of being severely tormented,
instead of hiding from shelling, they are enjoying the beach.
We should have seen a lot more revenge, a lot

(59:15):
more rivers of Gossen's blood. That is the commentary on
Israeli television, right, but please, let's let's talk more about
a student protester. What a nineteen year old might have
or might not have said at a college protest.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
At the same time, Trump's trial kicks off today, and
there were some very dramatic occurrings. I guess that happened
on Friday when a man actually self immolated outside of
the courthouse.

Speaker 3 (59:41):
It was actually caught live.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
We're not going to show you images of the self
immolation itself, but there are were some reporters on the scene,
and this is what it was described like by them.

Speaker 3 (59:49):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 12 (59:50):
What do you say. We also are seeing active shooter
and active shooters in the park outside of the court.
We have seen an arm that has been visible that
has been engulfed in total flames.

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
There is chaos that is happening.

Speaker 12 (01:00:01):
People are wondering right now if people are in danger.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
I'm looking across the court.

Speaker 12 (01:00:06):
Across the courtyard there is a man racing to his aid.
There's codes coming off to try to put out the fire.
We have members of security details. NYPD is rushing to
the scene. They are trying to come now. Officers are
on the scene. A fire extinguisher is right now present
being put on this man to try to put out.
People are climbing over barricade to try to separate the
public to put out the flame on this man.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
He had let himself out in fire.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
That was the initial reaction. Obviously it was not an
active shooter. It was a protester. Appears he's put out
a manifesto, et cetera. It appears to be a sad
and horrible case of mental illness. And it's often people
you know schizophrenia and others attracted to certain scenarios like this,
he wanted to start quote unquote a revolution and decided

(01:00:51):
to self emilate himself outside of the trial. But anything
you want to say on that, Crystal before we move.

Speaker 1 (01:00:55):
On, Yeah, I mean, I just he did ultimately succumb
to his wounds from self emilation. That reporting on him
is that he had been prone to some sort of
fringe or conspiratorial beliefs, and then his mother passed, and
according to the people who are around him, that was
really sort of a breaking point. So there was, you know,

(01:01:17):
immediate speculation always this about he's protesting Trump's you know,
legal issues or whatever. It appears to have had nothing
to do with Trump, Peter Thiel, Crypto, Jeffrey Epstein, a
lot of things were mentioned in the sub stack, but
Trump was not central to it. So it appears to
have been an incredibly tragic instance of mental illness.

Speaker 3 (01:01:39):
Yes, it's tragic, trying to get attention, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
But of course that does not obscure the fact that
there is that trial that is happening today significant and
let's actually go through some of it. We now, the
entire jury has been seated for the trial. Let's go
and put this up there on the screen. New York
Times says, will a mountain of evidence be enough to
convict Trump? We're going to have the opening statements today
in the people of the State of New York versus
Donald J. Trump, and the case quote seems strong, but

(01:02:04):
a conviction is far from assured. Some of the witnesses
are actually very important here. One of them is David Pecker,
who some of you might remember from the Stormy Daniels days.
David Pecker was the quote tabloid publisher who had buried
the damaging stories about Trump, the so called pay for
play scheme where catch and kill, where they would buy

(01:02:25):
incriminating stories on behalf of Trump and then keep them
in the vault under an NBA before then reporting it.
Other witnesses in the case will include Hope Hicks, the
spokesperson who tried to spin around this, a witness again
for the prosecution, and then of course Michael Cohen, who
has already pled guilty and actually served time in prison

(01:02:45):
specifically around this charge, but on the federal charge which
Trump was never indicted for. So three of those witnesses
very likely to back up the state's case in terms
of will it be enough to convict him. Conviction is
going to go on whether they agree with this novel
interpretation of the case and in terms of the law,
in terms of statute of limitations, but also in terms

(01:03:09):
of how they view the central charge around whether it's
campaign finance fraud or whether it was a personal one
or not. And this is, of course, Crystal been the
very beginning from the beginning around this case. Why eventually
the FEDS decided not to charge Trump, which said charge
around this because they thought they could plausibly not argue,

(01:03:30):
at least in a jury to convict Trump on the
campaign finance fees in particular, which amounts to accounting fraud
in terms of why the state is involved.

Speaker 1 (01:03:38):
Yeah, So just as a reminder, there won't be cameras
in the courtroom, so this all be you know, after
the day's events are concluded, we'll kind of get a
synopsis of whatever was said, who testified, what happened, what
was that in the opening arguments, etc. It is noteworthy
that you got David Pecker and Hope Hicks who are testifying,
so they won't have to wholly rely on the testimony

(01:03:59):
of Michael Cohen, who was you know, convicted liars. He
is not the most reliable witness, and that is one
of the things that the Trump team are certainly going
to you know, pursue and talk about. Is there's this
one key moment where Cohen claims that he and Trump
were in dialogue in the White House and Trump was
talking about these payments. Because this is one of the

(01:04:21):
things that they'll try to claim is like basically he
had no idea that any of this was going on.
So it'll be interesting not only to see how that
you know, that direct like he said, he said, peace
plays now, but what additional information picks who was you know,
for those of you who don't recall, who was omnipresent,
who was in a lot of key meetings, who had
a lot of time with Trump and also a long

(01:04:43):
history with him even pre dating you know, her time
in the White House. And David Packard now Packer who
was the tabloid publisher National Choir and also had a
long history with Trump. He is able to testify not
just to this Stormy Daniel's hush money situation, but to
a couple other stories that he helped Trump to quote

(01:05:05):
unquote catch and kill, so the idea being there was
another this playboy model Susan McDougall, who claims she had
an affair with Trump. He purchased her story and then
didn't run it. The other one was this doorman at
the Trump Tower building who claimed this is apparently not true,
but who had claimed that Trump had a mistress and
had the mistress that had an abortion. Pecker had also

(01:05:27):
purchased and buried that story as well. Now with Doormy Daniels,
he didn't do that because she was asking for too
much money. But then he works this is all the
allegations right, and the Trump's team, they'll have their say.
But he works with Michael Cohen to figure out this
workaround to get this story hushed up, even though the
price was too steep for him to be able to

(01:05:47):
do with the national enquir So that's sort of like
the heart of this, you know. On the one hand,
in terms of the jury, it's Manhattan. Not a lot
of Trump love in Manhattan. On the other hand, you
had a couple of these jurors who were ultimately selected,
who said at least a few sort of like more
or less favorable things about Trump, who weren't just out
and out Trump Peters, and you know he only has
to get one person one right on his side to

(01:06:12):
prevail here in what would be a very very significant win.
So those are kind of the contoences.

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
In the case. I can say, or can you imagine
if it's a hung jury or if you win.

Speaker 1 (01:06:21):
I think that's I think that's very possible.

Speaker 3 (01:06:23):
I think too.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
But the media freak out on that is going to
be unbelievable. Let's go and put this up there on
the screen. Because there was some discussion previously about the jurors.
Two jurors were actually dismissed in a trial before they
eventually all twelve were seated. It appears that some of
the jurors were dismissed prospective jurors because of critical social

(01:06:45):
media posts about Trump. But the eighteen people who have
selected have decided and have said that they will decide
the case based quote, purely.

Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
On the facts.

Speaker 2 (01:06:55):
Some of them two of them actually expressed positive feelings
about the former press that are on the jury. Two
of those who were dismissed one There was a lot
of attention around this which we previously had where a
juror with profile was described by Fox News and by
other media outlets, and she was approached and she was like,
people were asking whether it was her who was on

(01:07:17):
the jury, and she asked to be taken off. And
other jurors as well had expressed some feelings around that.
It was just funny, though, Crystal, because Fox and Jesse
Waters in particular was getting to blame. But if you
went and you looked like you could basically if you
know these people, you could guess it. Because ABC, the
New York Times and others had written similar write ups.

Speaker 3 (01:07:35):
Of all of the jurors who were involved.

Speaker 2 (01:07:37):
I will say I don't know how I feel about
that in terms of recording another because I'm like, Okay,
well if the entire if we're not going to release
their names.

Speaker 3 (01:07:44):
But just like for me, it's like, well, an Indian
guy who wears glasses, who those are? YouTube? Oh, I
wonder who it is? Former White House correspondent.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
You know, It's it's like either keep it secret or don't,
but don't try and play this weird mid gram middle
ground where we are right now.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
That's true. Yeah, I think you could have lease like
they had in there what their news preferences were, which
I thought was interesting the comments they made about Trump
and how they felt about him. That was interesting. But yeah,
you probably didn't need like the they're a nurse, How
is that really? I don't blame maybe even like the
toplight like okay it's a female, fine, but drilling down

(01:08:19):
into a lot of those details.

Speaker 3 (01:08:20):
I will say this, I don't blame the media.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
I think that if the law is going to allow
all of this to be published, then fine.

Speaker 3 (01:08:27):
I don't actually blame them at all.

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
At the end of the day, it's up to the
court to keep whatever it's people safe or not. But
if the court is going to have rules like secrecy
and all that, then they should at least write them
in a way that makes sense. I will never blame
reporters or journalists from putting out fullsome amount of information
because I figure that I think that's what they should do.

Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
I will say, in the instance of Jesse Waters and
there was a whole right wing conspiracy that these were
like intentional, like lib activists were sneaking onto the jury,
which I think there is no evidence to support that
in particular, but I I feel bad for these jurors,
like whether they're public now or not, Like it's very

(01:09:07):
likely to come out who these individuals are. They're going
to be the center of a firestorm the likes of
which they probably can't even imagine. That few people really
could imagine. It's going to be an absolute circus. And yeah,
we'll see how, we'll see how it all unfolds. Uh.
With one more piece that I'll let you coo up.
But I just do want to say on the political note, Yeah,
I know we're so used to thinking that nothing matters

(01:09:28):
for Trump. These are old allocations. As you say, it's
all baked in, and I think those are all like
totally fair and legitimate points. But you do see his
poll numbers right now slipping a bit. You see Biden
now and a lot of national averages has claimed like
a one point leads. Approval ratings stick up a little
tiny bit. How people are saying they feel about him

(01:09:49):
on the issues versus Trump, He's doing a little bit better.
And I do think part of what is dragging Trump
down right now is just him being in the media
now and it being in the context of legal tr
such as this case. And we also should remember when
the first details of this emerged, like people really found
it pretty gross even ones who said it may not

(01:10:10):
be illegal, but it's certainly wrong. So having those details
day after day in the news, I think that there's
some cope on the Trump right of saying, like, oh,
this persecution is going to guarantee him the elections. I
think that's crazy. Like bost of the country does not
view these things the way that the Republican base does.
I don't think there's any doubt that the criminal prosecutions

(01:10:34):
helped him in the context of a Republican primary. In
the context of a general election, it's a whole different ballgame.
So maybe it's a net neutral, maybe it doesn't change anything.
But I do not think that this is going to
be a net win for Donald Trump the way that
some of his supporters claim that it will be.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
Yeah, I don't think it will be. Oh, I think
it would be a win for him amongst his base.
I think any prosecution on terms of the public I
think this one basically out and I think the others
could be a lot more significant.

Speaker 3 (01:11:02):
Nonetheless, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
Why it's most important is because the judglar is threatening
the throne in jail if he's not there, you know,
in person. But we'll see whether any of that even materializes.
We would be remiss if we didn't play some liberal
fan fiction which has been making the rounds about what
is it diaper don?

Speaker 3 (01:11:19):
Is that the conspiracy right?

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
That's what they're claiming, so me might as touch, which
was that it's that liberal organization that put out all
those clips of Joe Rogan. They have reporters, sources, according
to them, who are inside the courtroom who claim that
Trump's flatulence is out of control inside the court according
to their well placed individuals.

Speaker 13 (01:11:41):
Let's take a listen, and I'm hearing from credible sources
who know what's going on in the courtroom. And what
I'm hearing is is that take it for what it's worth,
but that Donald Trump is actually farting in the courtroom,
and that it's very stinky around him, it's future and
odor in the courtroom, and that Trump's lawyers are like

(01:12:03):
repulsed by the scent and the smell. And I'm not
I'm not just saying that to be like, oh funny, funny.
I'm actually, you know, we have good sources there and
I'm hearing it from actual credible people that as he's
kind of falling asleep, he is actually passing gas and
that his lawyers are really struggling with the smell.

Speaker 2 (01:12:25):
His lawyers are really struggling with the smell he's got.
These are credible, credible reports.

Speaker 1 (01:12:32):
I love the sources personally.

Speaker 2 (01:12:34):
Yeah, so this is the This is also and look
we're not chair picking that clip when I saw had
somewhere around nine million views on Twitter and had been
retweeted some eleven to twelve thousand times, and of course
like made the rounds across what does these like occupy
Republicans or you know, all these things like Facebook boomer pages.

(01:12:55):
So the boomers are eating this one up. They are
really enjoying the idea of flat or diaper god.

Speaker 1 (01:13:01):
Yeah, so I support this resistance lib conspiracy personally.

Speaker 3 (01:13:04):
I mean, it is relatively harmless. It is amusing, I'll
tell you that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
But yeah, this is what is capturing the minds, and
there will only be even more of this type of
fan fiction that make the rounds some more that he finds.

Speaker 1 (01:13:15):
We don't know, it's not true.

Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
That's true, it's not true. It's got in credible.

Speaker 1 (01:13:19):
Sources, and we might just that. Let's turn to some
slightly more significant news here. We had a huge victory
for the United Auto Workers specifically, but the labor movement
in general. Coming out of this Volkswagon plant in Tennessee.
So this was the third time that workers at this

(01:13:39):
plant had attempted to unionize, this time with the landscape
quite a bit different and quite a bit more pro union,
the workers prevailed in historic fashion. Let's start off by
taking a listen to what some of the workers had
to say in their own words courtesy of more Perfect Union.

Speaker 9 (01:14:08):
Ye so now I was made the count.

Speaker 12 (01:14:13):
Are you out?

Speaker 3 (01:14:14):
Yea yea yea yea yes.

Speaker 14 (01:14:20):
You know, many of the talking heads and abundits have
said to me repeatedly before we announced this campaign, you
can't win in the South, said, Southern workers aren't ready
for it. They said, no, you auto Workers didn't.

Speaker 10 (01:14:42):
Have it hit up.

Speaker 4 (01:14:45):
But you all said watch that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:51):
That last person you're listening to there Sean Fame, the
new president of the United Auto Workers, who has made
an aggressive push non lean Ta Campbell stance, going out
on strike with regard to the Big Three contract negotiations.
But in the wake of that victory, saying listen, we're
going to organize the South. We're going to go after
foreign automakers. This is basically not happened successfully before in

(01:15:13):
American history, and so far it's looking pretty good for them.
Let's go and put the next piece up on the screen.
Was not even close. Seventy three percent voted yes, twenty
seven percent voted no. And again keep in mind, this
is a plant that had voted twice before in twenty seventeen,
I believe, in twenty nineteen, and had rejected unionization. Now,

(01:15:37):
with the wins that you saw, you know, Starbucks, Teamsters,
UAW with a more favorable climate amongst the public in
favor of unions, with a more favorable National Labor Relations Board,
this time the result is totally different. And the next up,
they have a vote in mid May down in Alabama
at a Mercedes plant that apparently they feel good about too.

(01:16:00):
So it's astonishing, Sager, not just that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:02):
So not only do they have seventy three percent who
cast in favor, but they had eighty four percent voter
participations of the eighty four percent of the forty three
hundred eligible workers in the plant actually participated. This is
the first vote in the South, they're saying, the first
time a Southern auto plant outside the three Detroit automakers
has ever been organized by UAW. This of course makes

(01:16:25):
sense because we have Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota and all this
with a blanketed across the American South with a lot
of manufacturing jobs and cars that have been strategically placed
there because of right to work laws. Now, the question
is about how that's going to change from this point forward.
What they the Wall Street Journal even talks here about
that there's less than four hundred thousand workers last year

(01:16:47):
who are inside UAW. That is seventy five percent less
than where they were in the nineteen seventies. So for
them to have wins like this that grow for the
future actually sets up that we're probably at the low
point of US union membership than ever before and likely
to go up. And one of the reasons is fun
at least to cover this story. This might be the

(01:17:08):
only rare piece of good news in our entire show,
So we absolutely wanted to include it.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
Yeah, no, no doubt about it. And yeah, you can
see the way the historic winds have changed, Like there's
a huge backlash now against you know, we saw in
COVID how these companies were screw workers over, they were
risking their lives, they were making money hand over fist.
They continue to make record breaking profits and not pass
it on to consumers, let alone their workers continue to
you know, corporate price gouging, et cetera. And people are

(01:17:35):
through with it to the extent that even on a
state like Tennessee where the politician, the political class there
was overwhelmingly hostile to unions, you had a bunch of
Southern governors come out against this union drive. They've been
threatened with all, they're going to close the plant, et cetera,
et cetera. Those things just don't matter. And then you know,
you also just have this momentum. Now that's so important

(01:17:58):
because previously when workers saw just you know, concessionary contract,
union loss after union loss, and the union based shrinking
and shrinking and shrinking, it wasn't very compelling to join.
And you know, when you see what the big three
workers are getting there, like I do this same job,
why the hell shouldn't I be getting the same type
of pay, the same type of benefits, and have that

(01:18:19):
similar type of life. So we'll see what happens in
Alabama next. And speaking to that, you know, that momentum
and this sense of solidarity across not just the auto industry,
but a bunch of different you know, variety of industries,
white collar, blue collar, service sector, et cetera. One worker
said he was actually inspired by the writer's strike, which

(01:18:40):
we thought was kind of interesting. Let's take a listen
to that.

Speaker 15 (01:18:42):
We like when all the labor strikes first, you know,
like the like the writers and stuff like that.

Speaker 10 (01:18:47):
Like I was a communications.

Speaker 15 (01:18:48):
Major in college, and so seeing the writers go on
strike and standing after their rights, that was I was
so excited about that. And then seeing there's a part
of us that when we be talking about this just
secretly in the back of our minders, like man, I
wonder if I wonder if auto workers, if we're going
to start seeing something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Here you can see the way these things have a
momentum of their own, and I think it's, you know,
the horses out of the bar. And I think you're right, Saga,
that we've seen now the low point in terms of
population union density, and it really matters because having workers
have a little bit of say in their workplace, it's
good not only for those particular workers, but it helps
to set the standards across industries, across the entire liborpool.

(01:19:32):
In the US. So very heartening to see this. Congratulations
to these workers who risk a lot, by the way
to organize here and stuck their neck out and now
they get to have a say in their workplace.

Speaker 2 (01:19:41):
Yeah, the big change, the big question is going to
be obviously the spread whether this will go to Toyota, apparently, Honda, Hyundai,
and other foreign car manufacturers all across the American style.
So this is one But this obviously is like a
signal that goes out across that And but we also
shouldn't forget, as we covered previously, it's not like the
state governments aren't going to fight back. Oh yeah, this Alabama, Tennessee,

(01:20:02):
all these other places. They're going to use everything in
their disposal to try and to try and to quash
any of these future votes.

Speaker 1 (01:20:09):
Yeah. The last thing I'll mention here is Volkswagen. They
are used to dealing with unions in their European locations,
and so the reports are they were less hostile to
unionization efforts than other automakers like Tesla, for example. Maybe,
so that could be a key factor here as well.

(01:20:30):
But the fact that this victory was so resounding, the
fact that this same planet had lost two separate votes
and now votes seventy three percent for a union really
does show you that we're living in a different era now.
Things have decidedly changed.

Speaker 3 (01:20:44):
Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:20:45):
All right, let's move on to Tucker Carlson on the
Joe Rogan Experience. There were wild conspiracies flying when the
episode itself was posted. Why doesn't it have enough views?
What's going on there? Well, it's got several million views now,
so everybody can relax. In general, just who don't have
YouTube channels. In the first twenty four hours, it will
often be much less publicly than what it actually is

(01:21:07):
on the back end. I'm not really sure why they
do that, but just so people understand that's what it is.
After around twenty four hours or so, you can go
and check and you will see the actual number. But
that belies what's actually important. There were some ideological disagreements
that were made on the show, where Tucker in particular
echoed some of the things that he talked about previously
whenever I interviewed him before about free speech hypocrites in

(01:21:31):
the alternative media space.

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
He names in shames.

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
Barry Weiss and then also heavily implies Ben Shapiro as
well let's take a listen.

Speaker 16 (01:21:39):
If you hear someone talk that's saying something that's kind
of horseshit, it resonates with you that that's what you've seen.

Speaker 17 (01:21:47):
You had a moment with Barry Weiss on your show
that when everywhere I saw a clip of it. I
never saw the show itself, but she was going on
about she was posing as one thing, and then you
pressed you, you like, well, hold on a second, what do
you mean by that? You just attack somebody? And she
had no idea what she was talking about. And it
became really clear to me watching that. I completely changed
my view of Barry Weiss forever. I was like, oh,

(01:22:08):
this she's a fraud. Actually, this person's not honest at all.
Like she has a very specific agenda, that's all she
cares about. The rest of this stuff is just a
is a kind of sleight of hand maneuver.

Speaker 16 (01:22:21):
You're talking about the thing with Tulta Gabbart, that's correct. Yeah,
she called her a toady and she didn't know what
that meant.

Speaker 17 (01:22:26):
Well, but she had no idea like Telsea Gabbard had
straight outside the lines on some Syria or something. Oh huh.
And Barry Weiss was, you know, going through the files
in her head, like what does she have to believe?
And she was aware that, you know, Tulsi Gabbart had
somehow violated that in a way that no one's willing
to say, like in detail to her fully articulately, what

(01:22:48):
did Tulsi Gabbert do wrong? No one will tell you.

Speaker 3 (01:22:50):
She's just bad. But it's important to be honest about
what your agenda.

Speaker 16 (01:22:54):
She is honest. I think she is honest, and I
really like her.

Speaker 1 (01:22:57):
Yeah, I like that.

Speaker 17 (01:22:58):
I'm not she's very into well, not against her personally.

Speaker 16 (01:23:01):
I just think that was a mistake, and I think
you're allowed to do that and hopefully learn from that.

Speaker 17 (01:23:06):
If your agenda is neo kun politics, which is her agenda,
just say so. Don't pretend to be a defender of
free speech as a principle, which is what she does.

Speaker 16 (01:23:17):
How is she a defender of neokon politics?

Speaker 3 (01:23:19):
Very wise?

Speaker 17 (01:23:20):
Yeah, like what specifically, Well, anyone including me and Tulca Gabbard,
who thinks that America shouldn't be funding worse that don't
help America, she will attack.

Speaker 2 (01:23:31):
Yeah, I mean that's empirically true. I'm on Barry's feed literally, right,
and listen, I have nothing personal against Barry Wise. You've
only ever been cordial. This is purely a professional disagreement.
Has put all that out there. But I'm on Barry's
feed and everything is about individual students getting attacked at Yeah,
for example, headline at the Free Press, I was stabbed

(01:23:51):
in the Yale because I am a Jew. And then
I continue to scroll past, and I see multiple retweets
of like a panic going on anti free speech that's
happening at Columbia University. If I continue to scroll and
look at the Free Press, I see articles that are
justifying more aid to Ukraine, more aid to Israel. But

(01:24:12):
really what gave away the game to me? And this
is actually just pure, one hundred percent proof, is it.
Verry did an event in Israel with a guy named
Natan Sharansky. Now most of you probably don't know who
that is. Sharansky is an israel Israeli politician and a
father of neo conservative ideology. He his book was chiefly
responsible for George W. Bush's second inaugural address and the

(01:24:34):
Freedom Agenda about spreading democracy to Iraq. So if you
are doing an event with the father of the Freedom
Agenda from Iraq, you are a neocon one hundred percent.
And she did that unironically in Israel. And then also
while there was posting videos like.

Speaker 3 (01:24:52):
This is what it's like to be under attack, you know, while.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
We're in Israel, people were like, yeah, what about a
couple miles away over there in God's Like, I'm not
justifying the attack, but I'm just come on, you know, like,
let's chill here a little bit on the propaganda. So look,
with all due respect to our friend Joe Rogan, I
do think Barry is an absolutely unreconstructed neo conservative, a
hypocrite whenever it comes to free speech, as Tucker correctly

(01:25:15):
was calling out there, and he wasn't just talking about her,
he was also talking about Ben Shapiro because both of
those individuals raised and let's be honest, you know, monetarily
became multi millionaires speaking out against free speech, hypocrisy and
all that. And it's very easy, you know, to attack
the left world, do it here anytime if we see
hypocrisy as well. But you know, whenever it comes to

(01:25:36):
an issue there where they have a deep emotional and
religious attachment, then all of a sudden, all that stuff
gets thrown right out the window.

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
Listen part of Joe's charms that he sees the best
in them. Yeah, that's we're sitting across from him, and
that includes Barry Weiss, so we'll put him aside. In
terms of the commentary. You know, the free speech part
with Barry, it's so blatant because you know, when she
was a college student, she was engaged aged in some
of these activist efforts to get Muslim professors who she

(01:26:05):
found to be saying things she didn't like canceled. Now
she claimed once she entered her quote unquote free speech
era that oh, I was a college student and people
gave her a pass. Okay, find your college student. People,
you know, make mistakes and they change and they grow,
et cetera, et cetera. But the minute it came to Israel,
suddenly she is the biggest cancel culture proponent that you
could possibly am. I mean, that is what her entire

(01:26:27):
Twitter feed is at this point. And it's not surprising
that this tactic is being used to smear an entire
protest movement and an entire cause because we see this
plan on through throughout history. It's easier to you know,
find the asshole in the movement, use that person to

(01:26:48):
smear the entire movement, and then use that smearing of
the movement to delegitimize the cause. And at this point,
if you're an Israel supporter, that is a lot easier
than actually out and out justifying what Israel is doing
in Palestine day after day. It was a lot easier
than out and out trying to argue that US continuing
to support them as they were sending the world catastrophically

(01:27:10):
in World War three is somehow an American interest. So
it's you know, it's a cheap and easy playbook that
we see throughout history. And yeah, she was happy to
ditch the free speech language the minute that it was
became inconvenient for her, after she built an entire your
media empire off of it. So, I mean, that's just
the reality.

Speaker 3 (01:27:26):
You believe what you want, Okay, it's free country.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
If you want to be rapidly pro Israel, cool, you
want to cancel people who are Palestinian activists while you're
in college and then apologize.

Speaker 3 (01:27:36):
For it, which is what she did. Objectively. She came
out and said that she.

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
Regretted her passing that I'll take you at your word,
but then if you're immediately going to regress back to
that same behavior, then I'm not going to take you
out your word.

Speaker 3 (01:27:51):
I'm going to say that you are a giant hypocrite.

Speaker 2 (01:27:53):
And that's the same problem I have with Ben Shapiro, again,
a pan who I have only ever had good personal
interaction with. But this is a professional and a principal
disagreement about what we view as important and what we
view as actually whether you're standing up for what you
said you believe in or not. And I think it
was I'm glad that Tucker said that. I would hope,

(01:28:14):
you know that Joe would maybe be take a look
at some other free press articles that are out there,
because I do think it's very important. There were also
some allegations that Tucker made about blackmail and members of Congress,
according to him, that he's seen from the intelligence community.

Speaker 3 (01:28:29):
Let's take a listen, by.

Speaker 17 (01:28:31):
The way, you know, whatever, that's all I'll say, By
the way, no, I mean, you know, people don't say
that because they're worried abut getting punished. They're worried about
someone putting kitty porn on their computer. Members of Congress
are terrified of the Intel agencies I'm not guessing at that.
They've told me that, including people on the Intel Committee,
including people who run the Intel Committee, the people whose

(01:28:51):
job it is to oversee and keep in line these
enormous secretive agencies whose budgets we can't even know their
black budget. It's there. The parents, the agencies are the children.
They're afraid of the agencies. That's not compatible with democracy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
Interesting alleging there that they'll put Katie porn on your
I mean, listen, it's certainly possible. The broader thing, I
definitely one hundred percent agree with. Glenn always loves to
put play that clip of Chuck Schumer from twenty seventeen
whenever he's like, Trump shouldn't mess with the Intel agencies
and the CIA because they can really make life hard
for you. And You're like, wait, what is your job

(01:29:34):
is to is to.

Speaker 3 (01:29:35):
Oversee the CIA?

Speaker 2 (01:29:36):
Are you saying that there's the opposite, And I mean,
considering what happened with Mike Johnson, where you have a
guy who voted against Ukraine AID, spoke out against Ukraine AID,
became president and then literally said because of the Intel
that he decided to flip and become Winston Churchill and
he prayed on on all that.

Speaker 3 (01:29:53):
I am not going to rule out blackmel Cristal. In
terms of this, Mike john.

Speaker 1 (01:29:55):
Remember the Russian space Nuka just say situation when they're
just yes with them through Listen the kitty porn thing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, no evidence presented. In addition,
like this does kind of give a past to how
any member of Congress in the future ends up with
kitty porn on their laptop, to be like, it wasn't me,
it was the Intel committees. It's just because I'm such

(01:30:17):
a like, you know, warrior for truth that they're coming
after me. Whatever. Look at what Tucker had to say
about it. It's all out there in the open, soide
don't love those comments certainly in terms the thing is
that many of these conspiracies are out in the open.
Like we were discussing before, we know the way that
they rolled Obama. We know, you know, Trump was easily manipulated.
Mike Johnson publicly admitted that he was emotionally manipulated by

(01:30:42):
them into completely changing his previously held multiple positions. So
I mean that part of it is just like it's
not a conspiracy, that's just an undeniable fact about the
way that they operate, and they can threaten to leak
to the press, and there's any number of stenographers out
there or print whatever they want to print, and they
can ruin you, and these politicians know they can ruin you.

(01:31:02):
You add to that, then you know the amount of
money coming in not only through the Israel lobby, but
also critically across every issue from the military industrial complex,
these defense The defense industry is one of the largest
funders of political campaigns. And you see how you end
up with the results that we have, which are directly
contrary to actual democracy and actual will of the people,

(01:31:26):
which is why over and over and over again, you
see these things only go in one direction.

Speaker 2 (01:31:30):
Yeah, absolutely, all right, let's okay, second part here, and
this requires an entire discussion on its own.

Speaker 3 (01:31:36):
Talker and I do share a fascination.

Speaker 2 (01:31:39):
With UFO's UAPs whatever you would like to call it.
But he seems to believe that the phenomenon as it
exists involves something supernatural but of this world, and something
that is not alien or extraterrestrial. Here's the case that
he laid out on Joe Rogan.

Speaker 16 (01:31:57):
Well, when you say spiritual, like what makes you draw
that conclusion that their spiritual?

Speaker 17 (01:32:02):
What's the obvious I mean spiritual maybe the wrong words supernatural?
You know, they're beyond nature as we understand it. I mean,
obviously they are. I mean, just chart their physical behavior.
It doesn't you know, it goes outside of what we
understand about physics. So if you have a craft, any
object underwater that's traveling at five hundred knots as measured
by sonar right there, you're challenging understanding physics, like what

(01:32:24):
is that? How can that be?

Speaker 16 (01:32:26):
So they've they've tracked that, they've tracked things going five
hundred knots under the sea.

Speaker 17 (01:32:32):
Yeah really, yeah, much much faster than any object could
can actually go under under Oh for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:32:40):
Oh yeah.

Speaker 17 (01:32:41):
There's a lot of stuff going on underwater and a
lot and there's video of these things coming out of
the sky into the water and also emerging from the water.

Speaker 4 (01:32:53):
Right.

Speaker 17 (01:32:53):
But then there's a deeper level, which is like, Okay,
what's your relationship with these things? What is the US
government's relationship with these things? And there's evidence that there
is a relationship and that it's a longstanding and that
raises like a lot of questions about intent, and.

Speaker 3 (01:33:13):
So like what is that?

Speaker 17 (01:33:14):
And I just personally decided, you know, and people have
been hurt by these things. You know, that's a fact.
That's a fact. It's a noble fact, it's a provable fact.

Speaker 3 (01:33:25):
And killed.

Speaker 17 (01:33:26):
And I'm not saying millions of people have been killed
by whatever these things are, but people have been killed,
and it's known because it's working its way through the
courts out of the VA. So I don't know an
object that is by definition supernatural, it's above the laws
of nature as we understand them, and that has resulted
in the deaths of people. We don't spend enough time

(01:33:50):
thinking about like what that adds up to, like not good?
Actually not good.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
So he's implying kind of the same stuff that he'd
previously talks about here, Crystal. I mean, he seems to
believe that uap ufo whatever you would like to call it,
of beer in here for hundreds of years, which definitely
there is evidence for that, but that they are like
some sort of biblical angels and demons as opposed to extraterrestrials.

Speaker 3 (01:34:14):
So I'll let you weigh in before I give some
of my thoughts.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
Well, this k yeah, this the context before of his
interview with Putin, We're asked Putin something about this, and
Putin's like, noe, yeah, I don't know. I feel like
I have to get you to decode this for me,
because I was asking you previously, how large of a
percentage of the like UFO interest community shares this like

(01:34:39):
Christian spiritual angel demons view of whatever the hell is
going on?

Speaker 2 (01:34:44):
This is more of like a nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties
UFO phenomenal. Really yeah, oh yeah, people back in the
day used to really believe.

Speaker 1 (01:34:50):
I thought this was like a new school, like Christian Nationalism.

Speaker 3 (01:34:52):
No, no, no, definitely, no, absolutely not.

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
If anything, it's much older, the more of the extraterrestrial school,
I guess you could call it is. I mean, it's
always been there for the entire time, but there's always
been debates and all around this. To a certain extent,
I don't even care, because as long as people are interested,
it's just going to lead to more transparency. What kicked
off this entire discussion actually was the declassification of the
ConA Blue Program, and these were declassified documents. News Nation

(01:35:16):
reporting this and I've confirmed at least some of it
as well, from those people that I've spoken to, is
specifically about a proposed program to try and reverse engineer
back UFOs. It was quote scrapped according to them, when
no alien technology was found, and the Pentagon continues to
maintain there is no evidence of alien life. So what
they said, basically, what they're claiming is there was a

(01:35:37):
proposal to back engineer UFOs, but then they weren't able
to find any UFOs. But why would you have a
back engineering proposal if there were no UFOs?

Speaker 3 (01:35:44):
Whatever? Got chat?

Speaker 2 (01:35:45):
Okay, there's a lot of conversation I guess around this.
To be honest, I mean, look, you know, nome disrespect.
Doesn't it seem more plausible that that we're dealing with
extraterrestrial life than we are angels and demons that we're
dealing with if something, you know, one is in the
realm of all scientifics. All sci fi is premised on

(01:36:06):
what on the idea and specifically toying with the Fermi
paradox and all that that if intelligent life is able
to arise on a relatively unremarkable planet like Earth, then
why would it not be able to arise in the
billions and billions and trillions upon stars that exists in
our galaxy at the same time. If there are, and
extraterrestrial life is almost a certainty, then why haven't we

(01:36:27):
been able to see it or observe it? And that's
where it comes into play of like, well, an intelligent
life would have to be able to achieve you know,
faster than light travel at the exact same time that
the human race has. One hundred and fifty thousand years
or whatever of human evolution is a blink of an
eye in terrestrial terms. So there may have been vast
great civilizations that have been risen and fallen in the interim,

(01:36:48):
and that way, we may be the only ones in
our star system or whatever at the current moment that
is able.

Speaker 3 (01:36:54):
To even see.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
So I accept, and you know, see both certain possibilities,
but I think that that is a lot more of
a possible explanation.

Speaker 3 (01:37:02):
I will just say, very humbly myself.

Speaker 1 (01:37:04):
That's very diplomatically put. Yeah, I'll just defer.

Speaker 3 (01:37:06):
To you on that one. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:37:08):
Look, in terms of the evidence for their theory, what
they point to is again not necessarily incompatible with any
theories around extraterrestrial life, because we're there evidence for supernatural
and or like religion and all that really relies again
on like big conversations within physics around the fourth and

(01:37:30):
the fifth dimension and this whole idea if you ever
watch Interstellar, you know the idea of its future humans
send themselves back. I think that's the explanations if there
is one for kind of what he's talking about. Gotch
if that makes sense. Okay, anyway, there we go.

Speaker 1 (01:37:45):
All right, guys, we have a great guest standing by
who's actually been tracking these protests on the Columbia University
campus for quite a while. So let's go ahead and
get to that. Very pleased to be joined this morning
by prem Taker. He's a reporter for the as I mentioned,
has been covering these Columbia University protests for quite some time.
Great to have you, probub, welcome you.

Speaker 3 (01:38:05):
See you man.

Speaker 10 (01:38:05):
Happy to happ to be here, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:38:08):
So we all were witnessed to some extraordinary scenes coming
out of the campus grounds over the weekend. Let's go
and put this up on the screen and maybe you
can tell us what we see here. It's the New
York Police Department coming in to arrest what appeared to
be peaceful student protesters just give us a little bit
of what we're looking at and what the backstory is here.

Speaker 10 (01:38:29):
Yeah, So.

Speaker 18 (01:38:31):
On Wednesday, as many people know, last week, Columbia administrators,
including Columbia President Minushafik, had been called to Congress to
testify in front of the hearing of the House committee
that has been hosting hearings on antisemitism. And at the
same morning that this was happening, hundreds of Columbia students
had launched an encampment, both kind of in relation to

(01:38:53):
this hearing, but more broadly sort of escalating ongoing demands
they've had for years now about financial trends, expariency, and
to call for the school to divest from companies that
might be implicated in israels of violence in Palestine. And
so there's this en camera that that sprouts up on
Wednesday morning, very massive encampment at the same time the

(01:39:14):
administrators are testifying in front of Congress at this hearing.
Of course I was at the hearing live, but you know,
as many people were just falling through Twitter and c
spent if that's your choice. These members of Congress, especially Republicans,
have really gotten Columbian administrators to agree to this premise

(01:39:34):
that more needed to be done in response to these students.
And so you see, the day after Thursday, Columbia acts
on those premises and sends the NYPD to sort of
sweep out this encampment and begin conducting arrests, of which
I believe over one hundred students were arrested. I believe

(01:39:56):
fifty odd students from Barnard, the Women's College at Columbia,
and then thirty odd Columbia students, and I think this
number has probably grown since then.

Speaker 10 (01:40:05):
We're also suspended.

Speaker 18 (01:40:07):
So that was the beginning of what we've now seen,
you know, the past four or five days, just this
ongoing escalation on part especially of the university to kind
of meet these students, not with sort of perhaps good
faith willingness to negotiate or discuss issues at hand, but
really just to police them. And I'll note last night

(01:40:29):
at one fifteen am, President Manushafik sent an email kind
of expressing an interest in.

Speaker 10 (01:40:34):
In some ways.

Speaker 18 (01:40:36):
You know, of course people criticize the statement, but she's
expressed a desire to kind of hash things out and
then bring the temperature down.

Speaker 10 (01:40:44):
So that's kind of the latest.

Speaker 2 (01:40:46):
Update, okay, And so you also put out an image
which we're about to play here, which was the aftermath
after the NYPD he came in where it appears to
actually pour gasoline on that. Let's actually see that image
right now, and so prem that image underscore that it

(01:41:14):
actually ended up increasing the amount of protesters.

Speaker 3 (01:41:18):
It's drawn attention. Now, what is the current status quo?

Speaker 2 (01:41:21):
And give us some background because things now I've reached
the national discourse level. We've seen people calling for the
National Guard to be brought in the NYPD.

Speaker 3 (01:41:31):
Mayor Eric Adams.

Speaker 2 (01:41:33):
Actually, I think we have that statement out there f
seven guys, if we can put that up there on
the screen. We have Mayor Eric Adams who has put
out a tweet where he says that he deplores the
amount of anti semitism on campus. I'm horrified and disgusted
being spewed around the Columbia University.

Speaker 3 (01:41:50):
Hate has no place in our city.

Speaker 2 (01:41:51):
I've instructed NYPD to investigate any violation of the law.
Rhetoric is certainly ramping up there. So what do you
expect the fallout to?

Speaker 18 (01:42:00):
Yeah, So for context, in the past day or two,
there have been instances of alleged you know, anti semitism
that have been circulating throughout the internet, things that you know,
we ought to verify, and also things that it's not
clear if they were in fact Propositian students making these
claims or doing these things. There's concerns as with protests,

(01:42:22):
especially with regards to Israel pastime for years of potential infiltration,
slash fall flags. You know, we're not sure, but regardless,
in any case, those instances have helped propel numerous members
of Congress, even the White House, as you saw Eric
Adams as well as Governor Kathy Okle to issue statements

(01:42:44):
essentially condemning the student protesters in all sorts of ways,
whether it's you know, describing them or comparing them to
possibly being terrorist sympathizers or at least echoing terrorist rhetoric.
I believe John Fetterman had much more direct comparison that
if you gave these students tiki torches, they'd be unmistakable

(01:43:07):
from the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. But regardless, you know,
that has definitely I think probably prompted this this late
night savement from Manushafik, and so as far as how
students and faculty members are navigating this today, all classes
are virtual, I think as as the administration tries to
figure out what.

Speaker 10 (01:43:27):
To do today.

Speaker 18 (01:43:30):
As well, faculty starting yesterday had a very hard time
getting around campus. Their ide access to buildings. A lot
of faculty reporting was either severely hindered or even just
blocked and they had to be escorted to buildings. And
that change was made kind of spontaneously, which means students
to faculty who had you know, whether it was a

(01:43:51):
notebook or project, and in various buildings that they couldn't
really go to to get those things. So I think
everything is kind of you know, being done by the
sea of their pants in terms of how far this
is spreading to your points are Yeah, Like after the
NYPD was authorized to come in and arrest students, that
set off hundreds more students to have more interest just

(01:44:14):
in Columbia's campus, but also now students throughout the country
who have already also been protesting against perhaps university involvement
or investment in Israel's violence.

Speaker 10 (01:44:24):
They've been escalating to schools.

Speaker 18 (01:44:26):
And these aren't just Ivy League schools that are often
you know, seen as the centrifuge of these actions. You know,
there's the universe from North Carolina. There's Michigan University as
of today that's doing an encampment Miami University in Oxford, Ohio,
which I love to say the full sentence of because
it's a very silly series of words. But there's a

(01:44:47):
lot of schools across the country that now are being
host to actions that are not just in solidarity with
these Columbia students, but really just ramping up their own
actions to say, well, if Columbia can do this too, Columbia.

Speaker 10 (01:45:00):
Students, I should say, then we ought to be escalating
as well. It is kind of the mindset of these students.

Speaker 1 (01:45:07):
Have you seen any evidence that anti Semitism is one
of the core emotions or goals that are fueling these
protests movements across a variety of college campuses.

Speaker 18 (01:45:19):
So I've been speaking to students all across the country
throughout the past six months, and I think, as in
any case, of course, individual instances of antisemitism would surely
happen to any place, because reality check, there are anti
Semitic people in this country and in this world. But
in terms of this specific protest movement, what we've seen

(01:45:41):
at the Columbia protest, what we've seen at protests throughout
the past six months, throughout past years. Is that it's
very much both just visually if you take a look,
but also in terms of their rhetoric, in terms of
what they want. It's a multi racial, interfaith group of
people that really just fired up by the idea that

(01:46:02):
their schools, their elected officials, the people that they trust
or just simply pay are implicated in what they see
as a state government that's committing apartheid, that's committing violence
that they might be financially implicated or institutionally implicated. That
seems to be the driving force for all these protesters

(01:46:24):
for the most part, as sort of an organization, as
a group of people that are coming together for goals.
It's to not allow the images that they've seen over
the past six months, especially to continue. And as a
lot of anti Zionis Jewish people say, not in their
name either.

Speaker 2 (01:46:43):
So we have yet seen, though the chief Rabbi at
Columbia F five, who can please put that up there
on the screen where the chief Rabbi has put out
a message to the more than two hundred and ninety
Jewish students at Columbia University yesterday morning, recommending that they
go home until it is safe again for them on campus.

(01:47:03):
So is there any evidence that any of these students
are unsafe on their campus?

Speaker 18 (01:47:09):
Yeah, so I think similarly again, I would say that,
you know, there could very well be individuals of anti
Cmitism that students are facing, and and if they're apporting
them to to their own you know, whether it's their
faith leaders or or campus leaders as the administration has recommended,
then of course some of those leaders will say, hey,
you know, I personally don't think it's safe. For what

(01:47:30):
it's worth, there have been also lots of Jewish students
and Jewish student leaders and and and facut members as
well that are pushing back against that quite severely, especially
given that many of the people within the encampment themselves
are either Israeli or Jewish. So you know, I'm not

(01:47:50):
going to UH as their individual porters say who should
or shouldn't feel safe generally for for for their own
individual's sake, But in terms of the campus as a whole,
I think if we're going to look for UH document
instance the violence that have been committed, of course, one
of the main ones that's been on people's mind is

(01:48:11):
of course the incident in January where students were sprayed
with some sort of chemical It's not been confirmed what.

Speaker 10 (01:48:21):
At a rally for Gaza.

Speaker 18 (01:48:22):
That's one of the more prominent instances of of of
violence against students, and nevertheless, those students continue to organize
and be together. I believe the Craft Center as well,
which is a big space for for Jewish students, has
encouraged students to sort of, you know, are to not

(01:48:44):
exit campus in this way because I think, you know,
they want to, you know, make sure that they provide
a space for students as well in case students are
feeling you know, distressed. But I think for one, especially politicians,
to to operate on this presumption that Columbia and other
college campuses are not a safe place for Jewish people
or Israeli people are really teeing off on these sort

(01:49:08):
of viral claims of individual instances and are not entertaining
the fact that there are scores of Jewish and Israeli
students and students of all backgrounds that not only feel
safe on campus, but feel empowered on campus because that
they're of this organizing together.

Speaker 1 (01:49:26):
Prom last thing for you, I wanted to get your
reaction to the White House statement, guys, this is E
six we can put up on the screen. They said, Well,
every American has the right to peaceful protest. Calls for
violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students in the Jewish
community are blatantly anti Semitic, unconsortable, and dangerous. They have
absolutely no place on any college campus or anywhere in
the USA. And echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organizations, especially

(01:49:48):
in the wake of the worst massacre committed against the
Jewish people since the Holocaust, is despicable. We condemn these
statements in the strongest terms. How would you compare this
reaction action to the White House to reported isolated comments
of random protesters near college campuses. How would you compare

(01:50:10):
that reaction to the reaction they had, for example, to
a member of Congress calling for Gaza to be nuked,
or another one saying goodbye Palestine, or another one saying
there are no innocent Gozzins.

Speaker 18 (01:50:24):
Yeah, I think your question kind of lays out the
answer itself. You know, this is actually something we had
reported on two weeks ago, just going through every single
sort of anti Palestine new thing that a member of
Congress had said over the past exons, and of course
that list could not be all inclusive just because it's
so normalized. But you know, this administration has not issued

(01:50:47):
any sort of direct formal response or statement with regards
to those that growing pile of just vicious anti past
in retic as you know, Lindsey Graham saying to level
the place, Cotton, saying Israel can bounce the Reubland Gaza,
as you just to you know, numerous representatives saying to
you know, we're going to turn into a parking lot.

(01:51:09):
Representative Brian mass who famously wore his idea of uniform
to Congress, which I'm not sure how usual it is
for an American number of Congress to away a foreign
military uniform to to the halls of Congress, but he
compared Palestinian civilians to Nazis and has said other vicious
things as well.

Speaker 10 (01:51:26):
You know, this administration has not.

Speaker 18 (01:51:28):
Issued any sort of formal statement on it, let alone,
you know, rhetorically or or politically exhibited any sort of
counter to that idea. Those things kind of exist in
the ether, and it's not sort of sort of evidently clear.
And the same way that the Biden instiration has issued
many many, many statements about October seventh about condemning Hamas,
about anti Semitism, which is which is all good and great.

(01:51:50):
You know you should be making those evident statements on
violence and and and anti pow excuse me, anti sam
Semitic rhetoric. They have not done the same at all,
even for their own colleagues, saying, you know, genocidal rhetoric.

Speaker 10 (01:52:04):
I will know.

Speaker 18 (01:52:04):
One other thing is that this was in the same
twenty four hours the White House statement as Israeli forces
killing I believe eighteen or nineteen children, and then a
husband because a pregnant wife, and then two yes, yes, exactly,
and then two more women in Rafa, which should be underscored,

(01:52:25):
is not only where over a million civilians are taking
refuge after being displaced, but is where the United States
has ostensibly said over and over and over again that
they do not support a major operation without a plan
to protect civilians. But in that time Israel has repeatedly
done what I guess is normalized as a not major
operation and has just been killing people just over time

(01:52:49):
on mass But of course, nevertheless there was no formal
clear statement on that, and I will update the people
soon on this. But it's been hours since I reached
out to the White House since midday yesterday about that
exact thing, to see if you know, at least upon
being prompted, if they would, you know, share a comment.

Speaker 10 (01:53:09):
I have not heard back yet.

Speaker 1 (01:53:11):
There you go, prom Thank you so much for joining
us this morning's pleasure to meet you, get to speak
to you, and we've also enjoyed some of your exchanges
with the State Department. So please keep up the good work.

Speaker 3 (01:53:20):
Thanks, ma'am, take care.

Speaker 10 (01:53:21):
Of you both.

Speaker 1 (01:53:22):
Yeah, thanks you too.

Speaker 3 (01:53:24):
Thank you guys so much for watching.

Speaker 2 (01:53:25):
I'm sure we'll have a nice long show for everybody
tomorrow too, and we'll see you all later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Dateline NBC