4/29/24: Cable Viewers Brainwashed On Israel, Jill Stein Arrested At Campus Protest, SCOTUS Blow To Trump Case, Howard Stern Tongue Bathes Biden, Trump Loses It On RFK Vaccine Stance, Biden Blocking Bibi Arrest Warrant, ADL Freaks On Ilhan, Kristi Noem Puppy Murder

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
It's a big day, guys.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
We have a lot of exclusive polling that we commissioned
here at Breaking Points that's going to look at Americans'
views of Israel and Palestine. And we have a special
lens of how people view this conflict depending on where
they get their news from. Yes, which is very interesting
and obviously very relevant given the conversation about TikTok, etc.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
So we're going to break those down.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
We also have the continued crackdown on campus protesters and
a few hoaxes that have emerged.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Amidst all of that.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
You've also got a bipartisan effort to further censor speech
on campus.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
So that's great. We'll get into all of that.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Also, incredibly consequential oral hearings at oral arguments at the
Supreme Court last week taking a look at whether Trump
should be immune for any official acts during his presidency,
and big question marks about what this is going to
mean for Jacksmith's January sixth case in particular against Trump,
so we'll break that down for you. We also have
Trump now taking aim at RFK Junior after some polls

(01:26):
which we covered here revealed that perhaps RFK Junior is
taking more votes away from Trump, so he seems like
he's more a little bit more nervous now. And RFK
Junior also was on with Bill mar we'll show you
a little bit of that.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
It appears that the International Criminal.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
Court is set to issue arrest warrants against bb net
Yahoo and some of his compatriots, the US getting involved there,
and we also have some exclusive poll numbers that we
can bring you there as well about how Americans feel
about bb net Nyaho and whether or not they think
that he is a war criminal. And lastly, Christina, I'm
apparently murdered a puppy, So got to break that down

(02:01):
for you as well.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
She got at least that's literally the case.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
She wrote about it in her book Created I would
say a bipartisan reaction of I would hope so utter revulsion.
And you know, she was a top contender for Trump
VP picks, so it seems important.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
We'll get into that. And I'm taking a.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Look at the horrific spectacle of the White House Correspondence
dinner over the weekend and the protests that they were
met with.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yes, I'm very glad that you're doing that. Can't it's
a yearly tradition. We've got to go after the White
House Corresponds dinner.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
Boy, did they ever deserve it this time?

Speaker 4 (02:32):
Yeah, I know.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Before we get to that, thank you to everybody who
supports the show, you guys to enable us to be
able to do this exclusive polling. Polling is very expensive,
and this is just part of exactly the type of
things that we want to do. So we have a promographic.
We can go and put that up there on the screen,
and you can sign up at breakingpoints dot com to
support this, and just so everybody knows, like one of
the reasons we're very proud of this poll is we
tried to go after the things that a lot of

(02:52):
mainstream media was either not covering or was not going
after itself specifically with media coverage because it would indictment
of them specifically. So I think that we've partnered with
JLP here to do a really good job is to
how people view things based upon their news consumption, and
that in and of itself is a major indictment. I
think of a lot of things that the show stands again,

(03:13):
so oh yeah, and support us. We would appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
Cable News as we go through these is a bit
of an outlier. It's great in terms of how they
view the conflict in almost every instance.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
So let's start with this.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
Put a two up on the screen to give you
the overview here. One of the questions we asked so
that we could have this demographic breakdown as we were
looking at all of the questions we ask with regards
to Israel and Palestine, is hey, where do you get
most of your news? Here we have that information broken
down by age group. So something that's really going to

(03:45):
jump on at you here is take a look at
eighteen to twenty nine, fifty nine percent of young people
say they're getting their news from TikTok, Instagram x or
other social media fifty nine percent. The next closest category
is podcasts in YouTube, but at seventeen percent, so huge
drop off. Only fifteen percent say cable news, four percent

(04:07):
say print media, and five percent say none of the above.
Then take a look at sixty five plus totally different
dynamic fifty nine percent there say they're getting their news
from cable news, only five percent from social media, only
five percent from podcasts, nine percent from print media. And
you can see the other age demographics. I mean, fifty

(04:28):
to sixty four looks very similar to the sixty five
plus fifty four percent, so a majority getting their news
from cable news. To thirty to forty nine year old
demographic is a little more mixed. You still have a
plurality at thirty seven percent getting their news or saying
they're getting their news.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
From cable news.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Next highest is social media, then podcasts and YouTube, then
print media. I just want to reflect and say more
of you all should be getting your news from podcasts
and YouTube, apparently the lowest category for in all instances,
but I mean, are just I think it's worth commenting
on this piece specifically, which shows you if you compare
the news habits of eighteen to twenty nine year olds

(05:09):
versus those fifty plus, it's a whole different world, whole
different landscape in terms of the type of information that
they're taking in here.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, look, I try to say this, and our boomers
always get mad, but you guys are living in a
different world. Like listen it. I think it's great the
number of boomers who watched the show Premium members. We
love you, we respect you, but even you need to
acknowledge it, even the very distinct minority of your age group.
And one of the things that this country is really
determined by is the fact that the median voter is
fifty five years old and is not college educated. And

(05:39):
the vast majority of those people fifty five, sixty five,
seventy five plus who are very invested in the political system,
they live in a completely different reality whenever it comes
to money, whenever it comes to media. It's never been
more evident, and I think in modern American history than
it is today. Everyone's like always kids these days. But
the mono culture moment, and specifically monocultures of information from

(06:04):
newspapers and that cable era and all of that basically
from nineteen ninety two prior was very very different, where
everyone was consuming the same media, but they had very
different opinions about how they were consuming that. Here we
are actually living in different realities, and that determination of
reality is downstream of all of our politics. It's how
you see polls where in the majority of Republican voters

(06:25):
will be against Ukraine AID, but very specifically sixty five plus,
it's like fifty to fifty. So that's how you get
eighty five percent of Republicans who then go in and
support it same whenever it comes. Democrats even have fifty
percent of Democrats who can be against something. But if
you go to the sixty five plus to where the
people most engage with the political system and the people
most who are actually in Congress itself, that's how you
get what is it, ninety percent of Democrats who end

(06:47):
up voting for Israel AIDS. So this, to me is
the most important graph that we may have ever produced,
because that is America as a picture.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Yeah, and a couple things to note about that. So,
first of all, as much as cable news viewership and
frankly their whole business model is kind of falling apart.
You can see from these graphics how important it still is,
how incredibly influential it still is. And this is part
of why we still continue to cover what happens on
cable news, because it's very impactful, especially in terms of

(07:16):
that elite conversation and how our policymakers are making their decisions,
and also how vastwaths of voters are processing information from
this conflict. So that's number one. Number two, I just
want to say that famously, as we covered here, remember
Nikki Haley had that quote about like the more time
you spent on TikTok, you become eighteen percent more antisemitic

(07:38):
or whatever. There's this assumption that the social media platforms
are making people have a different view of the conflict. Now,
I do think there is kind of a reinforcement cycle.
But the reason why a more pro Palestinian view of
the world is wildly more popular, not just on TikTok,
but on Twitter, on effectively any social media platform you

(08:00):
could look at that has a broad audience is because
young people started from a different place in this conflict,
and so then social media company is being in the
business of making money, guess what they're going to surface
for you, and there are algorithms content that they think
matches things you've already expressed interest in. So I think

(08:20):
the sort of causation is the exact opposite of the
way that people in Washington are thinking about it. And
obviously this ties into the whole reason why TikTok is
actually in danger of being I mean, the legislation was passed,
is very possible to be banned, is because they see, Okay,
young people are on TikTok. Young people have a different
view of this conflict. We're blaming TikTok. But as I said,

(08:43):
I think the causation goes in the exact opposite direction.
All right, So bearing those numbers in mind, let's put
the next question up on the screen here, which gives
you a kind of overall picture of which group people
are more sympathetic towards. The question here, which do you
feel more sympathy with Israel or the Palestinians. So keep

(09:05):
this up so I can explain this and people can
kind of process this information. So the yellow bars here
are the sentiment of social media news consumers. The blue
bars right next to that are podcasts in YouTube. Then
the green bars are cable news, and the red bars
are print media. So starting with the yellow bar, you

(09:27):
can see that a very clear plurality thirty three percent
leans towards having more sympathy with Palestinians versus Israeli. It's
only twenty percent say Israeli, so thirty three versus twenty percent.
When you go to podcasts and YouTube, you can see
that's the blue bar. Similar dynamic plurality twenty six percent

(09:48):
says Palestinians versus twenty one percent says israel If you
go to cable news, that dynamic totally flips. And similarly
with print media, so for cable news is eighteen percent
only lean towards Palestinians, and the plurality thirty four percent
are more sympathetic with Israelis. With print media, it's twenty

(10:08):
percent Palestinians and forty two percent Israelis. And obviously you
can see significant chunks in each group saying neither one
or don't know. So it shows you, Sager the way,
that there is a different sort of like innate sympathy,
different different pluralities going in opposite directions here depending on
what news media they're consuming.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Yeah, I mean, and again I would just point to
the fact that the podcast YouTube number is incredibly significant.
Something also that people it's funny if we think back
to some of the twenty nineteen discourse, what was it?
All podcasts are right wing? RSS is out of control? Really,
what comes becomes very clear to me is that any
media which is non institutionalized and separate from big moneyed

(10:52):
interests and or the corporate machine is by definition just
going to be more attract an audience and be able
to present information which is not as sanitized and thus
in less sanitized information. You're going to have a more
honest view of the conflict. And I just have to
underscore the reality question once again, what reality do you

(11:13):
live in? Even people who are probably pro Israel and
who are online as in on social media, listen to
a podcast, they're even going to be more aware, let's say,
of some of the arguments Crystal that you or I
would raise about Israeli military conduct, Whereas if you are
on cable you don't even understand that those exist. Unless
Fared Zakaria on Saturday, to his audience of three hundred

(11:35):
and fifty thousand people, happens to do a seven minute
segment about it. Right like just think about the disconsonants,
you know, that has to exist there in that reality.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
That's exactly right.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
And so I mean that's why it's sort of newsworthy
when they do a segment that's like the one we
covered here.

Speaker 3 (11:50):
Oh my god, they actually.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
Talked about the fact that the IDF is desecrating cemeteries,
because it's so rare that that type of information about
what is going on in this conflict actually breaks through.
And of course we've covered here the analyzes from the
Intercept and elsewhere about the dramatically war sanitized language that
is used. We had that leaked memo from the New

(12:12):
York Times saying you shouldn't even say the word Palestine,
you shouldn't say the word occupied territories, you shouldn't say
the word refugee camps. So that's the bubble and the
filter that older Americans in particular are learning about this
conflict through. And so you can see, and this is
going to be very consistent theme as we go through
these numbers, the way that they're coming to very different

(12:34):
conclusions from people who are getting their information who are
seeing the IDEF tiktoking their war crimes, for example, who
are seeing all of those horrors on a daily basis,
which is much more readily available on social media, podcast YouTube.
All right, let's put this next piece up on the screen,
very relevant to the college campus conversation question. Here is

(12:55):
has anti Semitism increased? Okay, you've got a couple, you've
got a number of options increased a lot, a little decreased,
a little decreased, a lot, stayed the same, and don't know.
So let's start at the top and focus in on
this line that says, Okay, I believe anti semitism has
increased a lot. You can see a significant divergence between

(13:15):
the yellow and blue bars at eighteen percent. Those are
your social media and podcast news consumers and the cable
news and print media audience. They say thirty one and
thirty five percent that it has.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
Increased a lot.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
If you look down at the uh stayed the same,
you have a much different view. You've got actually a
similar number across the board that say it's more or
less stayed the same. So the big divergence there is
in terms of the numbers at the top. So you
see significant numbers even of you know, podcasts and social

(13:51):
media consumers who say increased a little, or increased a lot,
but that increased a lot line stands out as a
kind of, you know, different view. And obviously the emphasis
has been much greater on cable news and print media.
And I mean they've just gone all in on smearing
anyone who's protesting for a ceasefire as an anti Semite.

(14:11):
So if that's the view of the world you're taking,
if you're watching Morning Joe with Jonathan green Blatt from
the ADL saying actually, these college campus protesters are all
Iranian proxies for Hamas, then you can see how you
end up with a little bit of a different emphasis
on anti Semitism than perhaps on other platforms.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
Absolutely, we see it too in the next one. I
actually think this might even be most impactful. We can
put it please up there on the screen. The question
here is has these really Israeli military gone Let's say
for too far. You're only going to have thirty two
percent of cable news viewers who say that it has.
You're going to have thirty three percent of podcast viewers.
You're going to have forty five percent or sorry, forty

(14:50):
five percent of podcasts, and then also forty one percent
of TikTok and or Instagram users, Whereas if you go
to the about right number or the not far enough number,
you're going to see that it's much larger for print
media and for cable news as opposed to the podcast
and the TikTok.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
Now Cable News in particular, there Cable News seventeen like
we need it, it's not far enough.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
They they need to increase. And then even about the
about right figure, if you look at print media and
cable news, it's just disproportionately so much bigger compared to
the podcast and the TikTok users. And again I just
want to say, I would I considering the fact that
if you look at the podcasts the top news podcast
in the country of which we are on there it's
not just us. It's like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Candae Owans,

(15:36):
Megan Kelly. It's not like there isn't a huge pro
Israel segment of the population that is not listening to
news podcasts. It is the fact that those podcasts, again,
if you are interacting with Ben Shapiro, you're more likely
from what I can see too in our data, to
also watch maybe a breaking point segment. So even if
you are pro Israel, and I've seen this, actually the

(15:57):
pro Israel side that has to engage with some of
the things that we will bring up here on the show.
They'll be like, yeah, yeah, but it's okay because I
support it, or it's okay because war is terrible. It's
not even mired necessarily in like a moralistic language. It's
much more I guess, real politique in terms of their
historical justification, which I mean, I don't no issue with that,
in terms of at least be honest about who you are.

(16:18):
Just don't throw your morality kind of in my face.
My only point is that even amongst you know, podcast
users who let's be around us have been smeared as
right wingers Joe Rogan and all that, even they are
much more reticent, you know, to kind of describe Israel's
actions has not gone far enough. Even if to some
of people like Shapiro, who's one of the largest news
podcasts in the entire country, may say that they are.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
Yeah, let that actually backup on the screen. Because there's
another thing that I noticed about this, which is that
even though the numbers are higher for the podcast, YouTube,
social media people, you have a plurality of every group
that says.

Speaker 3 (16:57):
They've gone too far.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah, good points.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
So even among the cable news watchers you know, who
are listening to Jonathan Greenblatt and whoever else, you still
have a third thirty three percent saying too far versus
the next highest number twenty four percent.

Speaker 2 (17:12):
About right.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
So even in.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
These very skewed news ecosystems, you still have a plurality
that is saying this is too much. And listen, one
thing I was thinking about what you're talking about, like
the podcasts that are out there. You can look at
the way liberals on MSNBC respond to all of these
people are responding to a lot of audience and market incentives. Right,

(17:36):
Liberals on MSNBC, they've got the older audience. They are
much more sort of hawkish, They're much more on the
Biden line.

Speaker 3 (17:43):
You think about the pod Save Bros.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Which is like the biggest liberal podcast out there as
far as I know, they've been critical.

Speaker 2 (17:50):
That's a good point.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
So there's been there's you know, there is a different
audience they're responding to. There's a different age demographic, and frankly,
there's more room for that kind of critique on that platform.
Versus on MSNBC. Shout out to Aiman Yaldean and Ali
Velsheen others who have been created some space on MSNBC
to be critical, but overwhelmingly, if you're watching there, you're
getting the Joe Biden party line. Let's go to the

(18:14):
next graphic, which is highly relevant to our recent policy debate.
So the question here is overall, do you think the
Biden administration is sending too much, too little, or about
the right amount of aid to Israel? And once again
you've got similar dynamic where if you are social media

(18:35):
podcast you say, by larger numbers it's too much. Okay,
you've got a plurality thirty five percent who says too
much of social media users, forty seven percent very strong
almost majority saying too much among podcasts and YouTube users.
And then you've got smaller numbers twenty eight and twenty
nine percent for cable news and print media respectively. About

(18:58):
right is the plurality choice for the more traditional media
consumers and too little the highest number here. Once again,
print media and cable news is a little bit of
an outlier. They are the it's still not a plurality
by the way, that says too little, but nineteen percent
as opposed to thirteen and eleven percent for the podcast

(19:20):
and TikTok Instagram, social media sort of non establishment platform consumers.
So you know, you can see a pretty sizable split
in the way these groups are viewing the conflict, and again,
you know, it's a complicated mix of correlation is not causation.
You've got very different as we showed you before, age
demographics consuming news on these various platforms. Different age demographics

(19:43):
were already coming at this conflict from a very different perspective,
and then they're basically having a lot of their views
sort of confirmed on their platforms of choice, and that
leads to an increasing split in the way that these
age demographics and news consumers are viewing the compr.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yeah, it's an important point, right, No way to know
for sure whether it's a causation of the media, whether
it's a self selection bias, if anything. On podcasts, you're
probably more prone to self selection bias, just because you
can genuinely seek out something that is inherently just almost
entirely confirming what you want. But there's still a lot
of ideological you know, opinion and disagreement. If you listen

(20:18):
to multiple shows, or if you listen to our show,
and so I think that it opens you up just
intellectually in a different way. And again, you know, even too,
for all of the talk of social media creates reality bubbles,
I think that the biggest reality bubble that exists is
the cable news environment has shown very very clearly. And
I see this all the time in my real life.

(20:40):
I'm sure everybody does too. If you have older relatives
or older Americans that you speak with and they ask you,
usually they ask you about the dumbest, most likely inconsequential
political event and be like did you see Trump said
a bloodbath or something? You're like, dude, that was debunked
like three months ago. Yeah, Like what are you talking about?

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (20:58):
And I'm like, well I thought that be seen. You
know at a certain point too, like you really want
to argue if you're in laws, grandparents, like now you're.

Speaker 5 (21:05):
Not doing that.

Speaker 1 (21:06):
Yeah. I will note though, in terms of that, you know,
how much age should we be sending to Israel? There
was no group of news consumers in which the majority
or even plurality was like, we're sending too little. So,
just in terms of the disconnect from or policymakers with
even the most you know, sort of consent manufactured group
of people, which is the people watching cable news. Even

(21:29):
with them, they're not like we're sending too little. They
their plurality says it's about right. So maybe ease off
the gas pedal there, DC lawmakers. Let's get to the
very latest that is happening in terms of college campuses.
We can put this up on the screen. This is
from Ohio State University, which saw some of the most
dramatic clashes with well, I shouldn't say clashes arrest peaceful protesters.

(21:54):
They're warn't even any allocations of violence to my knowledge,
at any of these universities we have up on the screen.
We've got Arizona State, We've got Indiana, Washington University, Northeastern
University just says Austin. I guess that's ut Austin again,
Ohio State University. So you can see the arrests escalated
at Arizona State. If you pay attention to an upper

(22:15):
left box there, that's actually frat boys who were apparently
like collaborating with the cops to destroy tents, which is
oursorry ASU. One of the most ASU things I've ever
heard in my life. But you know, some of these
arrasts were quite violent. There were also reports at Ohio
States Hour. Did you see this snipers? I did see

(22:35):
that being placed on top of the buildings.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
For no consequence either, by the way, which was hilarious
because it turned out that one of the students was
actually able to sneak up on said police sniper, right,
which somebody pointed out, like, dude, that's one of the
most basic tenets of being a sniper is not allowing
somebody to snap on the higher so anyway, militarily.

Speaker 3 (22:56):
Yeah, highly trained, What are we doing here?

Speaker 2 (22:58):
You know, for what purpose is that? Crowd control is
one different thing. Enforcing local ordinance or whatever about people
who are unlawfully gathered again, but putting people up on
a rooftop. I have only ever seen that in one
instances because I live here in Washington, DC and whenever
it's the President is out and about. I've never seen

(23:18):
it anywhere else in the entire United States. So did
I saw that clip? And I was like, it just
clownish on several levels, because A it's ridiculous, like in
terms of short force, and B it didn't even work. Dude, Yeah,
you got snuck up on.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
I mean, it's complete insanity, and I put a fourteen
actually up on the screen.

Speaker 3 (23:36):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
So apparently two hundred at least protesters were arrested over
the weekend, in particular Northeastern University, Arizona State, Indiana University,
and Washington University in Saint Louis. They say there have
been more than eight hundred arrests of protesters on US
campuses since April eighteenth, That was when Columbia University initially
had that crackdown. This map we can see up on

(23:58):
the screen. This show you the way these protests are spreading.
In fact, I was kind of I was very pleasantly
surprised to see that University of Mary Washington, which is
very close to where I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia, is
not a large school and it's not like it's a
liberal arts college, but it's not like an elite Columbia
type university. Apparently they had protests and there were arrests

(24:19):
that took place. You also had Virginia techs or I'm
showing my Virginia bias, but you could see these protests
are literally cross the country, and so that crackdown and
the focus on the Columbia protesters, if it was meant
to snuff out the flame and scare students out of
protesting what they see as a genocide being committed with
our tax dollars in the Gaza strip, it has had

(24:40):
the polar opposite reaction. And actually I saw something that
was really quite beautiful, which is a number of Palestinians
in Gaza staging a demonstration writing on their refugee displacement
tense messages of solidarity and appreciation for the Columbia Diversity
students in particular for standing up for them, which was

(25:02):
kind of incredible and I'm sure very heartening for these
students who are, you know, trying their best to figure
out how to make a difference in the world. Let's
go ahead and go back to A eight, which shows
you some of the aggressive tactics that are being used here.
You can see this the elder woman Jill Stein, the
white hair there being aggressive, like I would say, assaulted

(25:25):
with a police bike there. She was arrested. Okay, you
saw the interaction. She was arrested and charged with assault
of a police officer. Again, seventy three year old. Whatever
you think of her, she is a presidential candidate, and
the Green Party is you know, it's a significant organization,

(25:45):
they're likely to have ballid access, and she's being treated
in this manner, Soger, It's completely outrageous. At the same time,
speaking of outrageous, we have new bipartisan effort that was
just launched in the House and can put this up
on this pro Israel House Democrat and Republican plan to
introduce a legislation creating federally sanctioned anti semitism monitors for

(26:09):
select college campuses. This is who else, Ritchie Torres and
Republican also from New York, Mike Lawler. The bill would
allow the Department of Education to send a third party
anti semitism monitor to any college that receives federal funding,
and to revoke that funding for colleges that don't comply.
The monitor, which would be paid for by the school,

(26:29):
would be charged with releasing a public quarterly report evaluating
the progress that a college or university has made toward
combating anti semitism. Now, obviously I abhor anti semitism and
any type of racism, but we also know the way
that these people have consistently defined anti semitism as anything

(26:50):
that basically they don't like when it comes to criticism
of Israel. It's wrong think when it comes to Israel.
So the idea of codifying this at a federal level.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
I mean, saga.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
This is one of the most aggressive attempts I've seen
to have an overt attack on the First Amendment officially
sanctioned on college campuses.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
It's pretty wild.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
No, this is pretty crazy because what it does is
it actually institutes the Department of Education and says says
to them that they have to create quote third party
anti semitism monitors paid for by the US government, that
will then go and analyze each college that receives federal
funding and then revoking funding for colleges that don't apply.
That monitor again, would actually be charged with quote releasing

(27:33):
a public quarterly report evaluating progress that a college or
university has made towards combating anti semitism. And what it
would do is redefine anti semitism in the same way
that previous resolutions of Congress have passed. Now, let's be
very clear about that, because that actually directly conflates as
previous governmental definitions of anti semitism exist, criticism of the

(27:57):
state of Israel with anti Semitism itself. And that is
why I almost just refuse to fall for the canard
at this point of like I have poor anti systemisms,
like yeah, of course, but at a certain point, like
I'm not even gonna play these people's games anymore, because
if you're going to use that definition, then I'm not playing.
It's like, at that point, I'm just gonna say I
believe very strongly in the First Amendment. What I would
like to see is a First Amendment monitor which actually

(28:18):
goes to each campus and revokes federal funding from anyone
which is directly in violation of a Supreme Court definition
for federal funding. That seems like a lot more reasonable
to me. But of course they're not doing that. They're
actually moving into more censorious direction. And I would just say,
again to any right wingers, I mean trying to make
this point more recently, if Trump wins again, do you
know how many college Republicans are going to be called

(28:39):
anti Semitic or any of these other groups. Do you
think they're not going to use this against other student
groups that they don't want they're on campus, And even
if they are anti Semitic, that is legally within the
bounds of the First Amendment, which I stand for. I know,
I'm not saying it's a good thing. You know, I
don't love seeing it march on campus. But I guess
I've said this before. I've seen straight up like Christian

(29:00):
nationalists psychos march on my campus when I was in college,
and nobody really cared much at that time.

Speaker 1 (29:06):
So to that point, ye this, I think this weekend
or last week in Charleston, West Virginia, there was a
group of out and out neo Nazis marching down the
streets of Charleston.

Speaker 3 (29:18):
Went to Okay, fine, yeah, fine, the cops didn't get involved.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
They did their disgusting thing, and everyone moved on. And
you know what, I find them abhorrent and disgusting, and
I still support their right, yeah, to be there under
the first event everyone, because that's what the First Amendment is, Okay.
It's not for the speech that you love and you're
comfy with and is friendly for the establishment. It's for
the speech you find offensive. It's for the speech that

(29:42):
is controversial. It's for the speech that you know, in
the case of the Palistine protesters, that challenges powers that
be and the status quo.

Speaker 3 (29:51):
So I love your idea.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
Someone needs to take that at the first Amendment monitors
on college campuses. That's a great frickin' idea. Some ilhan
Omar or whoever. I need to get on that because
that would really make it very difficult for all these
people who claim to be free speech bros. When it
was their side of the equation that they felt was
being censored. Now you're jumping on board with a fit

(30:15):
using the power of the federal government to quash legitimate
criticism of US funding and involvement in a foreign conflict,
Like what are what are we doing? It's it's such
complete insanity. And I guarantee you if it was if
it was anything else, you know, if it was certainly
like the trans bigotry monitor on campus, you would be

(30:40):
you would be right there and listen to do the
flip sid I'm sure there are people who would have
supported the transbigotry monitor who are involved in the protest
now are supportive of the protests, who have a.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
Problem with this.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
How about we just all learned the lesson that we
protect free speech even when it's things that we specifically
in our political ideology disagree with. Okay, so that's that
incredible things were happening at Northeastern University over the weekend.
The Daily Beast with a rare w here exposing what

(31:13):
was an incredible hoax basically that unfolded. Put this up
on the screen, so their headline says it all a
pro Israel agitator shouts kill the Jews and gets everyone
else arrested.

Speaker 3 (31:26):
Okay, So there were pro.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Palestine protesters at Northeastern, as at many other college campuses.

Speaker 3 (31:32):
They were doing their thing.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Someone within Israeli flag shows up and tried to incite
the group and start a chant that said kill the Jews. Okay,
so this is a counter protester. This isn't on the
Palestine side, this is on the Israeli side. They say,
killed the Jews as a provocation. Then Northeastern uses the
excuse of the pro Israel's killed the Jews provocation to

(31:58):
have one hundred pace full protesters arrested on Saturday. I'm
gonna show you just to tell you that this, you know,
the way it happened is the way that I'm describing.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
There was there were reporters.

Speaker 1 (32:11):
There was an NPR reporter there who confirmed it, and
we also have video of the incident. Now I'm gonna
play the video. It's a little bit hard to discern,
so I'm just gonna describe what happens.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
Then well we'll watch it.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
But you see them sort of gathered the you know,
pro palace time people, and then you hear this individual
with an Israeli flag say kill the Jews, trying to
get that chance started, and everyone booze him and then
moves on to the chance that they actually wanted to do.
Let's take a listen to how this unfolded.

Speaker 6 (32:43):
Okay, kill the.

Speaker 7 (32:44):
Jews, anybody, don't anybody, So there you go.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
This individual shows up, tries to cause trouble, gets booed,
and everybody moves on. But this is used as the
pretext to arrest everyone. When confronted with this set of facts,
here was the response from a Northeastern University spokesperson. Put
this up on the screen. The fact that the phrase
kill the Jews was shouted on our campus is not
in dispute. The Boston Globe, a trusted news organization, reported

(33:34):
it is a fact. There's also substantial video evidence any
suggestion that repulsive anti Semitic comments are sometimes acceptable, depending
on the context is reprehensible. That language has no place
on any university campus. Okay, but you didn't even arrest
the dude who said killed the Jews. You rested the
people who booed him, Like I mean, it's just it's

(33:57):
so preposterous. But this is very emblematic of a lot
of what is on I'm not saying there aren't any
bad concidents, and you know, things that you shouldn't say
or I wouldn't say, or whatever.

Speaker 3 (34:09):
But this was huge.

Speaker 1 (34:10):
This was spread everywhere. That's not going to get picked
up by all kinds of beet. They're chanting kill the
Jews in college camps. No, some pro Israel person came
in as an agitator and enchanted it and got booed
because you know what, many of the organizers and demonstrators
are themselves Jewish, which is always buried and erased by
all of the mainstream media coverage.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yeah, and I also just want to presuppose this question.
Why should any want to be arrested for saying this?

Speaker 8 (34:36):
Is that?

Speaker 2 (34:36):
Is that a violet?

Speaker 3 (34:37):
Thank you?

Speaker 2 (34:38):
I checked again. That is totally within the bounds of
the first you know, people get angry whenever I say
things like this, like, that's clearly an incitement of violence.
It brushes up but against It's like, no, it's not
unless it's actually literally quite targeted to an individual. You
were allowed to say basically whatever you want in this country,
as I think you should. I don't think people should
be arrested for shouting quote unquote kill the Jews on

(35:00):
a college campus, even if they were saying it in
earnest and of the although, of course, and I will
just just please apply it's not my law. I've stole
it for many others. If something seems quote unquote too
good to be true, it usually is. If your pro
israel I saw Ted Cruz is putting this out there,
there's no ambiguity. This is what they're shouting. It's like,
just have a moment of self reflection, dude, because I

(35:21):
think about it too. Every time. It's the other way,
you know, anytime some narrative just seems too convenient for
the right, it's like perfectly on the nose. I'm like,
you know, maybe could be a little bit something, and
without fail, if you wait twenty four hours, it will
usually fall apart. And everybody who spread it initially looks
like an idiot. You know that's it's almost certainly. And

(35:42):
in these highly charged scenarios, people have every incentive in
the world to make things up, to instigate. Think back
to the swastika, you know, anecdote that I've re laid here. Yeah,
back to the racism once. You know how many instances
of quote unquote racism on college campuses. The girls they
got bullshit.

Speaker 3 (35:59):
The girl they got stabbed in the eye.

Speaker 2 (36:01):
Yes, that we stabbed in the eye.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
I lived literally like brushed up against her with the
Pealestinian flag and.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
These going down all directions. Yeah, I lived through these
here in d C. I remember when I was in Cosrok,
women are being attired for wearing a burkup bullshit. It
was completely made up. Instance. While we were in DC,
complete moral panic. The police were called, hundreds of millions
of dollars were spent, like putting police officers on corners.
She made the entire thing up. I mean, it's like
with every single time, people have every incentive, media attention,

(36:29):
and you know, in this case, to smear others. This
has happened so many times. Agent provocateurs, we know that
they exist. Just just be weary. But I'm just going
to come back to almost our initial plot, Crystal, our
initial block, which is, if you live on the Internet,
and if you live in the world of just Smollett,
and you know every instance that I just described, you
should you probably have this more baked in. But if

(36:50):
you live in the cable world, how often do you
hear like the Justy Smalllett thing dever send mec people
even know that that turned out to be BS because
they just stopped covering it, like the moment that it
turned out to be fake. Maybe one or two segments
same thing on the right wing? How many of these
things that get played? I was just looking Laura Ingram
apparently interviewed this woman that stabbed in the eye lady
three separate times on Fox News. Does Fox have a

(37:12):
segment that mean you should? If you have any integrity,
I would, you know, if we said something that wasn't true,
I'd be like, hey, just everybody knows, you know, it
turned out it was complete BS if it turned out
to be you know, whichever way it goes, whether it's
my narrative or not, I can't believe it. But you
know how many people who watch Fox, They're not going
to know to them stabbed in the eye as cannon
at this point, that's the.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
Issue that's so so true. I mean, it's just listen, guys,
we live in a big country and there's a number
of freaks and weirdos out there who are desperate to
be a victim, desperate to be the center of attention,
and will go to any links to make that a
reality for them. Or they're intentional agitators and provocateurs who
love to stir the pot. Or I mean, we covered

(37:53):
here on this show incredible in depth reporting on how
one of the BLM protests in Denver was infiltrated by
the you know, FBI in formant. It was trying to
stir them up to like blow up buildings and other
you know, and embrace more overt violence. So this is
not It sounds conspiratorial, but these things are real and
documented throughout history, including through very very recent history. So okay,

(38:17):
So in the category of I think just desperate to
be a victim, this next scenario, this video is just incredible.
I knew Zabur was gonna absolutely love this one. So
this lady, which you know, I'm very loath to use
the term Karen, but if it has ever applied, It
certainly applies. Let's just say a woman in this instance, Okay,

(38:40):
she's walking her dog. It comes upon she's a I
think she's at Northeastern. Maybe she comes upon the you know,
the protesters there, and she completely melts down. She calls
nine to one one. They're just standing there. They're not
doing anything to her, nothing to her. She's not in
sec She's saying, Star Golden, I'm in danger, and I'm

(39:01):
a Jewish American. She's just literally standing there. She could
leave at any time. But fortunately someone caught this whole
thing on video. Just watch how this unfolds.

Speaker 9 (39:11):
Yes, they're right ahead of me right now, they're I
need Jennifer, I need help. I know that, but they're
all they're surrounding.

Speaker 4 (39:21):
Let me move.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
No, no, you are free to move. You are free
to move. She's free to move. You are free to move.
Right now, she's free to move. She's free to leave.
She is free to leave. No one is surrounding her.
She is free to leave.

Speaker 9 (39:42):
Need help, there's one, two, three, four or five, six,
seven eight. I'm wearing a white and need a shirt.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
I get a job with me.

Speaker 8 (39:54):
I need help.

Speaker 3 (39:54):
You do need help.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
You're not wrong about that. Poor dog is like, can
we get on with their walk here? Like we're having
a good time.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
Who walks their dog just straight into the middle of
a protest and isn't asking for it? Let's be real,
And she didn't even get anything even when she got there, right,
But you know, come on, like people need to chill
if you who thinks they're in danger and then walks
in the middle off a protest and then even in
that protest, they're like, lady, you're completely free to leave.
You're the one here causing a problem. This is all

(40:23):
on video. You look like an idiot. And that's just like,
I do not understand. I don't know. There's just such
a deep narcissism that runs in this country where everybody
wants to be the victim and they just they they
think though in the age of social media, that they're
going to get away with it. It's just astounding. You know,
this the victim hode complex. You need to walk into

(40:44):
there and then call the police. I mean, this is
another thing where we really should have more stringent fines
and penalties for falsely calling nine to one one under
false pretenses or false allegations of assault. Because that is
such bullshit.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
Emergencies to deal with.

Speaker 1 (40:59):
You're like a great panic attack, trying to incite the
cops to come and like arrest you. I mean, that's
clearly the goal, right, That's clearly why she walked there
in the first place. She was hoping something bad would
happen to her, that she could, you know, call nine
one one, get the cops to arrest these people who
were doing absolutely nothing wrong, or herself getting you know,

(41:20):
the who had Laura Ingram interviewed through Laura Ingram Interviews
about how she was the subject of an anti Semitic
attack or what I like. That clearly is her goal,
and so thank god someone caught it on camera because
this is the sort of thing that it was just
this woman recounting what happened.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Reading local news. I walked my dog into a protest.
I called nine on one. I felt unsafe. You're like,
oh my god.

Speaker 3 (41:42):
Right.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
The next thing you know, she's writing a calumn for
Barry Weiss's thing about how she got stabbed in eye
or whatever, and Jonathan Green blats on warning Joe talking
about how this was a hate cry. That's what would
it could have very easily happened if they hadn't just
been recording her standing there perfectly safe and all the
protesters being like, lady, you can leave, Like you're fine,

(42:04):
go on. Apparently nine to one one also was like
I think you're good, you can.

Speaker 3 (42:08):
We're moving on here.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
I usually am a critic of nine one one response times,
but in this particular one, good for them.

Speaker 3 (42:13):
Yes, they have real emergencies to deal with people. Come on.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
There was a highly consequential argument before the US Supreme
Court on the question of Donald Trump and his immunity
from prosecution as president of the United States. The reason
this is very consequential is it specifically focuses in on
the Jack Smith January sixth indictment against Trump, as it
relates to whether Donald Trump was acting in an official

(42:39):
act as president or not while he was undergoing a
lot of this January sixth false elector scheme, of which
he is actually being charged with. So we have two
separate questions lines of questions from the conservative justices and
the liberal justices. I will give it away to you
before we even play them. It does appear that the
conservative majority will side with Trump. But getting into some

(43:01):
of the actual line of questioning is important to understand
and tease out kind of what they're getting at for
the legal merits. Here is Justice Alito with a question
on that official proceedings and whethersone could be undidted under
an official act. Here's what it is.

Speaker 5 (43:14):
Mister Sauer and others have identified events in the past
where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been
charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,
that's not really true. This is page forty two of
your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision

(43:36):
to in turn Japanese Americans during World War Two? Couldn't
that have been charged under eighteen USC. Two forty one
conspiracy against civil rights?

Speaker 10 (43:46):
Today? Yes, given this Court's decision in Trump versus United States,
in which the Trump versus Hawaii excuse me, where the
Court said Kramatsu is overruled, I mean President Roosevelt made
that decision with the advice of his Attorney general. That's
a layer of that's really true.

Speaker 5 (44:07):
I thought Attorney General Biddle thought that there was really
no threat of sabotage, as did Jaeger Hoover.

Speaker 10 (44:14):
So I think that there is a lot of historical controversy,
but it underscores that that occurred during wartime. It implicates
a potential commander in chief concerns concerns about the exigencies
of national defense that might provide and as applied article
to challenge at the time. I'm not suggesting today, but

(44:37):
the idea that a decision that was made and ultimately
endorsed by this Court, perhaps wrongly in the Kamatsu case,
would support criminal prosecution under two forty one, which requires
under United States versus Linear that the right have been
made specific so that there is notice to the president.
I don't think that would have been satisfied.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
So that was an important line of questioning there by
Justice Alito, specifically the official act or whether you're doing
something an official act leaves you open for prosecution. They're
talking about the infamous internment of Japanese Americans. Now we're
going to flip it and we're going to show you
here a line of questioning from Justice Soda Mayor around
whether an official act as president could include, let's say,
assassination of your political rival. How and what would that

(45:19):
then be tested under this bounds of absolute immunity, that
the Trump prosecution or the Trump Defense is arguing, let's
take a lesson.

Speaker 11 (45:26):
If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt
person and he orders the military or orders someone to
assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which
he can get immunity.

Speaker 12 (45:46):
It would depends on the hypothetical, but we can see
that could well be an official he.

Speaker 11 (45:49):
Could and why because he's doing it for personal reasons.
He's not doing it at like President Obama is alleged
to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist.
He's doing it for personal gain.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
So that is the interesting kind of crux. And it's
actually a fascinating conversation.

Speaker 3 (46:09):
Well awkward there for the Lobos, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
Yeah, No, it is, because they're talking they're like, well, yeah, Obama,
because you know that was a very clearly like well,
what about President Obama and the assassination of Anwar Al Alwaki,
which he basically just greenlit th to this Solicitor General's office,
even though he was an American citizen and was never
once convicted of a crime, let alone stripped of his
citizenship and allowed to be killed by his own government.
So this gets then to the question about that official

(46:32):
act where they appears that the court is going to
split the difference. Let's go and put this up there
on the screen. What they are showing from the arguments
is that they are likely to side with Trump on
some presidential immunity. What might mean by that is that
they're they're going to narrow the indictment such that Jack
Smith is going to have to go back and use

(46:55):
some legal minutia to argue that much of the Trump
false elector's schemes happened as in his personal capacity as president.
The way that they're going to argue that actually does
comply with some of the facts, Crystal. It gets to,
for example, some of his off the book's Oval office
meetings which were not happening in his official capacity, We're
happening as campaign capacity. Yeah, so they need to go

(47:16):
back and basically narrow and tailor the indictment after this
is issued to specify that this happened as campaign Trump
and not as President Trump. It gets into that question
of official versus campaign and also not remember we're not
talking here about the speech or even the actions of
January sixth. It's often conflated. The actual indictment focuses on

(47:37):
the false elector scheme specifically, and so they have to
go back and tailor what is and is not an
official act in terms of the indictment. Now, the reason
any of this matters is because A it's narrowing the
definition of official act of the presidency. But BA procedurally,
this is almost certainly going to delay the trial until

(47:57):
after the November twenty twenty four election. At least according
to the timelines that we've seen. Supreme Court still has
to issue an opinion on this that Jacksmith would then
have to go through all the procedural things that you
have to do. The Trump team throwing everything they can,
So it does seem very likely now at this point
that the only case that will come to trial before

(48:19):
the November election, it's, you know, more likely than not,
is this stupid Stormy Daniels case in New York City,
which is astounding.

Speaker 3 (48:27):
It's kind of crazy. I mean, it's very ironic.

Speaker 1 (48:29):
Incredibly, this is the one that actually the one that's
even ye I mean, yeah, it just a fate, but
here we are, I mean, it's anyway, with regard to
these arguments, it looks like four of the conservative justices
were very amenable to the Trump team's arguments about presidential immunity,

(48:52):
Roberts being kind of the swing vote, and as Sager
is indicating, what may happen here is they say, yes,
you're immune for official acts, but there's a big question
about how many of the acts that he's actually indicted
for our quote unquote official acts and how many are
private acts. And there was a lot of discussion and

(49:15):
debate that happened in these hearings about how you distinguish
between the two, because on its face, you might think
that it's clear, but you very quickly come to realize
that it's hard to draw the line in a lot
of instances. And I think with regard to this January
sixth indictment in particular, i'll read.

Speaker 3 (49:32):
A little bit from that piece.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
We just had up several justices press the Trump team
on how to distinguish official acts for which a president
would enjoy immunity under their theory, from private acts for
which he could still face criminal charges. Chief Justice John
Roberts in particular asked the Trump team about a scenario
involving a president's official act appointing an ambassador, but that
he does in exchange for a bribe. When the Trump

(49:57):
team conceded that accepting the bribe is p conduct. Robertson
urged them to explain how the boundary between an official
act and a private one would come into play. Prosecutors
could bring charges against the former president for accepting a
million dollars, Robert queried, or but they can't say what
it's for. So how do you where do you draw

(50:17):
that line? Can you say, Okay, this was for appointing investador?
Is that off limits because that's an official act? So
it becomes quite murky. Justice Selena Kagan also took up
this line of questioning.

Speaker 3 (50:30):
She had a series of examples.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
She talked about, you know, signing a form affirming false
election allegations.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Would that be private.

Speaker 1 (50:38):
Trump's team said it would be, but they asserted that
other things like calling the chair of the Republican Party
would be official. So it was directly relevant to the
Trump case. So, if you're signing a form asserting, yes,
these fake electors are real, Arry, we're saying that's private.
But you're calling the chair of the Republican Party to
pressure them in this direction, that's official.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
So again it's very murky.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
When asked whether ordering the military, Harry to stage a
coup so the president could remain in office, was private
or official. The Trump team suggested it would depend on
the circumstances, prompting Kegan to say that sure sounds bad,
doesn't it. And you know, previously we had talked about
how some of the Trump theory that they were arguing

(51:19):
at the DC Circuit court level was, Hey, the process
here is impeachment and conviction.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
That's the direction to go through.

Speaker 1 (51:25):
And some of the arguments here really indicated that even
if let's say Trump was impah over January sixth and
the attempts to overturn the election and convicted in the Senate,
they still, under their argument, would be immune from criminal
prosecution around all of that. But you know, for my
personal opinion, old fashioned, I think president should have to

(51:46):
follow the law, whether it's Obama or Trump or anybody else.
But in terms of the consequence for this case, I mean,
really is consequential for all future presidents, And you know,
what they can do and what they feel entitled to do,
and the way that they frame their potentially future illegal acts.
So it's very consequential not just for this case but
moving forward, but specifically for this case. If they do

(52:09):
what it looks like they're going to do. At the
very least, it's going to be another significant delay because
not only may Jack Smith have to taylor the indictment,
but you're then very likely to have to go through
a bunch of additional court rulings about where do you
draw the line is this appropriate or is this not appropriate?
And that could also have to go all the way

(52:31):
back up to the Supreme Court. So you know, the
delay tactics from Trump on this particular case, which I
would say, you know, putting aside the strength of the
legal case, which I think, you know could be debated,
but in terms of what people hate the most about Trump,
this one is really kind of at the core. And
it doesn't look like we're going to come anywhere close

(52:52):
to any sort of resolution with this before election, is
the bottom line?

Speaker 2 (52:54):
Well said, So there you go. Part of the reason too,
there was such a dumb idea to indict Trump if
you are going to indict him so late in the game,
because now, congratulations. Honestly, the setupmerica up for even more
of a nightmare, because now what if he wins. The
president elect on trial, the current president of the United
States on trial, if you think these currents are remport
courses are crazy. Imagine if he's sitting in the damn

(53:15):
office while this is all happening. I mean, it's just
absolute madness. Let's move on now to the next part.
This is one that we just couldn't let slide. Howard Stern.
This is honestly, deeply sad and almost emotional in a
certain sense. Howard Stern, I mean, was the icon of
the United States find you know, as the anti establishment.

(53:36):
The FCC, you know, went after him for being loot
or you know, cursing on the air. He signed his
deal with Sirius, he was totally uncensored. And then the
last seven years or so we've seen a transformation of
this former renegade basically into like a blue and on liberal.
And I mean this has been coming now for quite
some time. But Howard Stern, who, let's all be honest,

(53:57):
maybe more responsible for pop popularizing Trump than anybody else,
used to have a standing segment where Trump would call
in Milania two and the two of them would just
like discuss like sex and weird, lewd stuff and they
would get you know, everybody would Everybody loved it because
Donald would go in with Howard, and there was very
very popular segments there is now turned again into like

(54:19):
Trump is a fascist, and this culminates in this recent
interview where President Biden, who has not done an interview
with a major news outlet yet including The New York
Times for his entire presidency, for print media. In terms
of TV, it's been I think like several I think
it's been more than a couple of months. Remember Chrystally
famously skips out on the CBS interview for the Super Bowl.

(54:42):
He has skipped multiple opportunities for major sit down interviews
that millions of Americans would watch. Well. He then decides
to sit down for an hour long interview with Joe Biden. Now,
in the past this might have actually been important, you know,
Howard might have actually asked him one or two questions.
Howard manages to sit with this man for an hour,

(55:03):
make one piece of news where he offhand He's like, oh,
are you going to debate Trump? And Biden's like, yeah,
debate him at some point it doesn't even commit to
a thing. And then listen to the tongue bath that
Howard gives his interviewee subject. This is again Howard Sterning
a former renegade. Take a listen.

Speaker 13 (55:20):
Thank you for doing this today. I want to thank
you for your compassion. You know, the reason I'm so
excited to talk to you was because I wanted to
understand the tragedy in your life and how you dealt
with it. And you're the kind of leader I love.
Because we're lucky to have you in the Oval office
and serving as the father of the country. Because if
you're a good father to your family what you are,
I know you be a good father to the country.

(55:42):
And I want to thank you for providing a calming influence,
an organized administration post COVID, getting that vaccine out. I
remember what the world was like at that point, getting NATO,
getting us to feel comfortable standing up to putin the
incredible large growth in the jobs, unemployment rate down. I'll

(56:04):
give you your greatest hits, the lowest uninshored rate in history.
Four out of five Americans are covered for less than
ten dollars a month, knocking off a few isis leaders.
Cutting the emissions in half. I mean, you've always been
an environmentalist, even the marijuana reform laws. Enough to sitting
there and fighting that battle. Respect for Marriage Act. What
the hell is with people with this gasee? Who cares

(56:26):
if someone's gay? How is it affecting anybody?

Speaker 2 (56:29):
People?

Speaker 13 (56:29):
In love? It's good right, love is good.

Speaker 14 (56:31):
My dad, I said, said, we saw two men kissing
one another in Rodney Square when I was going in
to get a license. I looked at him. He said, Joey,
it's simple. They love each other. That's it.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
That's how I look at it. Do you have a
question there, Howard? What the hell is that? I can't
imagine a subject that I would ever interview, even if
I was enamored by them, especially a politician. I would
never speak to a politician somewhere.

Speaker 3 (56:56):
Like what the most powerful man on the planet question?

Speaker 2 (57:00):
What are you doing?

Speaker 3 (57:01):
It?

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (57:02):
Was honestly, remember how we used to always make fun
of that slobbering and Arenicle.

Speaker 3 (57:06):
Wallace did, which.

Speaker 2 (57:09):
It was one times.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
And I'm gonna talk about this. I'm in my monologue
about the White House Correspondence dinner where they're calling us
talking about his decency? His decency? Do you know how
sickening that is? Here he's sorry, his compassion. Do you
know how sickening that is? When under his watch tens
of thousands of Palestonian children have been killed. We've all

(57:32):
say that images of these babies being amputated with no
anesthetic on a kitchen table with a butcher knife, And
you're talk to me about this man's compassion, his compassion
right now we're going to cover in a little bout
he's intervening personally to make sure that bab Netal who
was in charge with war crimes, and you're you're going

(57:54):
to talk about his compassion and his decency.

Speaker 3 (57:57):
It's just it's so grotesque.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
It really shows you that how simple minded and also
how the only thing that so many of this is
very like Beltway mindset.

Speaker 3 (58:10):
All they care about is this like decorum.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
So the fact that he's like not vitriolic towards Mitch
McConnell or whatever is more important to them them than
the fact that he's aiding and abetting a genocide with
horrors that we are all appalled by on a daily basis.
How many images have you seen of the mass graves
that were uncovered outside of a hospital in Communis you're

(58:37):
gonna tell me about this man's compassion compassion for who,
because it's certainly not those people, is certainly not Palestidians.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
I mean I can give even more. I mean, you know,
think about Ukraine bringing us to the brink of nuclear war,
like continuing that forever. Also the idea that there's some
well oiled machine there. You know, I was saying while
the clip was playing to you, they should hire Howard
as its press secretary because they can't even fire the
current press like Gosch he's black, even though they literally
walked to fire, but they're so afraid of the affirmative

(59:06):
action consequences of firing a black lesbian. That's so much
of a joke that these people are. So it's like,
you know, father of this country, the whole father of
the country, mister decency. I mean, all of this really
goes to the fact that his son is dead, which
is obviously tragic and sad, but you know, let's be honest,
like that's not a qualification for being president of the
United States. There's a lot of people in this country

(59:27):
whose kids are dead and or can speak with some
empathy or compassion or you know, use it as foundational
experience of their life. I just this is sickening to
me on so many levels, both because of who Howard
was and how he got his fame, how he really
changed American culture, I think for the better, you know,
opening up challenging a lot of these conceptions of censorious,

(59:47):
like censorious or government organizations and standards and all that
was very constraining to speech. And we know that Howard
thirty years ago, no matter, absolutely would not have stood
for the current type of environment and all that that
Biden has brought to the table. But for some reason,
you know, his brain has just been completely broken. So
it's sad that that again too, that's the only time

(01:00:09):
of interview that Biden will sit for. How can you
have this?

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
That's right?

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
As a republic You can see, I mean you can
see why see why he picked Howard Stern clearly and
why he won't go and sit with Yeah. I mean
the New York Times is very favorable towards him, but
they're going to ask.

Speaker 3 (01:00:24):
Him something that he's going to have to, yeah, no question.

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Respond to, and I mean he's not equipped, right, So
that's why he does it is because he can get
away with it and you can just you know, go
on like Howard Stern, or go on with some like
Mindfulness podcast, which is not going to ask him anything.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
Difficult, and you.

Speaker 1 (01:00:42):
Know, it's a real political problem. It's obviously a moral
like abyss in terms of what he's done in his
presidency vis A vi Gaza, but it's a real political
problem for him because the core value that was kind
of his like political super power was this sense that
he's this Listen, I may not agree with him, but

(01:01:03):
he's a decent man. He's compassionate, he shows he has
all this well of empathy from a life that was
marked by genuine, horrible tragedy.

Speaker 3 (01:01:13):
Right, but we covered a pole recently.

Speaker 1 (01:01:15):
I wish I had the numbers in from you right
now that people don't feel that way about him anymore.
They don't feel that way about him anymore because you know,
you look at what he's doing and what he's enabling,
what he's funding, what he's covering for, and you can
no longer say like, oh, this is an empathetic, compassionate man.
It just doesn't hold, especially if you're talking about you know,
as our pole reflects people who are not getting their

(01:01:38):
news from cable news or print media, but cable news
in particular. The rest of the country is looking at
what he is not just enabling but facilitating starvation, the
complete siege, all of these things. I don't feel like
this is a good, decent, compassionate man. So previously, I
feel like some comments like this are the ones from

(01:01:59):
the White House correspond or whatever. They would have passed
without a lot of commentary, because there were a lot
of people who felt that way, who used to feel
that way about Joe Biden, and that image is falling
apart by the day.

Speaker 2 (01:02:12):
Yeah, it has fell part for a lot of people
a long time ago. Let's move on now to RFK Junior.
In the war between RFK Junior and Donald Trump is escalating.
RFK Junior appears to have really set Trump off with
some It's either his interview on Bill Maher and specifically
the vaccine section. So we're going to play for you
what RFK Junior said with Bill Maher and then we're

(01:02:34):
going to show you Trump's responses plan.

Speaker 15 (01:02:36):
But your vice presidential pick wants to recall the Maderna vaccine.
That's the one I got. Well, do you agree with
that recall it?

Speaker 12 (01:02:49):
I think you know they I make those vaccines need
to we need to have again true double line. Plet's
even controlled trials on that. There's twenty five percent of
Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed
a COVID vaccine killed killed twenty five percent of Americans.

(01:03:11):
Fifty two percent of Americans believed that the vaccines are
causing injuries including death fifty two percent. Oh, if you
look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that
were done that were released of the Fireser vaccine, Moderna
has not released it. If you look at the Fiser vaccine,

(01:03:32):
there was there were twenty two thousand people in the
placebit group, twenty two thousand people who got the actual vaccine,
and the people who got the vaccine had a twenty
three percent higher death rate from all causes at the
end of that study.

Speaker 15 (01:03:49):
But that could not be the disease itself.

Speaker 2 (01:03:53):
Well, so as you can see Arcade Junior versus Bill
Maher there. But what was interesting is how Trump is
now handling this. So let's go put this up there
on the screen. So Donald Trump puts out this long truth. God,
the character limit really was good for him. This is
way too long, says I actually watched for the first
time in a long time. Ratings challenged Bill Maher's really
boring interview with RFK Junior RFK, only to find Junior

(01:04:15):
is far more liberal than Mar and in fact far
more liberal than anyone else running as a Democrat, including
West and Stein. Yet despite this, he has no hope
as a Democrat because they were able to use their
typically fascist repression blah blah blah throw them out of
the party like a dog. So now Junior's a so
called independent, but he's not. He's a radical left wing

(01:04:36):
lunatic trying to have it all way. He says that
no vaccine is safe and effective and then said I
would never say I'm not anti vaccine. Where did that
come from? Mar defended the vaccine, which Junior seemed to agree, Wow,
and then told him his poll numbers of crash. No
Republican can vote for this guy. Hashtag MAGA twenty twenty four.

(01:04:57):
No idea what Trump is trying to say there exactly crystal,
But but I think what he can sense, at least correctly,
is that a vaccine politics is disproportionately going to resonate
with people who are right wing, and that therefore something
like RFK Junior there citing those numbers which probably disproportionately
going to be Republicans or Republican leaning voters, and Trump's

(01:05:17):
not an idiot. He can read a poll, how many
internal polls?

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
Not?

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Is he probably able to see now that confirm a
lot of the reporting we've had here on this show
and elsewhere that RFK Junior actually could end up affecting
Trump and drawing more from his voters than anybody else
in the election.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
Yeah, and so I think most Americans overwhelmingly have moved
on from.

Speaker 3 (01:05:36):
COVID politics as retired. This was years ago now, but.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
There is still a like core base on the right
in particular that is still like this. This is a
big thing for them, and it's one of the areas
where Trump's more vulnerable because he did operational warp speed
and he continued even as the Republican base went to
the anti VAXs side pretty hard, he continued to defend

(01:05:59):
the vaccines and a time, like face some blowback over that.
So I think he feels a little bit vulnerable. Not
that this is going to be a huge wave of
support from his group to RFK Junior's group, but I
think he feels that this is an issue where he's
a little bit vulnerable to losing some percentage points.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
I do want to.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
I mean, he does make a point about RFK Junior
that I think is fair, which is that he does
play very like fast and loose with what he actually
thinks about vaccines. Because the quote that they're referring to
was from Lex Readman's podcast. Remember this, this is from
July twenty twenty three. So he was being asked, you know,
if any vaccines are safe and effective, and he said

(01:06:39):
there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. Now,
what he tries to claim is that he did say
that some of this is the exact quote, some of
the live virus vaccines are probably averting war problems than
they're causing. But then he went on when he was
pressed and said there is no vaccine that is safe
and effective.

Speaker 3 (01:06:58):
So I think it's it's.

Speaker 1 (01:06:59):
Fair to call him then an anti vaxxerra. Of course,
he's been one of the leading like funders and organizers
of an entire movement again, you know, pushing back on
the idea of vaccine safety. So in any case, this
is an area where Trump feels like RFK obviously codes
more right wing, and I think he also is seeing

(01:07:19):
some of the polling numbers and realizing this could actually
be more of an issue for him than it is
for Joe Biden, because not only do you have a
couple of polls that show him pulling more from Trump,
the one we covered last week, what was that Wall
Street jour NBC News that we covered last week? I
believe the Wall Street Journal one before that also showed
RFK Junior taking more from Trump. And then if you

(01:07:41):
look at any of these polls, RFK Junior has very
had approval ratings among Republicans and extremely trash approval ratings
among Democrats. So logic would indicate that that's probably going
to be more of a problem for the Republican side,
although you know, the fact he's Kennedy and all of
these other factors are a little complicating, not to mention
the fact that it remains a question how many else
he's actually gonna end up.

Speaker 2 (01:08:01):
You can see this too, and some more of the
attacks that Trump unleashed over the weekend on RFK Junior
lests put this up there on the screen. He really
does appear to be zooming in on vaccines, specifically as
an attack vector. He says, RFK Junior is a Democrat plant,
a radical left liberal, blah, blah blah. If Republicans knew
the true story about him, Junior is totally anti gun,
an extreme environmentalist, a big time taxer, an open border advocate,

(01:08:25):
anti military vet. He goes on and on and on,
and he continues to quote. His views on vaccines are fake.
He says, I live with RFK Junior in New York.
Watch him convince Cuomo to make environmental moves that were
out right nasty. You know, he can go on. It
would be dead either way. His views are vaccines are fake,
as is everything else about his candidacy. Let the Democrats

(01:08:45):
have RFK Junior. They deserve him, so it is interesting
to see he's zooming in here.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
FI.

Speaker 2 (01:08:50):
Yeah, I'm not really again, not exactly clear what exactly
is trying to do here. We do here have a
response from RFK Junior. Let's put this up there on
the screen. And he expanded a little bit this in
a recent interview. He says, when frightened men take to
social media, they risk descending into vitriol, which makes them
sound unhinged. President Trump's rant against me is a barely
coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should be

(01:09:13):
best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate,
President Trump, who has proven himself the most adapt debater
in modern American history, should not be panicked to meet
me on that stage. To preview my arguments, I will
show how Trump betrayed the hopes of his most sincere followers.
He promised to end the Ukraine War, then included with Johnson,
he led big farm. He led big farm on his
correct bureaucrats run a rough shot over from his President

(01:09:34):
promised to cut the deafsit, et cetera. He says, instead
of lobbing poisonous bombs from the safety of his bunker.
Let's hear President Trump defend his record to me mono
I mono, by respectful congenial debate. So he's challenging Trump
to a debate. Very unlikely that Trump will accept it,
although one thing I will say it includes more likely
now Biden has agreed to some sort of debate. Trump

(01:09:55):
of course, is chomping at the bit for a debate
that because of this debate. Apparently the Biden people don't
like the Commission on Presidential Debates either, so it could
be that we could see the CPD fall apart and
if it does, it would be I think more likely
that RFK Junior may actually be included, maybe as a
condition either by the Biden campaign or the Trump campaign,

(01:10:15):
possibly to try and trip the other side up. If
we do see the overall debate infrastructure collapse. But I'm
not one hundred percent sure how it will all shake.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
I mean we should see that. We should see Jill Steyne.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
I would love to, you know, doctor Westaffians up on
a number of ballots. We should hear from all of
these candidates. They should be able to compare and contrast
their ideas. You should have people who have a variety
of opinions who have to match up against each other
on a stage and see how they perform. Like, debates
are not perfect, they're not the end all be all,
but got at least it's like a little bit of
a democratic process. So allow us to judge in real

(01:10:48):
time what they say under pressure, how they respond to
actually difficult questions, because now it's far too easy for
these candidates. And RFK Junior, I mean he's sat with us,
He sat for a number of difficult, cult challenging interviews,
and I applout him for that. All of these candidates
should have to do that. They should have to do that,
and they should certainly have to get up on a

(01:11:08):
debate stage and justify themselves in their.

Speaker 3 (01:11:10):
Candidacies to the American people. So listen.

Speaker 1 (01:11:12):
I was glad to hear Biden say he's open to
a debate. We'll see if that actually comes together, because
I could still see you know, a lot of times
what will happen with Biden is he'll say something and
then his staff will be like, no, no, no, that's
not really what he meant, and you know, walk it
back and sort of try to steer him in the
direction where they feel safest, which is probably the wisest course.

(01:11:35):
Probably the wisest course for him is not to debate
Donald Trump. But it did make me a little bit
hopeful that we might see one when he said that.

Speaker 3 (01:11:42):
With Howard Stern.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
I could still see them though, like you know, at
the end of the day, Trump doing something that they say, oh,
this is toom we can't stand on a debate stage
with him, or you know, no, this moderator's biased, whatever,
coming up with some excuse at the last minute to
not do it. So I'm still like only maybe thirty
hopeful is actually going to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:12:01):
Good point.

Speaker 1 (01:12:02):
So, as we reported last week, it is looking more
and more likely that the International Criminal Court is actually
going to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netnahu and a number of other top Israeli officials. So
the US has decided to involve themselves in an attempt
to stop this process. Let's put this up on the screen.

(01:12:23):
This will report specifically from the Times of Israel, but
there were a number of reports across Israeli media. So
according to those reports, the US is part of a
quote last ditch diplomatic effort, in other words, threats to
prevent the ICC from issuing arrest warrants against net Nyaho
and other Israeli officials. The news site Walla, an analyst
there writes Netanyahu is quote under unusual stress over the

(01:12:46):
prospect of an arrest warrant against him another Israelis by
the UN Tribunal in the HAGU.

Speaker 3 (01:12:50):
Which would be a major deterioration.

Speaker 1 (01:12:52):
They write in Israel's international status, Netnahu is leading a
quote NonStop push over the telephone to prevent that arrest
weren't and has focused especially on US President Joe Biden.
Another Israeli media analyst, Haretz Amos Herald writes that the
Israeli government is working under the assumption that the ICC's
prosecutor made this week issue warrants for net Yahu. Defense

(01:13:17):
Minister Joev Gallant, an IDF chief of staff herzi Heleev.
Netnahu's latest public statement about the war said forthcoming decisions
by the ICC could set a quote dangerous precedent, and
he also said we will never stop defending ourselves. Whereas
decisions of the court in the Hague will not affect
Israel's actions, they would be a precedent threatening the soldiers

(01:13:38):
and officials of any democracy fighting criminal terrorism and aggression.
There was also soccer a New York Times report this
was the first one I'd seen in the New York
Times that came out just yesterday evening about how imminent
these potential arrest warrants are. They said in that report
from the New York Times they had some indication of
what the arrest warrants may be specific to the Israeli

(01:14:00):
officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of
humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip and pursuing an excessively
harsh response to the Hamas led October seventh attacks on Israel.
According to some of the officials they spoke to the
Israeli officials who are worried about the potential fallout from
such a case, that they believe net Nyaho is among
those who might be named. Is not clear who might

(01:14:21):
be charged from Hamas or what crimes would be cited.
So just to be clear for people, the US and
Israel are not actually participants in the ICC. The ICC
doesn't have its own like police force to come and
arrest Bib net Nyaho. As much as I would personally
love to see that image. However, there are what one

(01:14:45):
hundred and twenty four countries that are involved in the ICC,
and any one of those countries would be obligated if
they travel to those nations to arrest Bib or Yoev
Gallant or any other officials who were potentially issued these
arrest warrants. So, you know, obviously, in terms of the

(01:15:06):
international standing of Israel, having your prime minister having arrest
warrant from the ICC out for war crimes against your
prime minister is pretty significant development.

Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
Yeah, they're only two foreign leaders that similarly have ICC
warrants against them. Omar al Bashir, former president of Sudan,
and then obviously Vladimir Putin as well. Are they going
to be arrested, Like, let's be real, No, They're going
to be able to travel far and wide as Putin
has been able to do. However, Putin has had issues,
right he wasn't allowed to or he decided not to
challenge ICC to travel to South Africa for the Bricks Conference.

(01:15:40):
There have been various political problems that he has had.
And look, while I am against the Ukraine Consensus, funding,
the Ukraine War and all of that, I don't think
anyone could deny that it's been bad for Russia in
terms of its international standing, not necessarily their domestic economy.
It hasn't led to their collapse, That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying it certainly has damaged them in the eyes

(01:16:00):
of the world, and so similarly, I would say this
is likely the same effect that this would have, especially
since the US the Israel not signatories. I was a
little curious about this Hamas warrants because I hadn't seen
some of the argumentation around this. It said it was
considering warrants for these leaders of hamasi As for charge.
I actually think just look again, in terms of the
eyes of the world, it would make it a little

(01:16:22):
bit more undeniable if they were to do it, And
so if they did it would be at least politically,
that would probably be the right thing to do if
you charge him for October seventh, issue arrest warrants as well. Now,
again let's be very clear, this body has zero enforcement mechanism.
There's a reason that Bushier, at the end of the day,
was taken out by a coup in his own government,
and that Putin similarly will remain the autocrat of Russia

(01:16:44):
for as long as he lives and as he wants.
Because it has no authority itself. It's simply kind of
a rebuke from the international community. To the extent that
that matters, difficult to say.

Speaker 1 (01:16:55):
Yeah, and war crimes were committed on October seventh, there
should be accountability for that. There should be war crimes
trials for everyone who was involved in murdering innocent civilians
on October seventh, And there certainly should be accountability for
bby Nan Nahoo and the other you know, government officials
who've been involved in a siege, creating famine, causing starvation

(01:17:18):
to death of babies and children, and of course the
overwhelming annihilation throughout the Gaza driving one number. We're talking
about college campus and whatever. So this popped up today.
Two hundred schools have been targeted by Israel, just as
one measure of how overwhelming and how much civilian infrastructure
was just completely obliterated. Not to mention the forty thousand

(01:17:39):
plus palestings who've been killed, to overwhelming majority of whom
were innocent civilians. You know, some seventy percent were women
and children. So even if you assume all of the
rest of the men were guilty terrorists, whatever, you still
have overwhelming numbers who were innocent civilians. So, you know,
it's discussed that the US would jump in here and

(01:18:02):
try to throw their weight around to try to forestall
these arrest warrants being issued. But you know why they
do it because it's very uncomfortable for the US as well.
You know, we want to keep our cloak of supposed morality,
and so if you've got the ICC out there issuing
arrest warrant for your bestie bb net Yahoo, that's going
to be uncomfortable. For the US as well, which has

(01:18:22):
gone out of their way to deny that they see
any evidence of war crimes.

Speaker 3 (01:18:26):
More on that in a moment.

Speaker 1 (01:18:27):
The last thing I'll say about Israel with regards to
this is, you know, in some ways their moral standing
as a country is more important than maybe any other nation,
because they use that moral standing and the you know,
the horrors of the Holocaust in order to justify continued occupation,
continued apartheid state, things that would be seen very clearly

(01:18:50):
in different context if it wasn't Israel. This is used
from a propaganda standpoint to justify this entire state, the
way that they operate across administrations outside of just bibing
net and Yahoo. So that's part of why these threats
to the moral standing of Israel specifically are a particular

(01:19:11):
problem for them, and why, at least reportedly maybe even
though he knows he's not going to actually be arrested,
why he's very concerned about this and putting a lot
of pressure in holding emergency meetings to try to figure
out how to deal with the fallout from what looks
to be impending as soon as potentially this week arrest warrants.
But we'll see if the US is able to thwart

(01:19:31):
any of those sort of consequences. We have some exclusive
pulling that is highly relevant to this discussion of Israel's
conduct in a Gaza strip, and we're taking a look
at these specifically by partisanships. So how do Republicans, Democrats,
and independence feel about Israeli military actions, you know, post

(01:19:52):
October seventh. Let's put this first one up on the screen.
So the question here is you know which of the
following statements comes close.

Speaker 3 (01:19:59):
To to your view.

Speaker 1 (01:20:01):
The options are Israel's committing genocide, Israel's not committing genocide,
and don't know. So you have even actually twenty three
percent of Republicans saying they think Israel's committing genocide versus
forty seven percent who say no. On the Democratic side,
it is quite overwhelming. So forty eight percent a near

(01:20:23):
majority say affirmatively yes, eighteen percent say no, only eighteen
percent and another thirty five percent say don't know. So
huge plurality, near majority saying yes it's a genocide. If
you look specifically at Joe Biden voters, by the way,
within our poll, it is a majority. And then with

(01:20:43):
Independence too, you have a plurality who say Israel is
committing genocide thirty percent versus twenty three percent who say no,
and forty seven percent who say they don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:20:56):
So overall you have about a third.

Speaker 1 (01:20:59):
Of a marriage perkins who are saying, yes, this is
a genocide. That's pretty astonishing when you consider the way
that Israel has been viewed with this bipartisan halo for
decades and decades and decades, and now you have this
sizable minority of about a third and majority Joe Biden
voters saying they're committing genocide right now. That's an extraordinary

(01:21:22):
shift in public opinion. Let's put the next one up
on the screen. Also relevant, highly relevant to the question
of ICC arrest warrants. So the question here is which
of these statements comes closest to your view. Israel has
committed war crimes in Gaza, Israel has not committed war
crimes in Gaza, and don't know. Pretty similar numbers here.

(01:21:45):
Twenty seven percent of Republicans slightly hire say yes they've
committed war crimes, forty one percent say no, thirty one
percent say I don't know. With Democrats it is the
majority fifty two percent say yes. Only eighteen percent of
Democrats say no. And you also have a plurality with
independence thirty four to twenty two. And let me just
put this last one up on the screen, saga, and

(01:22:06):
get your reaction to all of these.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
Specifically, we asked the.

Speaker 1 (01:22:10):
Question should Netanyahu be charged with war crimes? With Republicans,
twenty four say twenty four percent. So according even of Republicans,
pretty significant say yes, forty two percent say no, thirty
four percent say don't know. With Democrats it's another forty
eight percent, it's only seventeen percent say no. So, Joe Biden,

(01:22:31):
only seventeen percent of your voters think this man shouldn't
be charged with war crimes, and you're in there intervening.
Thirty six percent say they don't know. With Independence, you've
got another pluralities twenty six percent saying yes, should be
charged with war crimes, only twenty percent say no, and
fifty four percent say they do not know. So this
shows you a pretty stark picture of where Americans are

(01:22:54):
in terms of their public opinion of Israel and the
way this war has been conducted, which, again, given the
way people felt about Israel just a year ago, it's
pretty dramatic shift.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
Yeah, no, It's a titanic shift in terms of the coalition,
and it will significantly change the way things look for
the future. This is why I keep saying that things
in the near term have not changed all that much,
but things in the long term are significant, to the
point where the relationship between the American people and Israel
will never be the same, and the relationship of the
international community Israel will specifically never be the same and

(01:23:26):
probably more radically different than it is here in our nation.
What that polling is underscores to me is the radical
shift that's going on amongst the Democrats, but significantly also
if you do start to break it down by age,
which we did amongst the eighteen to twenty five or
to eighteen to twenty nine demographic, even when you self
select for Republicans and others, you see shifts very very

(01:23:47):
different away from the way that younger voters, younger Americans
view their relationship with Israel as compared to the international
community and the sixty five plus. So as America ages
up and a lot of the younger voters become middle
class Americans or thirty to forty five year olds and
others with more economic power, probably in general being more

(01:24:08):
invested in the political system, there will be a significant change,
and of course too in terms of the representatives of
people in Congress who represent them.

Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
Let me just give you, guys the overall numbers on
some of these questions. So in terms of whether people
believe war crimes have been committed in Gaza, you have
a plurality. This is overall thirty seven percent versus twenty
seven percent who say no, and the remainder say they
don't know. With regards to bb specifically and whether he

(01:24:35):
should be charged with war crimes, you once again have
an overall plurality thirty two percent versus twenty six percent
who say no, and the remainder say they don't know.
So it is it is quite an extraordinary dramatic shift
for you know, plurality of Americans to be saying, yes,
we believe that this man who is the leader of
Israel should be.

Speaker 3 (01:24:55):
Charged with war crimes.

Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
And you know who else agrees with many Americans on
this is apparently many members of the State Department. Let's
put this up on the screen. There was an internal
memo from the State Department that was just leaked and
parts of it had been classified, and this journalist was
able to get their hands on it, with some of

(01:25:17):
the most extensive they write and serious to date warnings
to Secretary Blincoln over Israel's possible non compliance with international
humanitarian law. Go on to the next piece for some
of the details. Here, so they say, a joint submission
from four bureaus Democracy, human Rights and Labor, Population, Refugees, Migration,
Global Criminal Justice, and International Organization Affairs raised quote serious

(01:25:39):
concerns over non compliance with international humanitarian law in the
Israel's conduct of the Gaza War. The assessment from the
four bureaus said Israel's assurances were quote neither credible nor reliable.

Speaker 3 (01:25:52):
You don't say.

Speaker 1 (01:25:53):
Cited eight examples of Israeli military actions, officials said, raise
serious questions about potential violations of international humanitarian law.

Speaker 3 (01:26:01):
Let's go on to the next one.

Speaker 1 (01:26:02):
These include repeatedly striking protected sites and civilian infrastructure, unconscionably
high levels of civilian harm to military advantage, taking little
action to investigating violations or to hold to account those
responsible for significant civilian harm, and killing humanitarian workers and
journalists at an unprecedented rate. Now, there were some who

(01:26:26):
participated in this memo who diverged from that opinion. But Sager,
this is important for a variety of reasons, but most
specifically because it suggests that the State Department is all
these shipments of weapons are in direct contravention of US law,
and that Tony Blinken has on his desk information that

(01:26:48):
indicates that he is specifically himself violating US law in
order to continue shipping these weapons.

Speaker 2 (01:26:56):
Day Isa, Yeah, the lazy law and the humanitarian violation
is significant problem for them, especially as a lot of
the evidence in this stuff mounts. This is particularly why
they're working against the ICC and against a lot of
the memos and other evidence that they have on their
own desk, because it puts them in a bind where
they either have to comply with US law or don't.
We've already had this instance where they were supposed to

(01:27:17):
sanction that IDF battalion based upon a previous report that
was pre October seventh and some of its conduct. They
said they were going to do it, or they indicated
they were going to do it, but then NETANYAHUO and
the Speaker freaked out and has yet to materialize. But
you know, it's not the end of that though, because
if the law and all of that exists. It's either
going to leak or it's going to go towards Congress
and people can ask questions about that. But that would

(01:27:39):
also require Congress asking the administration why it's not doing
its job and.

Speaker 3 (01:27:43):
To actually do something.

Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
I mean, you know, some of these people who claimed
that they know understood that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid
and was very likely in contravention of the Lahy law,
then just turn around and still vote for the weapons.
So it requires this memo I believe was prepared because
Congress was pressing on exactly this issue.

Speaker 3 (01:28:05):
That's the whole reason why this thing exists.

Speaker 1 (01:28:08):
But then they don't actually you act upon the information
once it's provided. So in any case, that's what's going
on there. The US has proof that Israel is committing
war crimes. Next time you watch one of these enraging
State Department briefings where they say they're looking into it
and they don't know and they heard about that, but
they're going to ask Israel about or whatever, just keep
in mind Tony Blinkn has multiple reports from inside his

(01:28:30):
own State Department telling him, yes, they are committing war
crimes and they are just choosing to ignore that and
violate US law in order to continue this onslaught and
atrocities against Palestinians. All right, there's a little flap between
Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, who visited some of the student protesters,

(01:28:52):
and ADL's Jonathan Greenblat that we wanted to go over
for you. So first of all, let's take a listen
to what congress Woman Omar had to say that caused
this hole.

Speaker 14 (01:29:03):
Star you think this will translate to the Jewish students
who are facing anti semitism here on canvas.

Speaker 8 (01:29:07):
So I actually met a lot of Jewish students that
are in the Incabinet, and I think it is really
unfortunate that people don't care about the fact that.

Speaker 6 (01:29:18):
All Jewish kids should be kept safe and that we
should not have to tolerate anti semitism or bigotry for
all Jewish students, whether they are progenocide or anti genocide.

Speaker 3 (01:29:31):
So that is the part that's head people off.

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
And she said, listen, all Jewish students should be safe,
whether or not they're pro genocide. Like in her you know,
she believes that as I do, what Israel's doing and
godda strip is a genocide, and there are people who
support that. So in her framing and mind those people
are pro genocide, she's saying, even if they are progenocide,
they should.

Speaker 3 (01:29:50):
Be so safe.

Speaker 1 (01:29:51):
And the people who are anti genocide, who are protesting
over here should also be safe. And I one hundred
percent co signed those comments.

Speaker 2 (01:29:59):
Yeah, it was funny because the ADL put this out there.
Let's put this up there on the screen, it says,
watch this clip. It features Ilhan walking through Columbia proclaiming
that Jewish students do not have to tolerate anti semitism
when they're progenocide or anti genocide. It is patently false
and a blood libel to sugg You know where does
this blood libel shit ever end it? Just again, these
terms have lost on me that any Jewish students are

(01:30:21):
quote progenocide. It is gas leading, gaslighting to impute that
Jewish people are somehow at fault for being harassed in
menace with signs and logosts literally calling for their own extermination.
It is abhorrent that a sitting member of Congress would
slander a group of young people in such a cold
and oh, oh really, this is how people get killed.

Speaker 3 (01:30:38):
So you don't think young people should be slandered.

Speaker 2 (01:30:40):
Al's joologize, I am not holding my breath. Ilhan Omar responded,
let's put this up there on the screen. She says,
this is the progenocide I was talking about. Can you
condemn this? Is like I've condemned anti Semitism and bigotry
of all kind. Kill all Arabs. They're all Hamas, all
grotesquely evil level gasa. So it is quite you know,
kind of amusing now what people know. I don't use

(01:31:01):
the term genocide, war crimes, international law because I think
all that is fake and it's completely in the eye
of the beholder. But I do think it is funny
to me that and this is I've observed this too rhetorically,
and I saw it in your debate on Piers Morgan.
The problem that a lot of the pro Israel people have,
like in that instance, is they are very willing to
be like, oh, you got to smear these young kids.

(01:31:23):
It's not a genocide. These kids are anti Semites, you know,
they use like catch all language and moralistic language try
against their opponents. But in general, from what I have noticed,
from Norm Finkel's to even the most extreme you know,
pro Palestinian voices, at least in the relative mainstream and discourse,
are always willing to be like, yes, I do condemn
October seventh, I condemn anti Semitism. And part of the

(01:31:43):
problem is that the pro Israel side is not willing
to give the same even rhetorical clutch, I guess to
their opponents, and it just makes them look like either
like double standard or sissy. Is like here, like you
can't say that, you know, what is it from the
river to the sea or whatever, or is genocidal and
then turn around and then not condemn on your side

(01:32:05):
exactly statements like kill the Arabs or level Gossa or whatever,
because you do agree with that, and you know there's
a certain you lose the morality whenever that is what
you're advocating for. And I just want people to be honest.
Michael Tracy said that recently. He's like, all I want
is people to be honest. But you can't sit there
and be using terms like blood libel and going after
kids and students on the one hand, and then on

(01:32:27):
the other hand be upset when other people are going
to do it straight back at you.

Speaker 1 (01:32:31):
Okay, so put in green blood statement back up guys
on the screen.

Speaker 3 (01:32:36):
What was that?

Speaker 1 (01:32:36):
That was eighty seven or whatever block we're on seven?

Speaker 3 (01:32:40):
There we go? All right?

Speaker 1 (01:32:42):
He says it is patently false and a blood libel. Yeah,
so suggest that any Jewish students are pro genocide?

Speaker 3 (01:32:52):
Oh really? Oh really?

Speaker 1 (01:32:54):
Because I just watched you, sir on MSNBC accuse Jewish
Voice for Peace of being an Iranian proxy Ala Hesbola
or Humas. And I know you for a fact believe
that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. You literally just

(01:33:16):
slandered and smeared Jewish students as being genocidal yourself. And
now you're upset when ilhan Omar actually accurately characterizes some
positions as pro genocide.

Speaker 3 (01:33:30):
So save it, save it.

Speaker 1 (01:33:33):
And it's so true what you're saying, Zagera is like
this is really not complicated. And this goes back to
this whole one of the you know, discourse talking points
or whatever about the student protesters right now, it's like
they don't even know what they're tie. These kids, I
don't even know what they're protesting. They don't understand. But
some of these things are complic I like the history,
if you know all the ins and outs. Yeah, that's
it's complex, it's a lot to know, but you can

(01:33:55):
also very simply have a moral standard of killing innocent
civilians is wrong. It was wrong when it happened on
October seventh, and it's wrong when it happens when Israel's
doing it. That isn't hard, it's not complex, and if
you pull people, I think the overwhelming majority will agree
with that sentiment. But you have to apply it across
the board. And when we've had months and months and

(01:34:16):
months of the slaughter only happening on one.

Speaker 3 (01:34:19):
Side of the equation, guess what.

Speaker 1 (01:34:21):
They can't acknowledge that, yes, killing innocent civilians is wrong
because they're faced with day after day after day of
kids and women and schools being bombed, a church is
being bombed, in hospitals being bombed. So you have to
just either pretend that's not happening or butt hamas it
to death. And at this point it's just it's worn

(01:34:42):
completely thin. So they can't take that clear moral position
because their whole thing would fall apart if they did so.
In any case, hilarious fake freak out over ilhan Omar
saying something that is correct, and also it is very
consistent frankly, even if it's raised in a way that
makes people uncomfortable with American principles, which is, listen, even

(01:35:04):
if you have speech that is so abhorrent as for
it to be pro genocide, even those people should be protected.
Even they should be safe, even if they are saying
something that is, you know, advocating for a crime against humanity,
even those individuals deserve to be safe. Now that sounds controversial,

(01:35:26):
but it is a bedrock principle of America, something you know,
that is incredibly dear to me and I think many
other people in the nation. The other the last thing
I'll say about green Blatz thing is like, you know,
Jewish people are just like any other people, Like some
are going to have good views, bad views, be good people,

(01:35:47):
bad people, et cetera. And the fact that they're Jewish
doesn't take criticism like you still have to be able
to criticize people. It doesn't doesn't mean like any sort
of criticism is off the table, if so facto because
they're Jewish. But that's exactly what he and Adl and
many elite politicians, Richie Torres.

Speaker 3 (01:36:05):
And all these other people.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
That's exactly what they want, which is in and of
itself a form of racism, saying like no Jew can
is able to hold that viewpoint. It's like no Jewish
people are complex like everybody else and have a wide
variety of opinions and are able to be anywhere on
the spectrum, even places on the spectrum that I find.

Speaker 3 (01:36:22):
To be horrified.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
My most controversial opinion is that Jews are just like
everybody else and should be treated as Yeah, and I
think that about blacks, whites, whatever, Indians, any other group.
I don't think you should be treated specially. I guess
that's very controversial and equal application of the law, something
that we allegedly were founded on and fought a civil
war for.

Speaker 1 (01:36:41):
But I think sectarianism is very destructive and framing this
as like a religious conflict is very dangerous and destructive,
and it's not accurate when you have Jewish voices for peace,
when you have so many protests movements organized by Jews
who are anti Zionist Jews, it's.

Speaker 3 (01:37:00):
It's a political conflict.

Speaker 1 (01:37:01):
It's a conflict at its core over land and morality
and protection of civilians. That's what the conflict is about.
And the minute that you make this into this like
clash of civilization's religious conflict. That's part of why this
has gotten so has drawn out for so many decades,

(01:37:21):
because that actually confuses the situation and makes it much
more difficult to resolve.

Speaker 2 (01:37:26):
Yeah, well, absolutely, all right, move on. Fun story, last story.
This has had this in the show. It's just yeah,
I mean fun for some psychotic some others might say,
let's go and put this up there on the screen.
South Dakota Governor Kirsty no has written a new book
and brags about killing her fourteen month old dog. And

(01:37:47):
I'm not exaggerating here at all. I'm going to read
you directly from what she said. She said Cricket was
a wire hair pointer about fourteen months old. It was
a female dog that quote had an aggressive personality who
she was trying to train as a hunting dog. She
took Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs. Noam
says she had hoped to come calm the young dog

(01:38:09):
down and teach her how to behave Unfortunately, Cricket ruined
the hunt, going out of her mind with excitement, chasing
all those birds and having the time of her life
aka What Dogs Do. Nom then describes calling Cricket using
an electric callar to attempt to bring her under control.
She says that nothing worked. On the way home after
the hunt, she stopped to talk to a local family.

(01:38:29):
The dog escaped and attacked the family's chickens. She said
she was simply untrainable, behavior like a trained assassin. When
Noam finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog whipped around
to bite me after she was after she was grabbed.
Through it all, she says, Cricket was just the picture
of pure joy. She then writes, I hated that dog,

(01:38:50):
dangerous to anyone she came into contact with, worse than
worse than useless as a hunting dog. At that moment,
I realized I had to put her down. It was
not a pleasant job, but it had to be done.
And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job
needed to be done. And she talks about killing a
nasty male goat that was also on their property. So

(01:39:13):
basically what she describes here is murdering a fourteen month
old dog that was acting like a dog. Now I've
seen some justification for this, like whoa, you know? What
do you look? The dogs are tools like everything else. Yeah,
maybe in eighteen twenty five. You know today there are
actually a ton of charities that are out there, animal rescues, etc.

(01:39:33):
That specifically take hunting dogs that didn't pass training. There's
tons of I'm sure they exist in South Dakota too.
And she's trying to play this off as some like
hard scrabble living on the land thing. Again, let me
just repeat, we are not on the frontier times. There
is no reason to conduct yourself this way. It's completely psychotic,
especially when you're bragging about it and trying to make

(01:39:54):
yourself appear tough. This is what she This is her
defense after this all came out. We love animals, been
tough decisions like this happened all the time on a farm. Sadly,
we had to put down three horses a few weeks
ago that had been in our family for twenty five years.
If you want more real, honest and politically incorrect stories
that'll have the media gasping, pre order no back. She's

(01:40:16):
fundraising off this now, trying to sell more of her
crappy copies of her book. Bragging about killing a fourteen
month old dog. I mean, it's totally psychotic. It's not
like the dog was even sick.

Speaker 3 (01:40:28):
Yeah, at fourteen months old, this was puppies. This is
still a puppy.

Speaker 1 (01:40:32):
This is still this dog is still developing, and there
are so many other options available to you than just
like she dragged it into some gravel pin shot it
in the head. I was bothered by the goat too.
I actually grew up with We had pet goat.

Speaker 2 (01:40:48):
One of my friends has a nasty goat. They don't
shoot it of.

Speaker 1 (01:40:51):
One of our goats was very sweet, yeah, and the
other one was a little scary. Angela was a little
bit scary. Okay, we didn't in the head like it
was fine. You just knew how to deal with goat. Yeah,
And goats are highly intelligent and social. The little the

(01:41:11):
other one who was named after me, she was named Chrissy.
She's always try to come in the house like she
was a dog. She was like it had like commands.
She understood what these are very intelligent animals and for
you to just like, you know, crully, think this is
your only option and then the sickness of thinking this
is going to like she wrote.

Speaker 3 (01:41:29):
This a political book.

Speaker 1 (01:41:30):
This is part of her bid to become Trump's VP
pick that you think this is gonna make people think
better of you, Like, how little do you think of
Republican voters or the American people in general that you
think murdering a puppy is gonna make them feel. Oh,
she's tough and she makes the tough choices, et cetera.

(01:41:51):
I have seen some people defending her, which is gross.
But I have also seen a lot of bipartisan revulsion,
which is understandable.

Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Majority of people are repulsed by yes, and that's why
she's had to clean it up. Since let's put this
up there. Her latest statement is, and understand why people
are upset about a twenty year old story of cricket,
which you put in your book. By the way, nobody
else brought this up. The book is filled with honest
stories of my life, good and bad days, challenging, painful decisions,
blah blah blah blah blah. The fact is South Dakota

(01:42:20):
law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can
be put down. Given that cricket had shown aggressive behavior
toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Now,
keep in mind, we're only taking this lady's word for it.
We have no idea if any of this even happened.
What she's talking about is if somebody's dog goes and
kills somebody else's chickens or property, and then even then
there's a whole animal process that goes through whenever you

(01:42:43):
decide to put a dog down. It's one of the
most extraordinary things you could do whenever it comes to
for animals, like getting the state to order that a
dog be put down after a variety of incidents. Various
states have different laws, but she says, whether running the
ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my
responsibilities to anyone else to hand, even if it's hard
and painful, I follow the law. I was being a
responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. So I'll just reiterate

(01:43:08):
the original justification is very clear. She's like, I hated
the dog and it didn't it didn't do what I
wanted it to do. And I know multiple people actually
who have rescued hunting dogs, people dogs who didn't pass
hunting training or whatever, which I understand, you know, not
every dog or whatever is cut out for it, but
you know, we're not living on the frontier where you
got to kill him for literally no reason. And she's

(01:43:29):
bragging about it as if it somehow makes her, you know,
big and strong. You know, putting down a horse that's
been horrifically injured, that's one thing that's sad. And you know,
even then, you know there's conversations or whatever, but here
there's not. There's no justification on it whatsoever. It's just
I murdered this dog, and that makes me big and strong,
and that's why you should buy my book and give

(01:43:50):
me twenty dollars.

Speaker 3 (01:43:51):
Believe.

Speaker 15 (01:43:51):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:43:52):
Crazy, And apparently she's kind of fallen in the Trump
VP yeah esteem.

Speaker 3 (01:43:58):
Anyway, we'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:44:00):
I mean, I had seen reporting previously that any governor
of a state that has like extreme abortion laws like
South Dakota does, heartbeat laws like South Dakota does. I
didn't think about that had fallen in Trump's consideration, so
she may have been off the table already. Also, Trump
apparently hates dogs, so I don't know if he would
have a problem with the story in particular. But the

(01:44:22):
latest is that he's considering Doug Bergram.

Speaker 2 (01:44:25):
Wow, that's something.

Speaker 1 (01:44:27):
I guess that'd be a dig because he was North Dakota, right,
he was South Dakota.

Speaker 2 (01:44:31):
There was like a rivalry there. You know Doug would
be bad choice just purely for money purposes. He's a
billionaire somebody who could fund his campaign. Trump's got money
issues first campaign, doesn't want to spend any of his own.

Speaker 3 (01:44:39):
He's certainly not going to like mean ount charisma.

Speaker 2 (01:44:42):
I was going to say, there won't be any like that.
I feel like he'd be like Mike Pants and just
be like, all right, whatever you know, do whatever you want.

Speaker 1 (01:44:48):
Yeah, I don't really buy it, though, I think I
guess at this point, I'm thinking maybe Tim Scott might
be the Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:44:54):
I've said this before. I think all three of these
people have an equal chance. I think if it was
going to be a woman, I still think it's going
to be because at least he has got no abortion baggage.
She's got this whole Harvard thing going for her right now,
you know, because she's the one who started that whole
like moral panic about the Ivy League university.

Speaker 14 (01:45:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:45:10):
Trump loves her because she served as one of his
spokespeople for his defense and the impeachment. She knows she's
very combative on social media and it's total loyal and
she's socially liberal. Like you know, in the past, you've
been attacked by the right wing for being more socially liberal,
like she voted for the Equality Act in like twenty nineteen.
So this is somebody who's very much more like trumpist.
That's if he wants a woman, if he wants a
black person just for media purposes, affirmative action candidate, it

(01:45:34):
would be Tim Scott. If he's feeling really safe and
he wants an ideological ally, I think he's gonna pick
Jade Vans. All three of those things all depend on
the polling whenever it comes right up to the convention.
I think it's basically an equal shot for all three
of those. But we'll see, Crystal, what do you take
a look at well.

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
As powerful politicians, elite media denizens, and Hollywood celebrities all
gathered in DC this past weekend for the annual White
House Correspondence Day, they're met with exactly the welcome that
they deserved. Free Palestine protesters confronted these elites with their
own hypocrisy and complicity and sanctioning horrifying atrocities against Palestinian civilians,

(01:46:13):
chanting shame on you at these people who are at
worst actively funding and supporting a genocide, and at the
very least comfortable with celebrating those who are backing a genocide.
At one point, a giant Palestinian flag was actually unfurled
from a window of the venue itself, the d C
Hilton Hotel that has played host to this event for
many years. Protesters even staged a die in to honor

(01:46:36):
the one hundred plus journalists who have been killed by
the IDF in Gaza, was complete with blood spattered press
vest visual reminder that while these so called journalists were
putting on ball gowns in their luxury hotel suites, Palestinian
journalists we're facing starvation, arrest, torture, and execution for the
crime of doing their job. The message of these target

(01:46:58):
protests was right on tip target. Of all the in
group spectacles in DC, none has become more grotesque or
more emblematic of the utter bipartisan immorality of American elites
than the White House correspondence dinner. The idealized notion of
this event is that for one evening, the press and
the politicians they put aside the combative relationship meant to
typify interactions between the powerful and the journalists who hold

(01:47:21):
them to account, and two together recommit the bedrock importance
of the First Amendment in a fierce independent press by
taking comedic jabs at one another. Given the partisan toothlessness
though of most of the press, and the raging hypocrisy
of everyone involved. In reality, the White House Correspondents Dinner
is just a showcase of elite coziness, disconnect, and self congratulation. Now,

(01:47:43):
this year's circus, though of privilege, reached a new low,
occurring as it did, amidst the Washington improved genocide and Gazo,
which has the distinction of being the deadliest and most
dangerous conflict for journalists ever in history. In fact, it
appears that on the very day of these festivities, two
more Palestinian journalists were killed by the IDF. This would

(01:48:04):
be in addition to the one hundred and forty two
members of the press who had already been killed by
the IDF and at least forty who had been arrested. Meanwhile,
our great ally, the supposed only democracy in the Middle East,
is promising to shut down media outlets like Al Jazeera
for their coverage of Gaza and largely blocks the Western

(01:48:26):
press from even covering this conflict from the ground at all,
and Of course, as these politicians were patting themselves on
the back for their brave commitment to the First Amendment,
they were busy cheering on an authoritarian crackdown on college students.
Hundreds more students and some faculty were arrested over the weekend.
At one event, officers assaulted seventy three year old Green

(01:48:46):
Party candidate Jill Stein with a bicycle for the crime
of protesting against US government support for a foreign government's
atrocity filled war. While the politicians sent in the cops,
their media allies ran cover by smearing the protesters as
violent anti Semitic terrorists, platforming the ADLs Jonathan green Blatt
to call them Iranian proxies. And by the way, Julian,

(01:49:07):
no Sange, He's still in prison now. None of this
stopped attendees from their typical smug, self satisfied rituals and
empty peons to freedom of speech principles that they clearly
do not actually believe in.

Speaker 3 (01:49:19):
You know, I had actually held.

Speaker 1 (01:49:20):
Out some hope that maybe some brave soul would offer
at least an echo of two thousand and six. Even
Colbert his set at that White House Correspondence dinner during
the height of the Iraq War, and.

Speaker 3 (01:49:31):
To George W.

Speaker 1 (01:49:31):
Bush's face, it was actually genuinely courageous, the comedian in
the room, exposing the war hungry journalists and the Yokan
in chief himself. I should have known better, though not
that I thought Colin Yost had that in him, but
I thought maybe someone would say something uncomfortable for the
bipartisan elites in the hotel ballroom. Not even close. Instead,
the pageantry seemed almost an intentional middle finger to the

(01:49:54):
protesters in the streets who were demanding these pro war
elites feel at least a little bit of shame. It
was zero shame to be found in that room. Here
is Colin Yost closing out the night, slabbering all over
Joe Biden for his supposed decency and the decency by
extension of the entire establishment press corps. If you can
stomach it, take a listen.

Speaker 4 (01:50:14):
My grandpa voted for decency, and decency is why we're
all here tonight. Decency is how we're able to be
here tonight. Decency is how we're able to make jokes

(01:50:35):
about each other and one of us doesn't go to
prison after we go to the Newsmax after party. And
when you look at the levels of freedom throughout history
and even around the world today, this is the exception.
This freedom is incredibly rare, and the journalists in this

(01:50:59):
room help protect that freedom, and we cannot ever take
that for granted. So, mister President, I thank you for
your decency on behalf of my grandfather, and I thank
all of you, almost all of you, for your decency

(01:51:21):
as well. I am very honored and grateful that you
invited me here tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:51:27):
Thank you, and good night.

Speaker 1 (01:51:31):
Your decency. It literally nauseates me to hear these words
at this point.

Speaker 3 (01:51:34):
But they are actually just too perfect.

Speaker 1 (01:51:36):
Joe Biden has helped to murder tens of thousands of
kids in the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands more are
starving as we speak. A million have been displaced, how
many orphaned, how many will spend their lives disabled by
amputations and severe trauma. And you have the gall to
call this man decent? Why because so pat Mitch McConnell
and Mike Johnson on the back as they fund their

(01:51:58):
genocide together.

Speaker 3 (01:51:59):
It is so twisted, proving.

Speaker 1 (01:52:01):
Once again the reigning ideology in Washington is decorum, delusion
and sociopathy. While Palestinian journalists were being killed, they took
time out of the evening to honor one of the
chief White House stenographers of this war, Israeli journalist Baroque Revied,
writes for Axios. He's contributor to CNN. The former IDF
soldier turned journalist has been the foremost recipient of White
House leaks about how upset Biden is with net Yahoo.

Speaker 3 (01:52:24):
He's upset, He's really upset, he is really really upset.

Speaker 1 (01:52:26):
Failed attempt to gaslight Americans into thinking Biden gives a
shit about Palestinian slaughter while not moving American policy a single.

Speaker 3 (01:52:33):
Iota of Revied.

Speaker 1 (01:52:35):
The White House Correspondence Association wrote, quote Barock Revie's reporting
and displayed deep, almost intimate levels of sourcing in the
US and abroad. Intimate levels of sourcing. Indeed, even the
single mention of Gaza came in typical, sanitized, accountability free language.
NBC's Kelly O'Donnell said, quote, since October, about one hundred
journalists have been killed, most of those deaths in Gaza,

(01:52:56):
according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Speaker 3 (01:52:58):
Really who killed them?

Speaker 1 (01:53:00):
Kelly, how many of the people in the room have
ever mentioned these press murders a single time. As for
Biden himself, these dozens of murdered Gaza journalists, they didn't
come up even once. But he did raise a toast
to his supposed commitment to democracy.

Speaker 14 (01:53:16):
Move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments
and the distractions, the side shows that have come to dominate,
to sensualize our sensationalize our politics, and focus on what's
actually a stake. And I think in your hearts you
know it. It was at State the stakes couldn't be higher.
Every single one of us says rose to play a

(01:53:37):
serious role to play making your democracy endures, American democracy.
I have more of my role, but all due respect,
so do you. In the age of disinformation, credible information
that people can trust is more important than ever. And
that makes you, and I mean it's from the bottom
of heart, makes you more important than ever. So tonight

(01:53:59):
I'd like to make it to to a free press,
to an informed citizen room, to an American where a
freedom and democracy endure. God bless America.

Speaker 1 (01:54:15):
You know, Joe, kind of hard to find incredible on
this whole democracy thing. When you rig the primary so
you had no opponent, when you're putting out statements smearing
those who protest against your policies as racist, justifying a
brutal police crackdown when a lobby representing foreign government interests
has vastly more influence than your average American citizen. So

(01:54:38):
spare me your warnings about how democracy is on the ballot.

Speaker 3 (01:54:42):
Now to the.

Speaker 1 (01:54:43):
Protesters, God bless you. I hope none of these people
can go anywhere without hearing about the children they are
helping to starve, the journalists they are helping to kill.
American people are with you, The world is with you.
And one day all these smug assholes running cover for
or active prosecuting a genocide, they're going to pretend they
were on your side all along. But we we will

(01:55:06):
never forget t Sager. I know you're a big fan,
and if.

Speaker 2 (01:55:10):
You want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become
a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. All right, guys,
thank you so much for watching me. Really appreciate you.
I and know it was a long one today, but
we had a lot of exclusive content that we wanted
to fit in there. And we love you and we'll
see you all tomorrow,

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