4/8/24: Israel Pulls Out Of South Gaza, Pelosi Flips After Jose Andres Strike, Ecuador Storms Mexican Embassy, PBD Rips Shapiro After Candace Firing, Rogan Debates Coleman Hughes On Israel, Trump $50 Mill Fundraiser, Israel's AI Death Machine

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

Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
for everybody today. What do we have Krystal, indeed we do.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
The Biden administration and many other liberals changing their tune
a bit after that Israeli airstrike killed seven AID workers
for World Central Kitchen. We'll tell you about that. We
also have some big news on the warfront. Israel has
withdrawn from southern Gaza. What does it mean a lot
of speculation, a lot of questions there, so we'll get
into that. We're also keeping an eye on how a

(00:50):
run will retaliate for that Israeli strike on their consular
building in Syria and very dramatic escalations and questions there
as well. Campus Owens has opened a rift in conservative media.

Speaker 4 (01:04):
It's a very interesting story.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Obviously ties in with her being fired from the Daily
Wire and her commentary with regard to Israel and possible
questions around anti Semitism.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
So we'll break all of that down for you.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
Joe Rogan is debating Coleman Hughes on whether or not
Israel is committing genocide.

Speaker 4 (01:18):
Very interesting exchange there that is worth parsing.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Trump had a massive fundraiser, raising some fifty million dollars
in one day and making some quite noteworthy promises to
the big donors in the room. I have a monologue
breaking down that big report from plus nine seven to
two magazine that came out last week about the way
that Israel is using AI to supercharge their assault on

(01:42):
the Gaza Strip. Really important journalistic piece, so I'm looking
forward to spending some time with that one. Before we
get to any of that, Sagar, We've been teasing this
for a while, but we do have some big news
that is coming up soon.

Speaker 3 (01:55):
I promise you, we promise, we promise.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Logistics running nobody ever seen that doing this was easy,
but if you do want to be the first to
hear about it, you can sign up at breakingpoints dot com.
It will be coming very soon. We promised you will
eventually see it. It's going to be an upgrade to
our premium service and also some extra content. I think
you guys are going to be very excited about. So
if you can help us out Breakingpoints dot Com.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
All right, So we wanted to start with the Biden
administration's reaction to that strike that killed seven aid workers.
For Jose Andre's organization, World Central Kitchen for the first time,
they're changing their tune a bit, and actually reportedly in
a phone call, Biden didn't really change US policy, but
threatened to potentially change US policy, and even just that

(02:38):
threat has compelled some changes in behavior on the Israeli side.
Here is John Kirby, Pentagon spokesperson, talking about the possibility
that military aid in the future could be conditioned if
Israel does not change the way that they are conducting
this war.

Speaker 4 (02:53):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 5 (02:54):
Is the Biden administration position still that there should be
zero conditions on aid military aid to Israel.

Speaker 6 (03:02):
I'm not going to get ahead of the President or
decisions he might or might not make going forward. He
was very clear in his call with the Prime Minister
that if we don't see some changes in their policies
in Gaza and the way they're prosecuting operations, We're going
to have to make some changes.

Speaker 5 (03:17):
In our You do think these are Israeli policies?

Speaker 4 (03:19):
Then a new block.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
Eight they have.

Speaker 6 (03:22):
They get to decide how they prosecute this war. It's
their operation. We just talked about them pulling troops out.
What that means. They get to decide how they prosecute operations.
We get to decide how we're going to react to
that and how we're going to administer our own policy
with respect to Gaza. We make those decisions, and the
President was clear with the Prime Minister. If there's not changes,
if things don't get better, then we're going to have
to make changes of our own.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
If things don't get better, then we're going to have
to make changes of our own. Leaving it very vague,
The President also asked about what all of this means
in a short exchange on the fly.

Speaker 4 (03:53):
Let's take listen what he had to say.

Speaker 7 (03:54):
We do breaton documentitary, Hey, they thread, I have them
agree what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
Helpful there. I asked them to do what they're doing.
All right, Well, let's dig into a little bit of
what they are doing. Let's put this up on the
screen from Axio. So immediately after that phone call, Israel
announced that they had agreed to increase humanitarian aid delivery
to Gaza. There's a number of actions that they're taking
on this front. So they're opening the arrest crossing the

(04:25):
Northern Gaza Strip. That would be the first time since
October seventh. We also have a quote from Kamala Harris
in this piece. She said, the President made clear we
will make sure Israel isn't left without the ability to
defend itself. At the same time, if there are no
changes to their approach, we are likely to change our approach.
So very similar to Kirby's comments, let's go ahead and
put up the fifth element on the screen here, guys,

(04:48):
to show you the additional actions that were taken. So
the UN says that Israel also approved the reopening of
twenty bakeries and a water pipeline in northern Gaza. There
are also some additional legis efforts that they are claiming
that they're going to make in order to create a
better functioning coordination so that more aid can enter the strip.

(05:09):
And in addition, according to the Israelis yesterday saw three
hundred and twenty two AID trucks entering.

Speaker 4 (05:16):
The Gaza Strip.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
That is the highest daily number of AID trucks that
has entered the enclave since October seventh. Again, this is
according to Israeli official So take that for what it's worth,
as reported by Barack Revide. But you know, there's a
couple things that are noteworthy here. I mean, first of all,
the Israelis have long been saying, oh, we're not doing
anything to blockade, We're doing everything we can to get aided.

(05:38):
Oh really, Well, it turns out that you could, at
the snap of finger open new crossings, reinstate a pipeline,
reopen twenty bakeries that have been shuttered, increased coordination, immediately
surge the number of AID trucks coming through. So this
line that they've been feeding you all for months now,
that all we're doing everything obviously complete and utter bullshit. Second,

(06:00):
really noteworthy point here is for the people are saying, oh, well,
Israel's a sovereign country. We really don't how many say
over what they do. The Biden administration did not even
change policy. He made one phone call where he threatened
to potentially in some amorphis way change policy in the future,
and that was sufficient to compel a change in behavior

(06:22):
from the Israelis.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
Well, it validates a couple of points we've been talking
a lot about here. Number one is that, yes, there
is some certain personal sovereignty that Israel has, but there's
also a client state relationship here. This is the nation
that has received more foreign aid than any other country
in the entire history of the US if you look
at the overall dollar amount that we've given to Israel,
and for vast majority of that is military aid. On

(06:44):
top of that, Biden administration has been a critical lifeline
to the Israeli military whenever it comes to its weapons,
and we've also seen a pretty major change in their
battle strategy.

Speaker 3 (06:54):
Let's put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (06:56):
There's a lot to say about this, and nobody really
quite knows because you could see either way. I please
put yes IDF is ending quote its active ground invasion
and completely withdrawing from southern Gaza. This is from the
Jerusalem Post, which is more of a right wing organization
inside Israel, and they say that the decision comes less
than two days after Israel opened the Aras crossing and
the Eshdod port to transfer humanitarian aid. I do want

(07:19):
to spend some time on this because I saw actually
some interesting analysis from again Israeli commentators, and one who
in English put it this way. He says, these are
two very concerning data points from Gaza.

Speaker 3 (07:29):
One.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
After the multi week campaign in and around Al Shifa,
mortars are still being fired at the IDEF from northern
Gaza as troops are leaving the Gaza Strip. This shows
that the enemy still has quote plenty of forces in
the north too.

Speaker 3 (07:42):
After months of battles.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
Now in Communis by the ninety eighth Division and its
commando Brigrade, four soldiers were just killed yesterday, announced by
the IDF. This shows that the enemy still uses tunnels
and has weapons despite months of being chased around. The
problem with the strategy of clear and not hold is
that it seems to inevitably mean Hamas returns now. He's
writing it from a very like pro is really military perspective.

(08:04):
But the reason why it really struck out to me
is that even the clear ride is really military. Analysts
inside the country are like, hey, this entire military campaign
did not actually achieve it's so called military end we
have rockets and military capability in northern Gaza and in Conunis,
both of which were promised as the justification. You can

(08:24):
see majority from the US commentators and even defenders of
military strategy is it's working, and yeah there's a high
civilian casualty, but what are you going to do? But
this is actually evidence that the enemy both retains its
military capacity, that they have not been able to destroy Hamas,
and that even with all of their tactics, their effective
free fire zone, etc. That it hasn't worked, Which is

(08:46):
I mean, frankly predictable from the start with the way
that they've decided to wage the war.

Speaker 1 (08:51):
It is not only predictable from the start, it was
predicted from the start, including by people who are not
you know, deep military experts such as ourselves, the idea
that you were going to defeat Hamas and that was
going to be the you know, the actual goal of
the strategy. I mean, it never made sense from day one,
first of all, that you would even be able to

(09:11):
do that or what that even means. Second of all,
the tactics from the beginning, remember we covered those comments
from JOCKO about this. The tactics were never consistent with
that goal. The tactics were consistent with revenge. The tactics
were consistent with annihilation. The tactics were consistent with collective
punishment of the entire civilian population, which is where you know,

(09:32):
the siege comes into play.

Speaker 4 (09:34):
And I've got a lot more on how.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
Those tactics actually were decided on and how they were
executed in the field in my monologue today. But the
idea that this was some you know, hunt for Hamas
and it was really this targeted military campaign directly at Hamas,
that was preposterous from the jump. But now they're at
a place where they can sort of no longer sustain

(09:57):
the lie, even amongst you know, our own supporters who
want to believe the lie, who want to believe that justification.
It becomes too preposterous for anyone who is looking at
this thing clearly to sustain. So what the Israeli Defense
Ministerio of Glant is saying about their withdrawal from communists

(10:18):
from southern Gaza, leaving a very minimal number honestly of
soldiers still remaining in the Gaza strip. Basically they are
posted up along the corridor between North and South. This
dividing line to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes
in northern Gaza. That is the bulk of where the
troops remain in the Gaza Strip now, they claim, and

(10:39):
US Intelligence has also put out a statement to the
same effect that the reason they are withdrawing from communists
and southern Gaza at this time is to rest up
and prepare the operation for Rafa.

Speaker 4 (10:50):
We know that Natanyahu has.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Very aggressively asserted that there is no way he will
be deterred from going into Rafa. That is still hanging
out there. So what this actually means, I think it's
very honestly difficult to say at this point and what
it means for the future. The other thing that's hanging
over this, you know, with a lot of question marks,
is there are ongoing negotiations occurring in Qatar for some

(11:14):
sort of ceasefire. Don't know the length, don't know the
contours of that, don't know how likely that is to
actually come to fruition. But one of the things Hamas
has been insisting on is some sort of IDF withdrawal.
So the other possibility is this withdrawal a precursor to
some sort of either temporary or more lasting ceasefire deal.

Speaker 4 (11:34):
We simply don't know.

Speaker 1 (11:36):
At this point, but obviously the fact that there was
such a significant withdrawal from southern Gaza is incredibly significant
and something to really keep our eyes on now in
terms of Netan Yahoo and his domestic political situation, as
we've said a million times, and we're not the only ones,
he has to keep this war going, to hold on
to his position and power. Obviously, there are huge questions

(11:59):
about him leading to October seventh. He is deeply unpopular
in Israel almost across the board. Once the war is over,
there will be a clamoring for new elections and he
will be in big trouble. Bet So, I think he
almost has to hold on to, you know, a potential
a Rafa invasion, as he asserts, as a certainty, he
has to hold on to, you know, what's going on

(12:21):
in northern Israel and their tit for tat escalations with
Hezbola that still has the possibility of really.

Speaker 4 (12:28):
Flaring up and escalating.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
And then we're going to talk more in the next
block about this additional front that he's opened up directly
vis a vis Iran and what that could mean. For
the future, because again, his political fate depends on keeping
this war going, which is why I'm a little bit
skeptical that the withdrawal of troops from southern Gaza at
this point really spells like, oh, they're actually winding things
down and this is coming to some sort of a close.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
I think that they're trying to keep their options open.
But I mean, again, these really right wing is actually
reading it as a defeat. So apparently I'm reading back
here again from a translation. But the Israeli radio this morning,
resh At B, apparently a large radio organization, said this
morning that basically Hamas is getting a lot of what
it wanted and that the withdrawal of forces from Communist
is basically quote a kind of sea.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
Sire without it being official.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
They also say that considering the narrative during the war
that there won't be Hamas and military pressure is bringing
the release of hostages, we are wondering now if those
talking points will be quietly shelved. So I think they're
in a holding pattern. I don't think they really know
what they're doing. Of course, they're going to try and
say face and be like no, no, no, we're going into
Rafa but international pressure and changes and wins here in
the US very clearly dramatically shifting after the strike on

(13:37):
the World Central Kitchen. I don't get me wrong, I
would not put it past them whatsoever. And if things change,
if these things fail, or if something else happens, that
could influence events very much, could be possible. But regardless,
I think we're in an interesting kind of.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
A flux situation right now that could go in two
different directions.

Speaker 4 (13:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
Absolutely, I think my personal assessment is that BB has
to hold on to the invasion is coming.

Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
I think he said it so clearly and made that
promise so clearly so many times. I really don't think
he can back off of it without, you know, immediately
jeopardizing his political position, which is his end all feel.
I mean, he's an ideological actor, but he's also first
and foremost a political animal. There's a reason that he
has held power so often and for so long in

(14:22):
Israeli society. So I think he has to stick to
that pledge. But perhaps there's you know, responding to this
tiniest bit of US pressure that the Biden administration has
put on of you know, let's back off for a
bit and let things cool down, let a little bit
more of a trickle of aid flow into the strip
in response to these concerns from the Americans. And again,

(14:45):
just take note, take note everyone. It did not even
take an actual change in policy to compel some changes
on the Israeli side. All it took was the threat
of possible future undefined action, and we saw immediate.

Speaker 4 (15:02):
Response from the Israelis.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
So keep that in mind the next time they try
to gaslight you into oh Biden's doing all he can,
and oh we just you know, we're just impotent. We
have no power in this situation. That is nonsense. That
is utter and complete nonsense. The strike on these is
by the Israelis on the World Central Kitchen Aid workers

(15:25):
has had tremendous fallout, I would say, especially among American liberals,
which is interesting for a variety of reasons. But chefjose
Andres himself speaking out over the weekend and taking a
very hard line against the Israelis here really calling into
question their quote unquote investigation into what happened. Let's take
a listen to a bit of what he had to say.

Speaker 8 (15:47):
We could argue that the first one, let's say, was
a mistake the second. The third, do you believe.

Speaker 9 (16:00):
Old Central Kitchen was targeted on purpose?

Speaker 10 (16:07):
My humanity tells me that Obviously, I don't want to
believe that was a kitchen was targeted, and probably this
was not the case because I'm sure they knew our movements.
I'm sure they knew our teams. I'm sure they were
in the red content with the different people that coordinate

(16:27):
in these situations. But obviously this seems keeps happening, this
breaking of communications keeps happening.

Speaker 9 (16:36):
You wrote a very emotional tweet this week about Zomy, saying,
I wish I never founded your organization. You would be
alive somewhere today, smiling and making somebody somewhere feel like
they were the most beloved person in the world. Said
you wish you'd never found it Central Kitchen.

Speaker 10 (16:56):
You know, I will forever have to live with this,
as well as the families and all the members of
Los Andel Gitchen.

Speaker 8 (17:05):
I I.

Speaker 10 (17:10):
Founded with one very simple idea, can we provide food
and water quicker than anybody else?

Speaker 8 (17:15):
Obviously, something like this makes you think we did what
we did.

Speaker 10 (17:18):
Because it's a lot of people that are always forgotten,
many civilians, women, children, that the only thing they did
was trying to get close by to somewhere that they
were giving them flower or breadth. This is not anymore
about the seven men and women of World Central Kitchen
that perish on this unfortunate e band.

Speaker 8 (17:38):
This is happening. Wait for too long.

Speaker 10 (17:41):
It's been six months of targeting anything that seems moves.
This doesn't seem a war against terror. This doesn't seem
anymore a war about defending Israel. This really, at this
point seems is a war against humanity itself.

Speaker 1 (17:57):
So obviously some really strong comments there made by Chef
jose Andre saying this doesn't seem anymore a war about
defending Israel. This really, at this point seems it's a
war against humanity itself.

Speaker 4 (18:10):
Remember early on.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
He was a supporter of this war early on, so
to hear that from him is quite striking. In an addition,
suggesting they were targeted directly calling for an independent investigation,
calling into question the results of the Israeli investigation that
already occurred, talking about it seems that they are targeting

(18:32):
everything that moves, killing women and children whose only crime
is seeking out a loaf of.

Speaker 4 (18:37):
Bread or a bag of flour.

Speaker 1 (18:40):
Let's go ahead and pull up this next piece, this
IDF investigation that occurred and what they claim to have found.
So they dismissed two officers over those deadly drone strikes
on aid workers. Basically, they're sticking with this, with this
story that somebody spotted a supposed militant with a gun,

(19:03):
not even a militant, just a person with a gun,
and that that was enough for a strike on this
aid convoy to be authorized. And again keep in mind,
first of all, in a war zone, it is entirely
appropriate to have someone with a gun escorting an aid convoy.
Second of all, as jose Andres himself indicating as you

(19:27):
could see in that photo that was just up on
the screen, all three of the vehicles had the World
Central Kitchen logo on the top. They were coordinating directly
with the IDF. They were traveling along a known deconfliction route.
They were following protocol to a t. Every communication was

(19:47):
made to try to ensure that the Israelis knew, hey,
we are leaving our warehouse and we are heading out
in these vehicles. And did they weren't struck once, they
weren't struck twice, They were struck three times, and we're
supposed to believe that, you know, it was Oh, it
was just a mistake. It was just a misunderstanding. We

(20:08):
couldn't see the World Central Kitchen logo in the darkness,
so that was what they found.

Speaker 4 (20:14):
But even soager if.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
You believe their story, it really demonstrates the actual rules
of engagement on the ground, which even the theoretical potential
presence at one point of someone with the gun was
enough to justify the murder of seven aid workers using
three different drug strikes.

Speaker 11 (20:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
I don't want to sound insensitive, but part of what
has annoyed me about the turn on this we're about
to get to this is that it took the killing
of these Western aid workers to prompt this. This has
been self evident since what the very day that they
announced what was it that they announced that they were
doing a complete siege into the Gaza strip, Like we
have known from day one, this was evident whenever three

(20:58):
Israeli hostages came out of a building waving a white
flag in Hebrew saying we are hostages, and they shot
them dead because the rules of engagement were so it
wasn't enough when they killed their own people.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
It wasn't enough whenever they killed people on camera. At
this point, if you are living on the internet and
you have watched videos of the IDF that's engaged in combat,
you have known that this is what the rules of
engagement were. Nobody was fired or held.

Speaker 4 (21:20):
To video for that they put out.

Speaker 3 (21:23):
That's what I mean.

Speaker 4 (21:23):
In many instances, by the way.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
It was only when a member of DC Royalty was
personally affected by this, as everybody decided to like pearl
clutch around them.

Speaker 3 (21:32):
I'm not erasing the lives of these aid workers.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
It's just such a self interested portrait that I actually
want people at home to take in. Jose Andrace is
royalty in this town. He owns a bunch of restaurants.
You know, his world's central kitchen stuff is always that's
like secondary. He is a social pillar of Washington, has
been for me at least fifteen twenty years. All of
the news anchors that were about to show you who

(21:57):
are now quote turning on Israel, they're all friends with him.
They have all dined in his restaurants. That's the only
reason that they are changing their tunes. So do not
be mistaken that this has been some major change of
consciousness as usual in DC. It's only whenever people are
personally affected by something.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
I guess that's human nature.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
That is the only thing they can genuinely compel anything
to change, which in my opinion, is frankly outrageous. If
you're going to look at a situation on its merits or.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
Not, it's certainly the nature of these people. I don't
think you could say it's human nature when you see,
you know, the overwhelming bulk of public opinion, when you
see the protesters in the street, most of whom don't
have a personal stake in this conflict, don't know people
who are dying and being starved to death in real time.
They were able to see the humanity of Palestinians and

(22:44):
the horror of the situation before someone who they personally
knew was impacted. But such is the narcissism and the
bubble and the casual dehumanization that you know, the elites
in Washington swimen that it wasn't even This is important too,
to underscore your point, Soccer, It's not like these are

(23:05):
the first even aid work Western aid workers who have
been killed. True, there's some two hundred plus aid workers
who have been killed in this conflict. We've had, you know,
doctors who are We've had professors who are killed.

Speaker 4 (23:18):
We've seen the utter destruction.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
I mean, this has been in front of our eyes
since the beginning, truly, as you said, since they announced
a complete siege. How can you sustain the concept that, oh,
this is a targeted hunt for Hamas when by definition,
complete siege means you are holding the entire population hostage.
So it wasn't when they were targeted attacks on journalists.

(23:41):
It wasn't even you know that there was an American
citizen here. It was that a personal friend of theirs
was impacted.

Speaker 4 (23:49):
That's what it took.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
But it has apparently created a dramatic change in the
way that some liberals are now viewing this conflict.

Speaker 4 (23:57):
You can almost see it too in the news. Rich
like the we have covered.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
So much the anesthetic, like sanitized language that's used when
it comes to Palestinians being killed versus Israeli's being killed.
You can even see in real time some of that
language shift in terms of the news coverage. But put
this next piece up on the screen. I never expected

(24:24):
to see this headline. Nancy Pelosi, who just basically minutes
ago was smearing any sort of ceasefire protesters as being
paid by Russia or being paid by China, et cetera.
She has now joined onto a letter calling to halt
US weapons transfers to Israel. Now there are some caveats

(24:44):
with regards to this letter. The language is a little squishy, right,
let me read you a little bit. It says, in part,
in light of the recent strike against aid workers and
the ever worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable
to approve these weapons transfers. That letter, they go on
to write in Axios, which was released after the IDF
anounced initial findings of its investigation to the attack, includes

(25:06):
a call for an independent probe if this strike, they write,
is found to a violated US or international law, we
urge you to continue with holding these transfers until those
responsible are held accountable. So, again, the letter doesn't go
so far as to say just cut off the weapons transfers.
And that's that they're saying. We want an independent investigation.
We say we want accountability. If you do those things,

(25:28):
then you can continue transferring the weapons. But the fact
that Nancy Pelosi signed onto this at all with any
sort of language in the direction of potentially possibly conditioning
arms transfers is pretty extraordinary.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
Maybe it's because just on January thirty first, twenty twenty four,
so three months ago, Nancy Pelosi nominated Jose Andres for
the Nobel Peace Prize, and Nancy Pelosi has often a
lot of the work of Jose Andres, of whom which
he has appeared before with several times. It's just it's
all a club, like it's all just a social club.
If anybody in the social club is effective and something

(26:01):
is changed, otherwise it doesn't it doesn't even matter. This
is actually a key inside too into why ukraine Mania
has taken over Washington, Because there's freaking Ukrainians all over
this town, and because for some reason, Ukrainians are the
only human beings on planet Earth that are supposed to
be like whatever. If they're being invaded, then it's a
threat on democracy. Russia is the great enemy. Russia Gate

(26:22):
also played a good role. But you know, to pay
very close attention as to who is granted personhood status
and who is not.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
That's right, that's right, And listen, I'm glad that they're
shifting their view, but it is I saw someone say
on Twitter like it is just two on the nose
that what it took is for their like wealthy liberal
friend to be directly impacted before they could see what
has been obvious to the overwhelming majority of the world

(26:48):
since the or very early days of this conflict. You
reference this before, but just to give you a sense
of how the tone and approach to Israel has changed,
just like this, like flipped on a dime. We've got
a little compilation here for you, just to set it up.
We've got Morning Joe, really, you know, taken a task
an Israeli econ Minster. Now, his choice of line of

(27:11):
questioning is interesting. We can talk about it after the fact,
but the aggressiveness of the tone is kind of what's noteworthy.

Speaker 12 (27:18):
Here.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
You have Jen Saki, Biden's former press secretary, actually talking
about possibly conditioning AID and criticizing directly the Biden administration approach.
I haven't personally heard her criticize the Biden administration on
anything since she left that post, so that was very noteworthy.
And then you have former CIA director Leon Panetta making

(27:43):
some extraordinary claims about the way that the Israeli Army operates.
In general, you definitely want to hear that. Take a
listen to all of those.

Speaker 13 (27:51):
You're feeding that wolf, and you're telling that wolf to
feed the Nazis and Daza. So explain to me, because
I really want to know. Why was Benjamin Netanyahu and
his government funding they.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
Were allies with.

Speaker 13 (28:08):
Cutter and the funding of Hamas?

Speaker 8 (28:11):
Why.

Speaker 14 (28:12):
I think it's a mistake, and it was uncovered October seventh.
October seventh demonstrated that if you think you could buy
quiet peace by funding Hamas, it's a huge mistake and.

Speaker 3 (28:24):
It's weird to me.

Speaker 13 (28:25):
Why did Benjamin metan Yahoo knowing that their charter said
that they were to kill Jews and eradicate Israel. Why
would any leader of Israel work to fund that organization
to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Speaker 15 (28:47):
Look, clearly, the strategy that the United States is implementing
at this point is not working to change the behavior
of Prime Minister net Yahoo is not working to.

Speaker 4 (28:56):
End the war.

Speaker 15 (28:57):
So obviously something has to change, and I think it's
pretty clear they're discussing that, I think in the White House,
and I hope in the White House, in this situation
room at this point in time, the question is what
that will be.

Speaker 16 (29:09):
You have to be able to verify it, to take
time to make sure that the information that you're getting
is accurate with regards to targets. And I have to
tell you that in the past, at least in my experience,
the Israelis usually fire and then ask questions.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
The Israelis usually fire and then ask questions, What did
you make of those various comments?

Speaker 2 (29:32):
The last one in particular, I was just telling you
what was playing. Leon Panetta was a man who had
the greenlit a huge portion of the Obama drone program.
I mean, and if we were to take at the
worst the civilian casualties under the Obama drone program with
some ninety something percent at best, it was like maybe
forty five to fifty percent. Don't exactly want to hear
it from mister Panetta who did some of that behavior,

(29:54):
But I mean, I guess it's one of those where
you could take it from his word. At the very least,
you could say this BLO Bob is shifting against them.

Speaker 3 (30:01):
Panetta.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
I should remind people former Secretary of Defense, former CIA
director at one point advocated for literal war with Russia.
We can roll the tape if anybody wants to go
and check it.

Speaker 3 (30:11):
So for somebody like.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Him to change his tune, I would say, it's certainly noteworthy.
The Morning Joe piece is just like, what are we
doing here?

Speaker 8 (30:17):
Dude?

Speaker 2 (30:18):
We were talking about this on October eighth. No, actually,
I think our first show was October ninth. Okay, so
October ninth. That was the very first time that you
heard it here.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
On the show. It was a legitimate point of view
and conversation about how we got here and want some
of the backup about.

Speaker 1 (30:32):
Babe bolstered Hummas, like to create a divide between the
West Bank and Gaza, built them up and funded them
and even made explicit comments about how if you want
to block a two state solution, you need to bolster Humas.

Speaker 4 (30:46):
But yeah, that that is the conversation.

Speaker 2 (30:49):
Now, so why is that the conversation? Yeah, what are
exactly are we doing here?

Speaker 17 (30:51):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (30:52):
I just want to return to this.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
One of their friends was personally affected by the situation,
So now everybody's got it's like Jensaki, I can't.

Speaker 3 (30:59):
It would be difficult to.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
Count the number of times she's probably personally eaten at
Jose Andres establishment.

Speaker 3 (31:05):
And when you're in the White House. He's there all
the time. He was there. You know, this is like
a by Parson thing. Don't get me wrong.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
When Trump he was a celebrity here in Washington too,
So for them, Israel's only real crime was hitting a
staff member of somebody who is basically royalty here in Washington.
But that was enough for people in the media to change.
So I don't know, you keep saying over and over again.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
Just to comments on some of the specific comments. Part
of what I thought was really noteworthy about Panetta's comments
is they weren't confined specifically to this onslaught in Gaza.
He said, the Israelis usually fire and then ask questions,
So it is extraordinary. It's quite noteworthy for a member

(31:47):
and good standing of the BLOB to cast dispersions over
Israeli military conduct across not just this war, but many
previous conflicts and mowings of the grass previously, and would
have been unthinking up till basically this moment and would
have probably you know, gotten you tagged as an anti
Semite or whatever. And the line previously was always all

(32:09):
this is the most moral alarmy on the planet, et cetera.
So that was no worthy to me. The Saki thing
speaks for itself. The fact that she even feels compelled
to critique the administration.

Speaker 4 (32:18):
It's a little bit of.

Speaker 1 (32:19):
You know, kid gloves or whatever, but that she says
anything against them is noteworthy in the morning, Joe one,
because the line of questioning is so strange at this moment,
It's so not the point of what people are really
concerned about right now, when you have somewhere around forty
thousand Palestinians who have been killed, you have the entire

(32:39):
Gaza strip completely decimated and in rubble. You know, you
have obviously the killing of these aid workers. You have
this situation that could spiral out of control with regard
to this, you know, attack on the Iran Consular building
and you're going back to almost attack Bbe from the
right of You were supporting Hamas and you were bolstering Hamas,
and you were too supportive of Hamas. My read into

(33:03):
it is that Joe Scarborough is smart enough to know
that the moment has changed, that he can't have this
Israeli government person on and just play patty cakes with
him the way that he would have, you know a
week ago before this strike. But he doesn't actually really
want to criticize what's happening in Gaza right now. So
this was the line of question that he felt like

(33:24):
was safe for all of his various constituent audiences, but
could sort of like bluster to the Mourning Joe audience
and you know, the liberals who watch MSNBC that he
was being tough on Israel but not in a way
that actually matters right now. For what it's worth, That's
what I read into the Morning Joe exchange. There the
last one we wanted to show you, which this is

(33:45):
very striking Senator Tim Kaine, who is you know, the
most kind of mainline, run of the mill Democrats.

Speaker 4 (33:52):
With a few exceptions.

Speaker 1 (33:53):
He's kind of good on like on like the surveillance,
mass surveillance, and then he has a few things where
he but typically just like the most run of the mill,
mainstream Democrat. He made a suggestion that are troops that
are being sent to build this peer which are coming
from Virginia, so he has you know, direct stake as
their representative in the Senate that not only could they

(34:16):
be in danger from Hamas and other militants, they could
be in danger from the IDF themselves.

Speaker 4 (34:23):
Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 12 (34:24):
Even this US military operation. These are some troops that
are deployed out of Virginia. Fort Eustas in Virginia in
charge of this marine peer operation. We knew when we
announced that they might be in harms way from Hamas.
But you know, after the events of this week, anybody
doing humanitarian aid is going to wonder if they're in
harms way from the IDF.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
So suggesting that US troops could be in harms way
from the IDF, what did you make of that, Zager?

Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, I mean, obviously I think it's very important. And
what I think is we get what people look. This
has opened up a conversation. We are allowed to talk
now about conduct as will affect foreigners who are in Gaza.
This is basically how the expansion of the Overton window
gets save the overturn window for the Canvaswin's discussion. The
point is is that as this is changing and things

(35:12):
are going to a point where they're trying to send
the signal basically, they're trying to salvage their ability to
be pro Israel in the future by putting down some
of these noteworthy comments. And here with immense pressure I think,
to try and back up Biden, and generally the other
Western countries, including the European Union, which we often don't
talk about, but they're very, very different on this issue

(35:32):
than even here, Even the pro Israel nations are much
more willing to criticize to pressure to try and recognize
Palestinian statehood. I think things are very obviously going in
a certain direction, and they are kind of leading from
behind in the old Obama speak, But I.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
Mean, I think it is true.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
I think it's what's really crazy to me to watch
here with Biden is the vacillation his being his hand
quote unquote being forced only when a member of Washington
Royalty is personally affected, never at actually leading with principle
or with guidance, or it's just the absence of leadership
in this with both with his own personal ideology, stubbornness,
and really the see team of people he has with

(36:10):
him is just so self evident in the entire handling
of this discussion.

Speaker 1 (36:13):
Yeah, and I don't want to make too much of
this shift, because I think it's entirely possible that Israel
does just enough of, you know, letting a little more
aid trucks in opening another crossing doing enough to placate
the Biden administration and to go back to those original
Biden comments that we played you to me. That's what

(36:35):
his comments are indicative of. He says, Oh, I asked
them to do what they're doing, indicating Oh, he's satisfied
with the response.

Speaker 4 (36:41):
It's enough for him.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
And I think it is very possible, if not likely,
that we still don't really see a change in US policy,
that the Biden administration goes back to basically lockstep support
and points to these few little, you know, additional crumbs
that were thrown out here from Israel as some big win,
big humanitarian win, and we go back to business as usual.

(37:04):
I think that's probably the most likely outcome here. So again,
I don't want to make too much of it, but
you know, between not just this strike on jose Andres
humanitarian aid workers, but also the political writing is just
so clear on the wall. Now there's another piece in
I believe Politico about how it's sunk in to some

(37:25):
of the president's campaign team that the image that voters
previously had of him as this like, eh, I may
not agree with everything, but he seems like a nice
guy dead and gone, done, done, and they can see
the battleground pulling. They can see the problem they have
in Michigan, they can see the problem they have with
young voters. More on that in a later block as well.

(37:45):
And so between those two things they feel the need
to aggressively tone shift and at least extract something they
can point to from the Israelis to say, see, we
care and we made them change.

Speaker 4 (37:57):
We did that, we.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
Force their hand and that's how you know, that's the
way that we conduct themselves and not ourselves. And that's
why we're way better than Trump too, by the way,
on this issue. But am I incredibly hopeful that we're
going to see it entire like sea change in terms
of US policy?

Speaker 4 (38:11):
Not particularly Yeah, I think you're right.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
Let's go ahead and get to the potential fallout from
that Israeli strike on a consular building of Iran in Syria,
because you know, it's easy to lose sight of this
because so much of the conversation has been about those
World Central Kitchen Aid workers. But at the very same
time you had that strike, which was a violation of
Vienna conventions, quite an extraordinary provocation on the Israeli part.

(38:39):
And now the question is how is run going to respond.
All of the actors involved seem quite convinced that there
is almost as a necessity, going to be some sort
of Iranian reaction. So what is that going to look like.
Let's put this up on the screen from CNN. Their
headline is US preparing for significant Iran attack on US

(39:00):
or Israeli assets in the region as soon as the
headline says next week, that would be this week. They
write here, the US is on high alert, actively preparing
for a significant attack that could come as soon as
within the next week by Iran targeting Israeli or American
assets in the region in response to Monday's Israeli strike
and Damascus that kill top Iranian commanders. A senior Administration

(39:21):
official TELCNN. US officials believe that attack is inevitable. That
view is reportedly shared by their Israeli counterparts. Two governments
are furiously working to get in position ahead of what
is to come, as they anticipate that Iran's attack could
unfold in a number of different ways, and that both
US and Israeli assets and personnel are at risk of
being targeted. A senior Administration official described the US warning

(39:43):
to Iran as quote, don't think about coming after. US
State Department spokesperson did not provide further information about how
the US message was conveyed to Iran.

Speaker 4 (39:52):
But you will recall, Sagar that.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
Immediately after this strike, the Iranians made it clear, no
uncertain terms, that not only blamed Israel, they also blamed US. Now,
we deny that we knew anything about it, which is,
you know, there's no real good scenario here. If we
did know about it or we didn't know about it.
Both of those things are a problem. But it's you know,
first of all, the question of what happens is important,

(40:16):
and second of all the realization that Israeli actions and
our unconditional support of Israel have put our service members
now in grave danger.

Speaker 8 (40:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (40:27):
I mean, what is also actually shocking to me has
not been the change not It wasn't the actions itself,
although I mean obviously a violation of the Vienna Convention.
It was how quickly the Vienna Convention has begun to
fall apart. And as they're watching this with great interest,
let's put this up there on the screen. This actually,
by the way, is something that's happening in our hemisphere
and might affect US. Mexico has completely severed diplomatic ties

(40:51):
with Ecuador, where days after the Iranian strike, Ecuador actually
put actually words, police stormed in to the Ecuadorian or
into the Mexican embassy to arrest their former vice president.
This is an extraordinary breach of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations. And I mean, for example, the head of

(41:13):
the Mexican consular said in Quito, this is not possible,
it cannot be. This is crazy. I am very worried
they could kill him. There is no basis to do this.
This is totally outside of the norm. I mean, for
all time, people have dissidents and others. I don't even
know much about the particular governments here involved, and I
don't care because the reason why this is dangerous, this

(41:33):
is all happening at the same time, is that collapse
of consular relations is exactly especially amongst sovereign nations. We're
not talking here about protest groups or something like that.
Storming an embassy and holding people hostage is really a
total breakdown in international norms and violations, which, after they
become normalized over and over again, could lead to extraordinary things.

(41:54):
For example, there were often CIA plans to assassinate Julian
Assange inside of the Ecuadorian MS in London. Even the British,
the US and the CIA was like, no, we can't
do it. They were just even there, no matter what,
not possible. Even in the height of the Cold War,
the United States never breached the Soviet embassy here in Washington. Now,

(42:16):
we definitely dug tunnels around said embassy and did some
interesting things, and they did the same to us, but
even they would never dare to enter our embassy. So
to watch the breakdown of this happen in real time,
this actually is what struck some real fear into me
because this is the problem. And this has also been
with the way that the US has operated. You know,
our military operates very differently. But then we have our

(42:38):
freaking John Kirby, spokesman for the White House, is like, oh,
Israel's most moral army in the world. Like they've even
done things that we would never do. Like that's not true,
that's actually not true at all.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
I know a lot of people who got their limbs
blown off, you know, going door to door when it
would have been a lot easier to just drop a
bomb the way that the Israelis did.

Speaker 2 (42:55):
We never even considered it for a second US commanders
at that level. So watching this all become normalized has
actually been highly dangerous, I think to the international system, there.

Speaker 4 (43:05):
Is no doubt about it.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
And again, now our consular facilities, now our embassies abroad
are also at risk because there's no putting this toothpaste back.

Speaker 4 (43:16):
In the tube.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
We didn't say boo about this Israeli strike in Damascus
on Iran's consular building. We didn't say anything. We didn't
object to it, we didn't criticize it, we didn't say
anything about it. So how are we going to then
critique another country if they do the same thing.

Speaker 4 (43:33):
This is now on the table, period.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
End of story, and doctor Tree to Parsi making a
point about how it's not just with regard to this violation,
this flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention. Let's go and
put his tweet up on the screen. Here he says,
international norms being destroyed in front of our eyes. Israel
ignores you and Security Council resolutions and ICJ rulings. The
US after voting for that one resolution, then immediately oh,

(43:57):
it's not binding. Well, that is just not true. We're
just making stuff up. Israel bombs the Iranian consulate and
violation of Vienna Convention. Ecuador then attacks the Mexican embassy,
violating also the Vienna Convention. And you know, we've already
seen the way this is unfolded. Tzager previously, remember all
the moral language that the US would use about Russia's

(44:17):
actions in Ukraine.

Speaker 4 (44:19):
They really kind of had to drop.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
That because what Russia has done in Ukraine it's horrifying.
It was a violation of international law. I opposed it
from the beginning. I still oppose it today. It looks
tame compared to what Israel has done in the Gaza strip.
When you look at the numbers, when you look at
the destruction, when you look at the amount of civilian buildings,
targeting universities, just absolutely destroying the healthcare system, Alshifa Hospital,

(44:43):
desecrating cemeteries, schools, high rise apartment buildings, etc. There's no
going back from that. Those things are now on the table,
not just in Gaza, but everywhere around the world.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Yeah, I mean in April of twenty twenty two, Biden
MCCUs putin of committing quote Jenis in Ukraine, Like it's like, really, now,
how could you possibly this is?

Speaker 3 (45:05):
And by the way, this is why I oppose.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
A lot of moralistic language and we're going to get
a guest here is because then you get caught into
little traps like this. It's like, well, what is the
difference between Russia and Israel's like whoa, oops, and you
see exactly how now they have to drop it and
now we have no strategic rationale for we got to
support Ukraine. We got to make sure that we're on
the front line of democracy. And now just watch. I

(45:26):
don't from what I understand, I haven't even seen yet
a response to the US or whatever the hell is
going on here with Mexico and with Ecuador. And you may,
you may pretend you know that it doesn't matter, but
Mexico and Ecuador the hell of a lot closer than
Gaza and Moscow or Kiev. These are places which really
could affect us, breakdown relations between the two of them.

(45:47):
Vital US trading partner, one of the largest trading partners
in the world, and we just ignore it, you know, completely,
a flagrant attack and violation here in the Western hemisphere.

Speaker 3 (45:56):
So was it greenlit by America.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
That's another even more interesting, you know discussion, because if
it was, then we've basically had quasi you.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Know, green lights of a breach.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
Of these things happen in a one week period, which
would have been extraordinary if they'd happened in the last
fifty years, even a couple of times. Really very underrated
discussion unfortunately. And I think that the Iranian the strike
on the Iranian embassy already we're seeing the result.

Speaker 1 (46:21):
Yeah, it is amazing, how quick, because I mean, I'm
sure Ecuadorians aren't stupid, they knew. We can't say anything
about it right now because we.

Speaker 4 (46:28):
Just want Israel. So what are we going to say?

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Wow, it's been great, but anyway, moving on, we can't
say anything about it because of what we have allowed
Israel to do.

Speaker 4 (46:38):
And this is what Israel.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
They do a little trial balloon, they test something out.
Hey can I get away with you know, attacking the hospital?

Speaker 4 (46:45):
Oh we can.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
Okay, we're going to destroy the entire health system. And
we know you're not going to say anything about it.
We know there's not going to be any accountability. We're
going to drop two thousand pound bunk or buster bombs.
On a refugee can killing hundreds of people to maybe
possibly get one Hamas Bady, You're going.

Speaker 4 (47:00):
To say anything about it, You're gonna do anything?

Speaker 8 (47:02):
No?

Speaker 1 (47:02):
Okay, Well, this is going to be our modus operande
for the rest of the war. Oh can we get
away with massacring civilians who are just trying to grab
a bag of flour so that they and their family
don't starve?

Speaker 4 (47:12):
Can we get away with?

Speaker 14 (47:13):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (47:13):
Yeah we can. Okay, what else can we get away with?

Speaker 1 (47:16):
And keep in mind again to go back to the
original point made here. Now this has put our service
members in grave danger because Ron.

Speaker 4 (47:27):
Is not stupid.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
They look at our very close relationship with Israel, They
look at how dependent the Israelis are ultimately on the
US supply of weapons, and they don't see this as
an attack just from Israel. They see this as an
attack from the US. And think about all of the
radicalization and all of the anti US hatred that is

(47:49):
being stoked around the world that could have massive blowback
consequences for our country and our service members for decades
to come. That is what our policy in the Middle
East has wrought.

Speaker 4 (48:02):
For our country.

Speaker 2 (48:05):
There has been a major fracture in the conservative media
ecosystem over the departure of Candace Owens from The Daily Wire.
Now we're not just covering YouTube drama for the sake
of it. This has genuinely become a major ideological fissure.
We've seen major figures in conservative media and conservative activist
debate what this means, what should be allowed. We've played

(48:26):
for everybody previously the comments by Ben Shapiro where he
justified the departure of Candace Owens, saying that the Daily
Wire itself is a publisher, that it is not a
platform and thus has no obligation to employ somebody who
doesn't agree with them. Very discontinent in the past, with
some of Ben's comments on Cancel culture and on social
media for example. This has definitely been taken notice by

(48:47):
some new entrants to the sphere, Patrick bet David in particular,
and comedian Andrew Schultz as well.

Speaker 3 (48:53):
Here's what they had to say.

Speaker 11 (48:54):
CBN is what what does CBN stand for?

Speaker 17 (48:56):
Christian BRANCHA.

Speaker 11 (48:58):
It's not a RBN religious broadcasting note fork, It's what
Christian broadcasting net worth. Daily Wire can be Daily DJW
Daily Jewish Wire or d i W Daily Israel Wire.
No problem. If that's your value, stick to that. We

(49:19):
all love in America. It should be America first, not
Iran first, not Armenia first, not Israel first. It should
be America first. If you think it's Israel first, go
to Israel.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
I agree. I agree with every word the man just said.

Speaker 2 (49:32):
You know, he actually, frankly, is probably more powerful than
me because he's not even from here. He said, as
he said, he's like, he's what I think, Armenian Christian
from Iran. He's like, if you're Israel first, or if
you're Armenian first, or any of that.

Speaker 3 (49:43):
He's like, that's fine. He's like, but put it there
in the title.

Speaker 2 (49:46):
And I think what he's got I wouldn't have said
daily Jewish Wire personally Daily Israel Wire.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
I mean, you listen based upon the comments that they
have made.

Speaker 2 (49:54):
You had the CEO Jeremy Boring, who did Twitter space
whatever it's called x space is now at this point
he said, I would never hire somebody who said that
there was a genocide happening in Gaza. And it's like, well,
why you know, I mean, look, even if you disagree,
why is that what is your I cannot imagine personally
having any redline about any country.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
I'll give you a perfect example. My family is Indian.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Ryan is very critical of the Modi government and has
done multiple segments about censorship, including by the Way, which
people in India got very upset at me about. You
know what I said, stick to your own business in
my country. This guy gets to do whatever he wants.
Those are my editorial principles. Whether I agree or not,
I don't care. I don't live there. I'm not an
Indian citizen. Ben though, for example, and actually the entire

(50:41):
leadership of the Daily Wire somehow think that it is
okay to enforce foreign shibolits on our soil as it
relates to an American media company. And I think it's
entirely legitimate to level the criticism that Patrick and others
have now put into the sphere.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
To go ahead, before I play Andrew.

Speaker 1 (50:59):
I just wanted to reiterate we're going to talk more
about Rogan and his comments. But I thought a very
important point that he made when he initially said, hey,
I think this is a genocide, which is, you know,
talking about Israel's conduct in Gaza. It's a little bit
different than whatever your like philosophical view is on abortion,
or your philosophical view is on gay rights, any sort

(51:21):
of like you know, culture war issue you're talking about. Basically,
what Jeremy Boring and Ben Shapiro are saying is you
are not allowed to acknowledge reality. You're not allowed to
talk honestly about the atrocities that are unfolding in front
of us, that idea soldiers themselves are posting on TikTok.
If you talk honestly about those things, you don't have

(51:42):
a place at this network. And so I think that's
part of why this actually ends up being important, because
you know, the whole like facts versus feelings, Ben Shapiro,
the facts are pretty undisputable about you.

Speaker 4 (51:56):
Listen there.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
You may not want to say the word genocide, but
war crimes, ethnic cleansing. I mean, they have whole conferences
there celebrating the idea of, hey, we're going to resettle Gaza,
We're going to push everybody out. These things are undeniable.
So is the facts or is it feelings? I think
we on this one issue we have a very.

Speaker 4 (52:14):
Clear answer here.

Speaker 12 (52:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:15):
Absolutely, look like you just said about you. Look again,
I don't use more language. I think these are all
loaded terms. My point though, is that when it comes
to how about this critical behavior that has been at
the very least has backfired against his or can we
talk about that.

Speaker 3 (52:30):
I haven't even heard to say that.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
Every time I check this man's feet, it's all retweeting
the justification, including Israel PM's like military justification of what's
happening on the ground. I mean, why you're going to
trust what they have to say? And this is coming
from a person I'm a patriotic American. I love this country.
I don't trust the US military. Right when the US
military is like, hey, here's what we did to this

(52:53):
hospital in Kundu's I'm like, well maybe, And you know
who I ask. I ask people who are actually in
the military, not that people were the spokesperson, and they're like,
oh yeah, they're lying. The brass is full of shit,
and they're you know, trying to, you know, paint you
a different picture. Why can why do I have the
wherewithal to do that in a country that I love.
I'm not even a country that I'm not even from
or don't live in.

Speaker 3 (53:14):
Very interesting, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (53:16):
Comedian Andrew Schultz also I thought he put it really
well in his discussion around centrist. One thing I love
about comedians is that they're observational by nature and that
whenever they see something, they don't come into it with
the same preconceived like rhetoric and all that you're supposed to,
and they can just kind of say it as it is.

Speaker 3 (53:31):
Here's what he had to say. He makes the argument
for censorship.

Speaker 18 (53:35):
He calls it something else.

Speaker 3 (53:36):
Yeah, I forget the term I have in my phone,
but I don't even think he's using the term right.

Speaker 18 (53:39):
But he's basically like, there's a window of ideas we accept, yes,
and we accept ideas between this this. I guess this
is if I get window, you're looking like this, So
we accept ideas between here and here, and anything outside
of that window, well, you're fireable.

Speaker 3 (53:54):
That's censorships.

Speaker 19 (53:56):
But he's acting as if this is like a justified
reason for firing people when you built your identity and
platform off of no censorship and freedom of speech facts,
don't care about your feelings and all this shit.

Speaker 2 (54:07):
It's also funny that that window happens to end where
his beliefs enday not being pro Israel, that's where the
window ends.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
That's also your specific personal belief I just don't.

Speaker 18 (54:20):
Can't have an opinion on your platform that is not
pro a country that is not ours.

Speaker 3 (54:26):
Yeah wait a minute, crazy, So is the Daily Wire.

Speaker 18 (54:30):
An American media platform or is it an Israeli media platform.

Speaker 8 (54:34):
I'm just asking. This guy's cooking.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
He's just asking, and he's asking the right question. I
think that again, is that And this is also why
I think it's hilarious is that Israeli military defenders and
israel firsters in the US have actually created their own
worst nightmare where their behavior is now so obvious and
is so so just so blatant in terms of flipping

(54:58):
on a dime as regards to ansorship, cancel culture, free speech,
student protests where oh, we're supposed to be upset because
kids are crying on campus, that it is now clear
what their real and first objective is. They care more
about Israel than they do even about concepts and principles
that we hold dear here in this country. And that's

(55:20):
why I think it's very important that this fight has
broken out. I will not lie and say that I
don't think that they are very much still remain in power,
especially whenever it comes to the elected you know, representatives.
But as all things, you know, the online discussion is
a precursor to possibly change fifteen twenty years down the line.
And that is where I at least see things going

(55:40):
right now, because this decision in particular has opened up
a lot of people's eyes.

Speaker 4 (55:43):
Yeah, well they turned on a dime, you know.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
I mean it was very like, I'm a free speech
absolutist in this period.

Speaker 4 (55:50):
End of story.

Speaker 1 (55:51):
And you can if you're the New York Times, you know,
you can't say the Tom Cotton op ed is out
of bounds. You can't fire that editor, the greenlitos because
that's cancel culture. There was no discussion of an overtin
window when it came to that, or you know, even
more recently, when it came to Ronald McDaniel's firing it
over at NBC News, that overton window was apparently not acceptable.

(56:12):
I mean, frankly, yeah, the sort of language Ben is
using now sounds like a lot of what liberals were
saying when they were justifying censorship, saying no, at this outlet,
these are the values that's perfectly acceptable. People should lose
their jobs for having views, having viewpoints, expressing opinions, that
are outside of what we consider to be acceptable discourse.

(56:32):
That was the liberal justification, and now it's just very
clear that you share that view. It just happens that,
you know, you're fine with the views that they had
problems with, You're fine with those on your platform. But
there are other views, including most specifically on the issue
of Israel, that are out of bads And I don't
know that that's the only way to mentioned abortion as well.
That probably is another one that would be out of

(56:52):
bounds for him if you had someone there who was saying, no,
I think women should have the right to choose, you know,
all the way through the third trimester that air and
we also would be out of bounds and grounds for
firing on Ben Shapiro's network as well. So you know,
just own up to it. Your views are different than
what you said that they were, and you built an
entire media platform and a lot of wealth on, you know,

(57:14):
espousing that you were this free speech, anti cancel culture guy,
and you're not.

Speaker 4 (57:17):
That's the bottom line here to me.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
That's actually probably what bugs me more than anything is
because it would be I'm trying to think of an example. Yeah,
it would be like if we started reading pharmaceutical ads,
you know here on the show.

Speaker 3 (57:28):
Like that would be insane.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
We have raised money from well meaning, hard earned people's
money to fund our program and then we're like, oh, yeah,
we're just going to start reading like pvisor ads or
something here on the show. People rightfully would be outraged,
and they should be, because then why did we present
years and years and years of building up a brand
and trying to maintain integrity. I mean, and just so
people know, we have turned down massive offers for such

(57:51):
types of things here on the show, regardless of how
much money it is, simply because we know it would
be a betrayal. But you know, if the real value
is about something else, as we all start to learn
here in this very revealing episode, I think it does
tell us quite a bit. Let's put up this as well,
because there has been now a gauntlet throne by Candace.

(58:12):
So Candace Owen's challenging Ben Shapiro to a debate. There
has been a lot of back and forth, and I
won't get into all the details, but she says, barring
the insinuation that there basically it was all this beef
about whether she was traveling to London or not. Candace
says that she does not want to participate in a
debate with Ben Shapiro on the Daily Wire platform and
that she wants it to be in person. She then

(58:33):
says that I fully accept there will be no moderator.
I will get in touch privately to get all of
this set up. There has been a major win. But
one of the problems, Crystal, if we look at some
of the back and forth traffic, and then I think
Candace is entirely correct about is she was like, Okay,
let's debate, and Ben Shapiro was like, fine, come to
my studio and debate me on my own show. And
she said, well, why don't we pick Lex Friedman or

(58:54):
Joe Rogan or any of those places? And Jeremy Boring
was like, no, accept that. Going after Patrick Tiff David
Ben just participated in a debate on Lex Women's podcast
were freaking destiny, you know, so why can't you do
it with Candace Owans. It's one of those where there
it's so weasily honestly, this idea that the moderator would

(59:15):
put his foot on this, you know, would put his
foot on the gas and some sort of direction. It's
just one of those where, look, I hope that it
actually does happen. I genuinely do, even though both sides
have now allegedly agreed. We'll see if the Daily Wire
at this point does try to get out of it.
But you know the lengths and the lengths that they
have gone to protect and to justify this decision over

(59:38):
there as a business, I don't think we can ever
say that this is a quote unquote free speech organization ever.

Speaker 3 (59:43):
Again, Yeah, at the very.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Least, let me also say I genuinely think that some
of Candace's comments. I mean, she's still on there defending
Kanye West, who literally said I love Hitler.

Speaker 4 (59:51):
Okay, I do think.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
That some of her comments are incredibly can be classified
as anti semitic. But she was making those comments before
where you hired her here, and so that's the thing
to me, is like, it's very clear that actually wasn't
the line that was fine. It was when you were
very theciperously critical of the Israeli government. And even he
brings up who's the other commentator who has more of

(01:00:13):
a like Listen, I just think we shouldn't be involved
in anything. He's like that view was fine when it
comes to israel I think it's but because he is,
you know, very clear that he thinks Israel is a
moral actor, that's also fine, that's acceptable. But if you're
actually directly critical of the Israeli government in a way
that you know, Ben finds it acceptable be critical of
the American government, but you can't be critical in that

(01:00:36):
way of the Israeli government. That's where the line was.
It wasn't the you know, weird Hitler comments, It wasn't
backing up Kanye West. It was when you were directly
critical of the Israeli government.

Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
That was the line too far.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
And so I think it's really important because people may
look at some of our comments and you know what
those around the bounds, and I see why they don't
want that at that network. But that was not actually
where the line was drawn. So keep that in mind.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Yeah, and look, let's also talk in terms of like
popular opinion, and it's perfectly acceptable at the Daily Wire
to be against IVF.

Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
That's like a three percent position here in the United States. Okay,
so that but that's fine, But you know, it's not
fine to be like, yeah, again, that's actually in a country,
our country that affects US our policy.

Speaker 2 (01:01:18):
And I think that should be allowed. I am actually
free speech absolutists. I'll pretty much hear anybody out, even
if they're saying some absolutely crazy shit. But for them,
for some reason, it's like that's within the bounds of
the quote unquote Overton window, even though it's really not
if you consider you know, US discourse, and here we're
having a debate about a foreign country, and apparently that
is completely out of bounds.

Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
So let's just hammer that home.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
It's fine you want to have an Overton where you
are allowed to have whoever you want to have on
your plant.

Speaker 4 (01:01:43):
That's fine.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
But I don't want to hear your criticism of other
news outlets and other publishers quote unquote Overton window and
the way they draw the lines, if they have to
be a little different fro where you draw the lines.
I don't want to hear that criticism anymore, because you
do not have grounds to stand on avice point.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
I could not agree with that more. There was also
really interesting. There's some other actors that have been entering
the debate. Christopher Rufo, the CRT kind of campaigner who
entered the fray with some analysis let's put this up
on the screen. It's really worth reading. We have the
full statement here, but basically it comes down to this.
He says, it is not a violation of freedom of

(01:02:17):
speech to let a multimillion dollar contract expire, which is
reportedly what happened. The Daily Wire is not obligated to
subsize Candace owns, especially if she's deviating from the publication's
editorial standard or causing problems. DW is not an open
platform such as YouTube, Facebook x, and the owners of
the publications are under no obligation, so that is definitely true.

Speaker 3 (01:02:34):
They say.

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
Owen spent months taking public shots at Ben Shapiro and
Jeremy boring a tacit request to get canned and then
play the martyr, she said. Then, he continues, Owens is
a gifted speaker who has been able to turn controversy
into attention, a valuable capability, but she does not advance
a serious politics. She is clearly traveling down and ugly
but unfortunately well trodden path. She has rationalized. Okay, blah
blah blah, all this about Candace. There is an audience

(01:02:56):
for such kind of material. Infot Wars does a robust
business vitamins and emergency prep kits. But it's a political
dead end. Why does it matter? Because the right faces
an inflection point. There are serious people who are trying
to advance a serious political movement with a vision for governing.
I consider the Daily Wire to be among them. And
then there are serious people who are willing to sell
ca fabe and conspiracy leading us nowhere. I care about

(01:03:17):
politics because I believe we have subjective work to do
for the country, and this requires putting together a coalition
capable of taking responsibility. The choice is ours, so interesting
analysis there now Here's the other issue that I have
with this. If you presume that the Daily Wire is
a serious political organization and all of that, well, this

(01:03:38):
is a political vision for an incredibly unpopular GOP, I
would venture, I mean, I would say with Canvas at least,
I'd much rather be with her in terms of where
she's willing to go, especially with regards to Donald Trump
and some more maga style politics actually as a shot
at electability, than with people who are out there sparking

(01:03:59):
conversation why cutting social security, banning abortion, banning IVF, Which
do you think is a more serious political movement and
capable of moving things forward, but curious what you have
to say.

Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
That is a great point. Ye, you made the IVF
point previously. The serious ones are the ones who are
in favor of banning IVF, something that almost literally no
one supports. Okay, but you know what, I would dissent
from you in one regard. I actually think his analysis
here of Candace Owens is basically correct. Those are all
reasons to have not hired Candace Owens in the first place,

(01:04:35):
but it has nothing to do with the reason she
was actually fired.

Speaker 4 (01:04:38):
So it's a little bit irrelevant, Like you might be happy.

Speaker 1 (01:04:41):
She's gone for these other various reasons you don't think
she's a quote unquote serious person, which okay, I mean
I kind of agree with you there, but again, that
isn't really relevant to what happened here and the specific
reasons the specific context around why she was fired at
this point in time. Yes, these would all have been

(01:05:01):
good reasons for Ben Shapiro never to hire her, and
you know, to have never indulged the supporting Kanye when
he was saying things that were really unsupportable. But all
of those things were fine. So let's not pretend otherwise,
like I said, Christopher Rufe, you may be glad she's
gone for all those ritary that's fine, but that really
is kind of irrelevant.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
It's also a misunderstanding too, of what we're doing. The
Daily Wire is not a political organization. It is an
entertainment media company whose job is to make money. And
that's why they hired Candice Owens in the first place.
It's also why they have all these freaking cartoons and
whatever their movies.

Speaker 3 (01:05:35):
Isn't there coming with snow White? I think? Anyway? My
point is that's not what serious political actors do.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
Lady scholars, yeah, very serious, very serious film sager, lady ballers.

Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
Well to check, and I have not yet seen a
quote unquote conservative movie out there that is in any
way like actually good.

Speaker 4 (01:05:53):
You know, Griffin said, it wasn't that bad. Okay, all right,
it wasn't that bad.

Speaker 3 (01:05:57):
I don't know that.

Speaker 4 (01:05:57):
I don't know that I call it serious.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
My only point here would be exactly that you're right,
and that it's actually a misunderstanding.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
That's why they hired Candae in the first place because
of the ratings. They want ratings, they want the controversy,
they want people to watch, they want people to subscribe,
and that's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
Just be honest though about what line of business you're in.
So this is also a big misunderstanding, I think, both
on the political level and also here in terms of
what they're actually trying to achieve. Let's move on now
to Joe Rogan. There was a really interesting conversation between
Joe Rogan and Coleman Hughes on their podcast around Israel.
Coleman previously has been I would say, I think it's

(01:06:35):
fair to say a defender of Israeli military actions, but
even generally, he's a serious guy and he's willing to
kind of hear things out and to debate. So him
and Rogan kind of went at it around is really
military conduct? Some revealing things here in the discussion. Let's
take a listen, we'll react on the other side.

Speaker 20 (01:06:51):
There was one point where you were kind of saying,
it's almost as if the Jews are doing what was
done to them, well as what it's genocide.

Speaker 21 (01:06:58):
I'm saying that when you're killing thirty thousand innocent civilians
in response to something that killed twelve hundred innocent civilians,
and you're continuing to bomb an area into oblivion, which
is what it looks like when you're looking at Gaza.
There's many people that have made the argument that that
is at least the steps of genocide or a form
of genocide. You're destroying thousands and thousands of people's homes

(01:07:23):
and killing them.

Speaker 20 (01:07:25):
So when you say thirty thousand civilians, it's not thirty
thousand civilians that have been killed.

Speaker 17 (01:07:29):
Though, how many thousands have been killed?

Speaker 20 (01:07:31):
So according to Gaza Health Ministry, which is it is
run by Hamas, the number they have is thirty two thousand,
but they don't distinguish between Hamas and civilians.

Speaker 17 (01:07:42):
How many members of Hamas are there.

Speaker 20 (01:07:45):
Forty thousand something like that. I don't think the number
is known, but it's tens of thousands. So Hamas says
thirty two thousand people have been killed, civilians and soldiers.
Israel says thirteen thousand soldiers have been killed by Israel.
You just being let's not doubt either number. They could
both be eated. But but if both of those numbers

(01:08:07):
are accurate, which they may or may not be, that
would be thirteen thousand soldiers killed nineteen thousand civilians killed,
which for urban combat in the Middle East is a
very normal ratio.

Speaker 21 (01:08:20):
I could see see what you're saying if you wanted
to look at it cold and objectively.

Speaker 8 (01:08:24):
Yeah, but don't.

Speaker 20 (01:08:26):
I still I hope it doesn't come across cold because but.

Speaker 21 (01:08:29):
It's mostly women and children that are dying, that are
that are dying because they're in a place where these
terrorists are, right, I mean this is it's.

Speaker 20 (01:08:36):
Not because the terrorists on purpose embed themselves with the
civilian population, which is a war crime.

Speaker 21 (01:08:43):
Which is a strategy that they have clearly employed when
you see them and when when the IDEF went into
that hospital and found the recently. Yes, yeah, so it's real.
It's not just a conspiracy theory. We know that that's real.
But it's still you're still talking about twenty thousand whatever
it is of innocent people getting bombed into the Stone Age.

(01:09:05):
That one aidation was that they were shooting people that
were trying to get aid.

Speaker 17 (01:09:09):
Yes, yes, and you don't think that's the case.

Speaker 20 (01:09:12):
I think it's very unlikely.

Speaker 17 (01:09:14):
Is it possible, Yeah, it's possible. Absolutely, there is.

Speaker 20 (01:09:17):
The assumption is that there is going to be war
crimes in this war, right because and I know Kurt
would probably say, I'm doing the tragedy of war thing.
But it's actually a legitimate point. In every single war,
even the just ones, there are war crimes by berserk
soldiers by the good guys. That doesn't mean it's genocide,
and that doesn't mean it's not a just war.

Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
Interesting, Carsonal, So there's a lot here.

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
So first of all, with regard to the targeting of
women and children, we actually just learned quite a bit
and I am going to lay all this out in
my monologue, but there is an act of Israeli government
official policy which says, Hey, first of all, we're not
just going to target the high level Hamas commanders. We're
going to target even just like random rank and file

(01:10:03):
Hamas members. Okay, fine, but we're going to specifically do
that using a program a kid you not called Where's
Daddy that allows us to target them when they are
at home with their wives and children.

Speaker 4 (01:10:15):
Furthermore, we are going to generate.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
Our target list using AI and we're not actually going
to check whether these are Hamas militants. The only thing
we're going to check is whether or not they are male.
This speaks to the comments from reporter Barack Revide about
how basically the assumption from the Israeli government is that
any fighting age male, including miners, by the way, is
a Hamas militant. So when you see their numbers about

(01:10:40):
how many Hamas members they've killed, they are not correct.
No serious body believes the Israeli narrative of how many
Hammas fighters have killed. Okay, So what is the civilian
ratio here? Because you know he's saying, okay, you can't
trust the Gaza Health Ministry because they're affiliated with Hamas well.
Previous research has shown that they're members are actually quite correct,

(01:11:02):
but let's put that aside. UN report says that seventy
percent of those killed are women and children. Okay, so
you don't have to take the Israeli government or the
Gaza Health Ministry's.

Speaker 4 (01:11:13):
Word for it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
Seventy percent of those killed are women and children. So
that's on the death toll. Then you talk about the
destruction of civilian infrastructure and the way Coleman portrays it,
it's like, oh, well, you know, one hospital maybe because
there was a command and control center, which again the
Israelis never actually proved the allegation, the extraordinary allegations that

(01:11:35):
they made about what was allegedly happening at Alshievla Hospital,
But that was far from the only health care facility
that was targeted. Three hundred and one according to euromed monitor,
health care facilities have been targeted, including twenty nine hospitals,
sixty nine clinics, two hundred and three ambulances. So this
was an all out destruction, intentional destruction of the healthcare system.

(01:11:57):
You had universities that were destroyed through controlled demolition. They
never even made an argument though, oh Amas is hiding here,
blah blah. No, they just decided to destroy the entirety
of the university system in Gaza as well churches, mosques.
Two hundred and sixty nine thousand homes have been at

(01:12:18):
least partially destroyed. One hundred and twenty two thousand homes
have been completely destroyed. The devastation is greater than dressed in.
So to look at this and say, oh, it's this
you know, targeted, strategic, very disciplined operation.

Speaker 4 (01:12:36):
Yeah, maybe there may be an occasional war.

Speaker 1 (01:12:37):
Crime or two, is just to really deny the actual
reality of what's happening here and to frankly, dishonestly manipulate
the facts that we know in order to try to
support something that is increasingly difficult to.

Speaker 3 (01:12:51):
Support our respect women.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
I think what he is missing here is that it's
about intent, and I understand, you know, he's his point
about like I think war crimes are inevitable.

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
I actually agree.

Speaker 2 (01:13:02):
I don't think it's possible for human civilizations to go
into combat.

Speaker 3 (01:13:06):
For me, it is about the intent of the highest.

Speaker 2 (01:13:09):
Military authorities in the civilian leadership that are at hand.
Is the intentional purpose that is then filtered down through
the military and then through enforcement of rules to minimize
that to as much as possible or is it not?

Speaker 17 (01:13:24):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:13:24):
We have not seen that behavior from the very beginning
from the Israeli military, from the Israeli government, and within
frankly the Israeli You know, from the lowest level to
the highest level, you have had zero enforcement of a
actual reasonable rules of engagement. You've seen very little actual
military strategy for accomplishing their alleged end.

Speaker 3 (01:13:47):
You've seen collective punishment.

Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
You have seen a basically a policy of indistinguishable likes
rules of engagement employed against civilians versus militants.

Speaker 3 (01:13:58):
That's where it all comes to.

Speaker 2 (01:13:59):
I think a reasonable picture of what this is and
why people who can be quote unquote pro the ability
to go to war or even in a just war,
can criticize best at policy in the age of precision
guided munitions, in the age of counterinsurgency and more. It
is one thing, you know, to talk about bombing civilian
populations from b twenty nine's on Tokyo when there was

(01:14:23):
a limited amount of military you know, military capacity, there
was you know, very very difficult options that were to
be changed. It's another when we were talking about non
peer to peer nations that are going to war with
each other in the twenty first century with the capacity
to militarily occupy if they wanted, with a capacity to
distinguish civilians from militants if they wanted, and then explicitly

(01:14:47):
to not make that choice. That is what my biggest
criticism I would say of him was. And I also think,
you know, not really engaging too either with some of
the aid workers that Rogan brings up.

Speaker 3 (01:14:58):
There at the end.

Speaker 2 (01:14:59):
And that's why I think it is self evidently available
and obvious to people who are observers of the conflict
that even if you don't have a bias, and especially
if you don't have a bias, just try to look
at it. You know, one to one and you're like, okay, look,
we can be reasonable here. We can understand that some
sort of response is justified, you know, and we can
have compassion and feel the horror of October seventh and

(01:15:20):
justify and understand the state of Israel and where they
come from and all that, and still have very very
reasonable criticisms of that state, which is part of the
why I like to look at the actual Israeli society,
where apparently they're allowed to have more dissent than we are.
I guess, at least to a point. That's what I
would say.

Speaker 4 (01:15:37):
I think a couple more points.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
So just to me, when the government announces a complete
siege and now we see children and babies literally starving
to death from that point on, from the announcement of
the complete siege, it becomes preposterous to say they're not
targeting civilians. Like, to me, that's this game over. Obviously

(01:16:00):
they are. They just announced it. They said these are
human animals, they're gonna be treated as such. We're announcing
a complete stage. How can you then argue, oh, they're
not targeting civilians. It's preposterous. Also, they dropped indiscriminately two
thousand pound bunker buster bombs, which are on military said,
way too much in an urban fighting environment on refugee

(01:16:23):
camps to maybe possibly get one Hamas militant and you're
killing hundreds of civilians. This is not this is not defensible.
In no context is this defensible. And this wasn't a whoopsie.
We've actually thought it was a whole Hamas.

Speaker 4 (01:16:42):
Brigade there or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
Know, they intentionally dropped two thousand pounds bunker buster bombs
on refugee camps.

Speaker 4 (01:16:51):
Lastly, Joe brings up.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53):
I think he's referring to the Flower masacre that we
covered extensively here where you had over one hundred Palestinians killed,
where you had this you know, aid convoy coming in
and people who were waiting for it. This is in
northern Gaza, where the humanitarian situation is the most dire
and the highest levels of actual starvation, and some are
saying now actually has tipped into famine. That's where we're

(01:17:15):
talking about. And remember the Israeli military their story was, oh, well,
they these Palestinians, they're just barbarians. They got out of control,
they were stampeding each other and then the truck may
have even run some of them over and we fired
some warning shots. Said, but that's it, that's all we did,
the Palestinian said, And by the way, this isn't the

(01:17:36):
only massacre that has happened in the context of Palestinians
seeking aid. They said, no, the Israelis fired on us
using tanks and also using guns. And you know, the
people who were killed overwhelmingly it was.

Speaker 4 (01:17:47):
From gunshot wounds.

Speaker 1 (01:17:48):
Okay, save two competing claims, how do you figure out
which one is correct? Well, were most of the deaths
caused from stampede, you know, crushing injuries, or were they
from gunshot wounds? The doctors and independent observers on the
ground said overwhelmingly it was from gunshot wounds to the
head to the chest. This was not oh, we're firing
warning shots their feet or whatever. So we do actually

(01:18:11):
know what happened there. It is knowable because we have
two competing stories, and the facts in reality match up
much more closely with what the Palestinian said happened. So
and then again to just sort of wave that one
away as, oh, well, you know, war crimes, they're going
to happen.

Speaker 4 (01:18:26):
Maybe that was a war crime. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
And then to ignore all of the other AID massacres,
all of the other assaults and civilian infrastructure.

Speaker 4 (01:18:34):
What's your war crumes?

Speaker 1 (01:18:34):
To ignore the complete siege, to ignore everything else that's happened,
and just dismiss that as a one off, is to
deny the reality of what has actually been a top down,
systematic assault that is wildly in contravention at every turn
with international lawn and very and is quite consistent according
to the ICJ, according to according to the UN Special

(01:18:56):
Rapperteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territory Tories, is
at least plausible and in the words of Francescalbani's reasonable
grounds to say that this is an ongoing genocide. So
that's what I would say in response to some of
what was laid out there.

Speaker 3 (01:19:13):
Anyway, I'm at least glad he's having people on there
debating this.

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
It's good. It's good for people. All right, let's go
move on to the next one. Trump Politics. We'll have
some more politics in the show tomorrow. I promised, we're
a mercy at the news here. But here's what we
saw over the weekend. Let's put this up there on
the screen. The Trump campaign says that it raised more
than fifty million dollars at a Saturday fundraiser. This was
a huge announcement because it was one both where according

(01:19:38):
to his campaign aid, he pressed again for Joe Biden
to debate him, but it was to debut the bundling
organization that they had created behind the scenes. They say,
quote Trump is pushing to close the massive fundraising disadvantage
against Biden. Figures released by the two campaigns show that
Biden ended March with one hundred and ninety two million
dollars on hand, more than twice as much as Donald Trump.

(01:20:00):
At Saturday's evening's event, we're asked to donate as much
as eight hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, so he was
able to make a dent with that one hundred and
ninety two million gap, close twenty five percent of it
in just a single night. And they say that Trump
is actually set to hold another high dollar fundraiser on
Wednesday in Atlanta. During the private marks, they say Trump

(01:20:22):
reirated his call for Biden to debate him after refusing
to participate in the Republican primary debates. Biden, of course
last month had said that you know, he said, well,
of course he wants to debate me, and he won't
necessarily commit to it. Apparently, though he also made some
actual comments when it comes to policy that we wanted
to make sure we covered. Put it up there, please
on the screen. They say, he told them that he

(01:20:42):
will keep their taxes low. At the fifty million dollar fundraiser,
according to him, they say, Trump speaked and spoke to
the need to win back the White House so that
we can turn our country around, focus on key issues
including unleashing energy productions, securing our southern border, reducing inflation,
extending the Trump tax cuts, eliminating the Biden electric vehicle mandate,

(01:21:03):
protecting Israel, and avoiding global war in a roughly forty
five minute speech.

Speaker 3 (01:21:07):
But attendees say that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
When the cameras were off, he certainly said that he
would keep taxes low to some of the billionaires, So
it would explain, you know, why so many of them
are very willing to shell out. Frankly, I would say
he has more institutional Republican support today than he has
at any point in his entire career because post January sixth,

(01:21:29):
I mean, yeah, Trump tax cuts and all that, they
were still happy, but there was so much culture war
nonsense going.

Speaker 3 (01:21:34):
On at the time.

Speaker 2 (01:21:35):
A lot of them wouldn't openly say it, but this
really to me shows that he is not only in
charge of the Republican Party obvious for quite a long time,
but he's got a lot of the traditional business types too.
Whoever is left in here, they're all in for Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:21:48):
Yes, I think Wall Street has gotten very comfy with
the idea of another Trump term, not only because yeah,
he was good to them in terms of tax cuts,
but also because Biden has been very His administration has
been good and aggressive on anti trust in a way
that the business world absolutely hates. And just look at

(01:22:12):
the Wall Street Journal and the like out and out
jihad they have against Lena Kon however, many op eds
that they've written, whatever, and so, because there's much more
scrutiny of these big merger deals going through, that leads
to a lot of Wall Street types who are getting
they're big bonuses at the end of the year.

Speaker 4 (01:22:28):
They hate that.

Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
Of course, the CEOs and executive class and the owner class,
they hate the fact that they're having to jump through
these hoops and undergo scrutiny that they haven't faced in
their entire lifetimes. With regards to these massive transactions in
the way that they're screwing consumers and workers alike.

Speaker 4 (01:22:43):
So they don't like those pieces.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
And I think the original fears with Trump were like, oh,
chaos and uncertainty and what's this going to mean for
the business environment. But now that they've seen it once
around and they have these antitrust and pro labor pieces
from the Bidens station that they really hate, suddenly there,
you know, Jamie Diamond and the like even are much
more comfy with a Trump second term. So to the

(01:23:08):
two things that I found most noteworthy there in the
list of issues that were important to him were extending
the Trump tax cuts, which yes, means these you know,
billionaires will keep their breaks, and also protecting Israel, making
sure to mention that, and he's you know, he's said
some comments that could kind of be interpreted however you
want to interpret them. But behind closed doors at this fundraiser,
he's making it clear he's going to be lockstep support

(01:23:29):
for Israel, as he was as well in his first term.

Speaker 2 (01:23:32):
I would not count out, though, the impact of these dollars,
given the way that national trends are going and when
we compare them let's go put the next one please
up on the screen, just to give an example. So
if you look at the March fundraising numbers, where Biden
was significantly outpacing Trump, the Biden campaign, though, is raising
twenty six million dollars, for example, quote in a single
night with their star studed event, and that included Obama

(01:23:55):
and Bill Clinton.

Speaker 3 (01:23:56):
This is double that one. Now, let's let's be real.

Speaker 2 (01:23:59):
They might have lined things up to get the headline
the Trump campaign did to make sure that it got
fifty million. I'm almost certainly let's watch and see what
comes out of Atlanta, though, because if they're able to
put up twenty some million dollars in the same way
that the Biden campaign can, and note there ain't no
protesters at Trump campaign events or Trump Trump Big Trump
organization rallies, and that demonstrates that the unity of the coalition,

(01:24:23):
a ton of money, and then the popularity that is
going in the tide of Trump. One thing, as we'll
always trying and do here is present the other side.
Let's put this up there on the screen. Some polls. Now,
what we're beginning to see is that polls are suggesting
a shift in the electorate in a way that is
very counter to recent history. Joe Biden quote is struggling

(01:24:45):
with young voters, but is performing better than most Democrats
with older voters. Maybe they see a kinsman there in
the White House. But from what we see, the quote
unquote age inversion is quote the warning sign of a
structural problem in twenty twenty four election polling. One of
the reasons that they are showing this is that if
you break down things by crosstabs, Biden's strength amongst older

(01:25:11):
voters may actually indicate and undercount because even if Trump
does surge amongst young voters, Latinos and all those other people,
that's great, but let's be real, they don't vote. And
I'm talking statistically younger voters. Minority voters too very very
unlikely to actually vote in the same numbers as white boomers.
The median voter in this country is a fifty five

(01:25:33):
year old white man who is non college educated. If
Biden is able to keep some strength with that person
in the electorate, that will actually indicate that the polls
right now could actually be overstating Trump support. Just something
that we had to throw out there because it is interesting,
and I mean I guess it makes sense.

Speaker 3 (01:25:54):
He's an older man.

Speaker 2 (01:25:55):
He is the embodiment of silent gen and boomerism. Like
in one he's been around forever. Boomers love the whole
like we need a man with experience thing in the
White House. He like checks all the boxes. So and
then they love cable TV and Biden. Biden is mostly
beloved by MSNBC and CNN. So if you put those
things together, it does actually tract to me.

Speaker 1 (01:26:14):
Yeah, I'm a little mystified, genuinely about the polls. I
don't know what to make of any of them at
this point. You know, are they under counting Biden? Are
they undercounting Trump? I have no idea.

Speaker 4 (01:26:24):
I'm just throwing my hands up and taking all of
it with a grain of salt. I find it hard to.

Speaker 1 (01:26:28):
Believe they cite a couple of poles here that has
Trump actually a head of Biden among millennial and gen
Z voters. I find that hard to believe Biden taking
a hit among those voters.

Speaker 4 (01:26:40):
And obviously younger.

Speaker 1 (01:26:41):
Voters are more open to third party candidates.

Speaker 4 (01:26:45):
Okay, but Trump actually beating Biden among those voters.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
It just if you look at the ideological profile of
them It really doesn't add up, you know, when you
think about their positioning on any number of issues across
the board. It's hard for me to see that actually
playing out. But it's being found in multiple poles. But
then that's the other thing is then you can find
another pole that has it like the complete opposite direction.

(01:27:09):
Biden continuing to have a twenty point lead ahead of
Trump with voters under the age of thirty five. So
I'm just throwing out there, I don't know what the
hell is going on with these poles.

Speaker 4 (01:27:18):
I genuinely don't know. I find it very hard to
believe Trump is actually winning with young voters. Is eating
into the lead? Is o RFK Junior.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
Posing a threat for Biden and causing him problems with
these voters?

Speaker 4 (01:27:28):
Cornell West Jill Stein.

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
Sure, but I'm skeptical that this massive like youth wave
towards actually affirmatively towards Trump is actually happening.

Speaker 3 (01:27:39):
It depends on the gender balance too.

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
If you told me he's me winning amongst young men,
I would believe it actually at the very least of
like fifty some percent if you include women in that.
I do find it hard to believe. Ideologically, people are
Let's be honest. People are all over the map and
have very very divergent opinions whenever it comes to politics,
so etan just looking at that and mapping it out
onto the current candidates is not is not usually one
to one.

Speaker 3 (01:28:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:28:02):
I would say if it is true that Biden is
doing better amongst older voters, that is a major sign
of strength for him and one that we should pay
very very close attention to. And that is one that
I actually really do believe just given his politics, given
the way that they like to see the country and
the things that they value, they're probably a lot less

(01:28:23):
likely than I mean, this is where the media question
comes in. They live in a different universe than the
rest of us. They are literally not online unless it's
their email or Facebook. That is not the same. But
the way that we all consume media, and with that,
you're going to see a lot less Biden fumbling, You're
going to see a lot less emphasis on some of
the things that we talk about.

Speaker 4 (01:28:44):
And is going to be is not a problem for
older voters.

Speaker 8 (01:28:47):
Don't care.

Speaker 2 (01:28:48):
They own their own houses, you know, And to the
extent that they're in debt or whatever they're on social security,
like they don't care.

Speaker 4 (01:28:53):
That's true too. From the economy is their.

Speaker 3 (01:28:55):
Economy is good.

Speaker 2 (01:28:56):
Yeah, it's one of those where because of the parallel
universe that they like, they're not feeling the same pressures
that we are.

Speaker 3 (01:29:02):
And then you add media on top of that, I
could believe it. Why he is doing better with older folks.
Very interesting, Chrystal, what are you taking a look at well.

Speaker 1 (01:29:12):
Israelan's defenders swear that the IDF has followed the rules
of war in their assault on Gaza, that they aren't
at war with civilians but laser focused on hamas, that
any civilian deaths are the fault of Hamas for operating
within the civilian population or at the very worst, regrettable mistakes,
such as in the case of the seven World Central
Aid kitchen workers who were killed in that series of

(01:29:33):
three drone strikes. The IDF, Israel's defenders say, is the most.

Speaker 4 (01:29:37):
Moral army in the world.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
A new shocking report from plus nine seven to two
magazine definitively disproves every single one of these claims. Of course,
anyone paying attention was fully disabused of these notions long ago.
The ratio of civilian to militant debts alone is sufficient
to prove that this war on humanity has been intentional,
but plus nine seven to two once again has provided
invaluable in sight into the exact mechanisms of the horror.

(01:30:02):
They reveal for the first time the details of how
Israeli algorithmic targeting supercharged a slaughter and critically, how the
very human decisions made in this assault and desire for
total revenge have fueled annihilation and genocide. Now I urge
you to read the entirety of Yvale Abraham's collaboration with
Local Call for nine to seventy two magazine titled Lavender,

(01:30:24):
The AI Machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. I'm
going to summarize the most significant findings, but I believe
this will be one of the defining journalistic pieces of
this entire onslaught. Every detail of this report really matters,
so please, if you have the time, take a look.
So here are some of the top line findings of
that report. First of all, Israel has developed an AI

(01:30:45):
targeting system called Lavender, which has been used to generate
some thirty seven thousand targets in Gaza. Second, those human
targets generated by the algorithm were imprecise, with a known
error rate of about ten percent.

Speaker 4 (01:30:59):
In spite of this error rate.

Speaker 1 (01:31:01):
Next to note, human checking was performed before targeting individuals
on the lavender list for assassination idea, soldiers were to
consider these faulty AI target lists of alleged militants to
be orders. Miners were included on the list along with
civil service officers. Third, the IDF authorized extraordinary levels of

(01:31:21):
collateral damage, officially twenty civilians per junior hamas fighter and
one hundred civilians for higher level commanders. In practice, though
collateral damage ratios could be even higher. The motive, according
to the sources, was not to eliminate hamas it was
pure and simple revenge. Fourth, contrary to claims about avoiding

(01:31:42):
civilian casualties, Israel intentionally targeted civilians through use of a
software program called ware Staty, which was used to target
the private homes of militants when they were at home
with their families and surrounded by other civilians. Little was
done to make sure the alleged militant was even actually
killed and not just his family members. Now those are

(01:32:03):
the top line findings, but it is well worth digging
into the sum of the stomach turning details here. Gazza
has become a testing ground for dystopian AI driven military tech,
which is plunging all of us into a new era
of horrors and unchecked barbarism. Nine seven to two had
previously reported on an AI system called the Gospel, which
generates infrastructure targets with a focus on so called power targets.

(01:32:26):
These are large centers of civilian lifelike high rise apartment
buildings which were destroyed in order to demoralize and terrorize
the civilian population. Drone equipped robot dogs are also increasingly
wandering throughout the rubble in Gaza thanks to new developments
from the Pentagon and US military contractors. And we can
now add to this list of killer tech Lavender, which

(01:32:47):
generates tens of thousands of human targets and operating hand
in glove with Lavender is Where's Daddy Software, which targets
those placed on the Lavender kill list for assassination while
they are at their homes with their families. Where's Dad
get it for the IDF When Daddy's home, it means
it's time to murder every man, woman, and child who
happens to be in the vicinity. Now, Lavender uses the

(01:33:09):
data collected through mass surveillance of every Palestinian in Gaza
to analyze the likelihood that they may be Hamas based
on a list of identified attributes. Every Gazan is given
a rating of one to one hundred as to how
likely they are to be a militant. The algorithm is
programmed with hundreds or thousands of attributes which are considered

(01:33:29):
to be suggestive of Hamas or other militant membership. Some
attributes identified in the piece include being in the wrong
WhatsApp group or changing addresses too often. Now, if you
are clocked with too many incriminating features as identified by Lavender,
then you'll be placed on a kill list and marked
for IDF assassination with next to no human verification. According
to a nine seven to two source quote, a human

(01:33:51):
being had to verify the target for just a few seconds.
Be said, at first, we did checks to ensure that
the machine didn't get confused. Point we relied on the
automatic system, and we only checked that the target was
a man.

Speaker 4 (01:34:05):
That was enough.

Speaker 1 (01:34:06):
Doesn't take a long time to tell if someone has
a male or female voice. This assumption that all men
are Hamas has been backed up in recent days by
the stunning reporting of Axios reporter Barack Revied, now himself
a former IDF soldier. Revee told Anderson Cooper that on
the ground, soldiers were simply told to murder every man.

Speaker 7 (01:34:27):
This incident shouldn't come as a surprise. You know, you
remember that just a few weeks ago, three Israeli hostages
that managed to escape their captors were killed by Israeli
soldiers who fired at them even though they were holding
a white flag. Okay, and you know I spoke to
an Israeli reserve officer who was in the same unit

(01:34:49):
to those soldiers who shot those hostages, and remember him
telling me that the orders are basically from the commanders
on the ground is just shoot every man in fighting age.
Those are the orders. But that's not the rules of
engagement that is coming from the idea of leadership on
the ground.

Speaker 8 (01:35:06):
That's what they're being told.

Speaker 1 (01:35:08):
The orders are shoot every man of fighting age. So obviously,
if you're a man in Gaza, whether or not your
name is bat out by lavender can quickly become a
matter of life and death. And yet the generation of
these kill lists was arbitrary based on entirely human judgments
about what rating level was sufficient to justify conclusion that
you are very likely Hamas is a sixty five rating

(01:35:30):
out of one hundred, and Lavender's ai determination of Hamas
like attributes sufficient to mark you out specifically for death.
Does a seventy eight make you Hamas ninety two? The
answer apparently differed at different times during the war Parade
nine to seven to two source quote.

Speaker 4 (01:35:44):
The numbers changed all the.

Speaker 1 (01:35:45):
Time because it depends on where you set the bar
of what a Hamas operative is. There were times when
a Hamas operative was defined more broadly, and then the
machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense personnel,
police officers on whom it would be a shame to
waste moms. They help the Hamas government, but they don't
really endanger soldiers. Now, of course, you have to appreciate
the concern here for the rationing of bombs, not for

(01:36:06):
the human beings that are being killed.

Speaker 4 (01:36:09):
Let's put that aside.

Speaker 1 (01:36:10):
So once you've got your Lavender created kill list, you've
got to actually figure out how to get these guys.
Finding Hamas in a battle space can be difficult and risky.
But what's quick and easy is killing them at their
known residences when they go back home to their wife
and kids. Now, I want you to imagine for a
second that a foreign military or terrorist group was targeting
our soldiers en mass when they were at home in
their private residences, wantonly slaughtering mothers and children for the

(01:36:34):
sake of taking out some anonymous army private This is
the equivalent of what the IDF is doing in Gaza
per nine seven two sources quote. We are not interested
in killing hamas operatives only when they were in a
military building or engaged in military activity. On the contrary,
the idea of bombed them in homes without hesitation as
a first option. It's much easier to bab a family's home.

(01:36:54):
The system is built to look for them in these situations. Now,
contrast this to the Lafe language we hear about how
the IDF does not target civilians, just hamas with those
darn human shields. Here we have confirmation that the IDF
does in fact target civilians by choosing as their first
resort to bomb private homes full of women and children.

(01:37:17):
It didn't even particularly matter whether the alleged lavender killless
militant was there at the time, because the IDF didn't
verify that the target.

Speaker 4 (01:37:24):
Was home when the bomb dropped.

Speaker 1 (01:37:26):
In plenty of instances, the target had actually left and
the IDEF just murdered the family for no apparent reason.
Because of this where's Daddy strategy, entire families have been
routinely annihilated. Every name on every branch of the family
tree killed. This embrace of civilian slaughter was not haphazard,
it was systematized. In Gaza, the IDF authorized acceptable collateral

(01:37:46):
damage levels that were historically extraordinary. Any old, low level
Hamas rank and filer could be killed along with twenty civilians.
In practice, it could be even higher because the IDF
used rule of thumb guess work to determine how many
people might be killed, and because they preferred to use
so called dumb bombs to take out these low level
possible soldiers. The IDF did not want to waste expensive

(01:38:09):
precision guided munitions on inconsequential Hamas piance. Dumb bombs may
take out a few houses instead of one, or collapse
an entire apartment building instead of having the capability to
just target a single floor. As one source told nine
seven to two quote. In practice, the principle of proportionality
did not exist when it came to senior commanders. Official
guidelines allowed for one hundred civilians to be killed in

(01:38:32):
connection with their assassination, but here too, the reality was
that even higher civilian massacres were accepted per nine seven
to two in order to assassinate aim and no fall.
The commander of Hamas's Central Gaza Brigade, a source said
the army authorized the killing of approximately three hundred civilians,
destroying several buildings and airstrikes on Albarete refugee camp on

(01:38:55):
October seventeenth, based on an imprecise pinpointing of Nafal between
I mean sixteen to eighteen houses were wiped out in
the attack. Amra Al Kaseb, a resident of the camp,
told nine seventy two in local call, we couldn't tell
one apartment from the other. They all got mixed up
in the rubble and we found human body parts everywhere.
So for comparison here, the US during the War on

(01:39:16):
Terror typically operated at a non combatant casualty value or NCV,
the official term for acceptable collateral damage of zero, even
when targeting Osama.

Speaker 4 (01:39:24):
Bin Lan himself. The NCV was thirty. In actual execution.

Speaker 1 (01:39:29):
Of the bin Lan raid, Seal Team six killed three
bin Laden sons and one woman. Now, I am not
arguing in the US was a paragon of virtuous warfighting
and avoided civilian casualties in the War on Terror. But
there is no comparison between Israel routinely dropping two thousand
pounds bunker buster bombs on crowded refugee camps to maybe

(01:39:50):
take out a single person and the high risk operation
which we used to kill Osama bin Laden. So let's
put the pieces together here. If you classify every military
age man as a combatant, and you classify every one
of his family members as acceptable collateral damage, you have
effectively turned an entire population into legitimate military targets. The

(01:40:13):
tech is scary, but the humans making those decisions driving
the tech, they are terrifying. You can see the same
logic and the official idea of explanation for why they
targeted the World Central Kitchen AID convoy. Just as with Lavender,
all it took was the possible presence of one fighting
age male with a gun for every one of those

(01:40:34):
AID workers to be marked for assassination. There's a reason
for this, though multiple sources made it clear to nine
seven to two that in plenty of instances the real goal
was not hunting some hamas commander or another was revenge.
Per nine seven to two quote, there was a completely
permissive policy regarding the casualties of bombing operations, so permissive that,
in my opinion, it had an element of revenge. D

(01:40:57):
An intelligence source claimed also use the word revenge to
describe the atmosphere inside the army after October seventh, quote,
no one thought about what to do afterward when the
war is over, or how it will be possible to
live in Gaza and what they will do with it.
A said, we were told now we have to f Uphamas,
no matter what the cost. Whatever you can you bomb,

(01:41:20):
whatever you can you bomb. There's no turning back from
these things, from the AI generated kill list based on
mass surveillance to the normalization of murdering whole families to
possibly get one rank and file soldier to revenge fuel
destruction of every possible piece of civilian infrastructure. Israel's actions
in Gaza have opened Pandora's box for new, previously unimaginable horrors,

(01:41:44):
unchecked brutality, with unleashed and unaccountable tech Sagar.

Speaker 4 (01:41:50):
The details here are really extreme.

Speaker 2 (01:41:51):
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com. Thanks
everybody for watching, We appreciate it. Well, Gratio everybody tomorrow
and we'll see that

Speaker 16 (01:42:10):
Mhm.

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