Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden and Trump confirming 2024 debates, MSNBC loses it over bad Biden polls, Slovakia Prime Minister shot by assassin, Red Lobster shuts down restaurants after endless shrimp fiasco, Justice Department says Boeing violated prosecution deal, Israel Defense Minister presses Bibi on Gaza occupation, Israelis attack Palestinian believing he was delivering aid to Gaza.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
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. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today. When do
we have crystal?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Indeed, we do.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We have what I would describe us some actually kind
of good news. Presidential debates are actually happening by through
down the gauntlin Trump accepted, blah blah blah. Anyway, we'll
get into all of that. RFK Junior also trying to
get on the stage, even though they are very much
aggressively trying to block in. Yeah, so there's a lot
to discuss there and why this is all happening. We
also have some extreme levels of cope that are happening
(00:51):
over on both CNN, but in particular over at Morning Joe,
over that New York Times CNA poll that we covered
earlier this week, which is an absolute train wreck for
Joe Biden, so we will show you that. Also, some
bad and also interesting news from overseas the Slovakian Prime
Minister Robert Fico. He was shot in an attempted assassination effort.
(01:12):
He is now appears to be recovering and on his
way hopefully to full recovery, but extraordinary circumstances and a
lot of indications about what might have been behind the
motive for that attack.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
We'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Red Lobster is going bankrupt because Americans take all you
can eat a little too seriously, Guys out there, when
it came to shrimp, we were all in and Red
Lobster was apparently not ready for that.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
We went too far. America's never been greater than it
is today.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Rip Red Lobster.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
We also have some additional, perhaps more significant corporate news,
which is that Boeing could actually be facing criminal prosecution
now after the government officially said a judge officially said
that they had violated the consent decree that they had
with the federal government that opens them up to all
sorts of charges, in particular over those crowd that caused
hundreds of fatalities a few years back. So we'll get
(02:03):
into that and what that could mean. A lot of
news coming out of Israel. Israel's Defense Minister Joev Galant
really throwing down with bb Net and Yahoo will take
you inside what that is all about and what it
potentially means. By the way, the US siding with Uov Glant.
We also have some horrifying images of how settlers beat
a Palestinian truck driver because they suspected he might be
(02:25):
bringing aid to Gaza. We also have an update on
the Peer guys. Looks like the long anticipated and much
vaunted Peer for Humanitarian Aid is actually complete. So what
does that mean and what is that going to look
like going forward? Break that down for you as well.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Okay, Before we get to that, we have two important
things first and foremost, Counterpoints had an amazing interview with
Beto O'Rourke, former presidential candidate. Beto formerly no best known
I think for standing on large services. Emily Ryan and
him had an amazing discussion. So if you want to
check that out, it's dropping to our premium subscribers early.
And then this is a special message to our premium suscribers.
(03:04):
I'm going to reiterate this and I'm going to ask
the you pay attention. We have a major announcement coming.
As we have said, you need to check your email
on Sunday, all right, So Sunday, please check your email.
And you know usually your guys are used to getting
your AMA email. There's going to be something special inside
of that. So that's for our premium subscribers only. Please
take a listen. We will be sending you reminders and
(03:25):
all of that. But if you hear this, just put
that up in your head, put it.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
On your calendar and mark the date. Because something is coming.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Make sure you check out that email. There will be
some small action required from you, but I think you're
going to be really excited about what you find there
as well, and also with ours counterpoints in Beto, we
haven't watched this one yet. Apparently Emily and Beta really
got into it on immigration. Yes, yes, so I'm very
very interested to see how that all went down.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Absolutely right, Beta, Let's get to the debates.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
As Crystal said, so yesterday it was kind of a
flurry of debate news. Clearly it was pre arranged at
least some so President Joe Biden releasing a video from
his campaign account taunting Donald Trump to a debate, but
in different circumstances than you may have expected.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Donald Trump loss two debates to me in twenty twenty
since Sandy hadn't shown up for debate. Now e'xactly like
he wants to debate me again. Will make my day, Pal.
I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates. Donald,
I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
All right, you're free on Wednesdays. He's taunting him. The
Biden malarkey energy is back. Uh the push up.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Yeah, look fat, look fat fat, frankly best moments. I THENK,
so what does all this mean?
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Now?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
This is I'm actually particularly excited about it because what
this means actually and what you didn't hear there were
some of the details. Let's put this up there on
the screen. This was actually a letter that was sent
at the very same time the release of that video
from the Biden campaign to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Now,
in this letter, President Biden and the campaign informs the
CPD they will not be part ti dissipating in the
(05:01):
Commission on Presidential Debates preset schedule. This is the organization
which has run presidential debates since the ninety I think
nineteen eighty after the League of Women Voters dropped out
after they accused campaigns of coordinating with each other. In
my opinion, it's always been a travesty. The Commission on
Presidential Debates is basically run by the RNC and the DNC.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It's totally rigged.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
It has established from politicians, it has all of these
major fortune five hundred donors, and they have rigged the
process to keep people out. And this basically shakes things
up and makes thing a negotiation between the two campaigns
as to how this is going to work. Now, there
are some downsides to this, as we will get to
with h RFK Junior. But some of the reasoning that
they give here is that they believe that the Commission
(05:44):
schedule has the debates begin after the American people have
their first chance to cast votes early. That is true,
especially because the third debate is well into late October two.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
This is interesting. I really want to hear what you
have to say, Crystal.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
They say that the Commission model of building huge spectacles
with large audiences at great expense is not necessary or
conducive to good debates, And in it they say they
don't want donors or a live audience, so they wanted
to take place purely in a studio, a llah the
nineteen sixty Nixon Kennedy debate or in modern times. I
(06:20):
guess the last one that we've seen anything like this
was the March of twenty twenty Joe Biden versus Bernie
Sanders debate that took place in the CNN studio with.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
No live audience.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So the third and the final one is that they're
still very upset with the Commission over COVID and handling
of COVID, basically saying that they allowed Trump to attend
the first debate while he attended COVID.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
That's way true, and I think that's fair. It's probably
he could have very easily killed Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
There's a one I will take. I'll take it because
now the Commission is dead. This is a terrible antiquated tradition.
The two campaigns now have agreed to two dates. Let's
put that up there on the screen. The first and
foremost was from CNN. This will be the our first
presidential debate June twenty seventh at nine pm. No audience
moderators have now been announced. It's Dana Bash and Jake
(07:07):
Tappert and they will live stream on CNN and I
guess on HBO Max.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
That's going to be a.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Great Israel conversation that they lead there.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Yeah, that's right, Well, we'll separate the moderator stuff. But
I'm curious what you think specifically about the audience thing
and why Biden is insisting on that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Okay, So on the audience thing, I do actually think
it's better not to have the audience in the room,
because I mean it does just sort of like stack
the deck depending on and oftentimes as a sort of
indicated there, who you'll have in the audience is like
the big donors for the campaigns. They have a very
different agenda than the rest of America. That came out
a lot actually in twenty sixteen. Remember in the Republican debates,
(07:42):
Well and Trump would like directly call out like, oh yeah, well,
those are Jebstoners basically in the audience. That's why they
think that way. So I think it's better just not
to have the audience so that people at home have
more of an opportunity just to judge for themselves without sharing, booing,
et cetera, and an audience that may be clearly slanted
one way or another. So on the audience thing, I
(08:02):
think that's right.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I guess I'm a.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Little more ambivalent about the destruction of the Presidential Debate
Commission because now it's like, Okay, well, instead of them
rigging it, it's the two candidates themselves colluding.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
To rig it. So is that really better?
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't really know if it's better or worse or whatever,
but I'm just glad that there are agreeing.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
To some debates because there was a massive question.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I mean, there is still a lot of logic to
Joe Biden not doing these debates. I think he's doing
it because basically he's down. He saw that after his
State of the Union performance, it was good enough that
he appeared to get a little bit of a temporary
bump in the polls, and so I think he realizes that,
(08:41):
you know, if he has an opportunity, actually performs well
and exceeds expectations. And again we're not talking about him
being like, you know, the best debater of all time,
but the expectations for him are so low that if
he can surpass those very minimal on the floor expectations,
that may and ure to his benefit. But you know,
the speculation is that the the timing of the debates
(09:01):
is also very intentional on his part, because it's on
the one hand, Okay, get the opportunities to show like
I'm not going to just literally like collapse and die
on the stage, and I can formulate at least like
half coherent sentences. On the other hand, if it doesn't
go well, there's a lot of time between these debates
and when the bulk of the people will actually vote,
so that I can hopefully recover from any potential disasters
(09:23):
from the debate performance. That's kind of the theory that's
out there. I think Nate Silver and others were floating
that I basically buy into that.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
I think that makes some logical, like straightforward sense.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It makes some sense.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
I mean I went back and I re reviewed all
of the political science. I mean, there's just basically no
evidence that these debates matter. And what's actually even more
interesting is that whatever moments the media decides are the.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Game changing moments.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, even back to the eighties and the monoculture moment,
they're like those have no impact on it.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
They usually have a temporary impact on the poles and then.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
And then it reverts right back to where it is,
and it turns out it all comes back to fundamentals.
And especially in a more partisan age like where we
are right now, very few undecided voters, and a lot
of the data on undecided voters is that they don't
particularly make up their minds on debates. Let me, like
I said, I still think debates are very important.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Absolutely, and they're important not just because of what they
mean for the horse race. But part of why Joe
Biden has felt pressure, for example, to at least do
something on student loan debt is because he had to
make those promises on a stage in the debates. I mean,
there is other political science that shows as much as
these people break promises left and right, they are more
likely to follow to actually follow up and do something
(10:31):
if they've promised it on the campaign trail, if they've
promised it on debate stage. So it doesn't just matter
for like who's up or whose doubt or how to
voters feel about these candidates, It can actually matter more
for governance, which is even more important. And not to mention,
you know, transparency, and I would make I just want
to offer the countercase for why it could be different
this time and the debates could actually be more significant
(10:52):
and meaningful, which is, we have a very unique circumstances
circumstance which is one of the primary concerns about Joe
Biden voters is is this man even.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Capable of doing the job?
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So it's you know, there are also obviously problems with
him on policy, economics, Israel, et cetera. But one of
the core concerns is just like can he do it?
And so because that is, in a very unique way,
a central issue and concern in this campaign, I think
perhaps the debates could be more impactful and more meaningful
(11:26):
than they have been other times because the circumstances are
so distinct and so unusual.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's put the next
one up there on the screen. In terms of what
the other debate is going to be, Trump says, it
is my great honor to accept the CNN debate. He says, likewise,
I accept ABC News debate against Crooked Joe on September tenth.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Thank you, Donald Trump. So there we have it. June
twenty seventh and September tenth.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Now, Trump seemed like he was trying to push for
another third debate on Fox News.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Do you know what's going on with that?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
So there is a third debate that was proposed by
Fox and by Trump. Trump obviously wants to do as
many debates as possible. Last time around, he actually I
wanted to add a fourth debate even because he had
to skip the second one over COVID. This time around,
he wants to do actually, as far as I know
and understand, he wants to do literally as many as
Biden is up for, which is kind of interesting in
(12:14):
terms of the challenge that is being thrown down now.
As you said, Biden has not committed to that Fox debate.
It's very very unlikely that he will do so. He
said in that video, I will only do two debates.
Both of those the justification for the campaign, as there before,
early voting actually starts in all of them. So the
September twenty seventh debate likely to be the most consequential
(12:35):
of any if it is so. The ABC News debate
will also stream live on all platforms and will be
available to others, while CNN in peak CNN form is
keeping it confined to the CNN universe. They won't allow
others to stream enter any of that, so there will
be more widely available. We'll see exactly what happens now.
We would be remiss if we didn't talk here about
(12:56):
RFK Junior. Let's put this up there on the screen.
There's some confusion right now. So RFK Junior's initial response
is that President Trump and Biden are including to lock
America into a head to head matchup. Seventy percent of
people say they do not want They're trying to exclude
me from their debate because they're afraid that I would win.
Keeping viable candidates off the stage undermines democracy. Forty three
percent of Americans ide him independence. By excluding me from
(13:17):
the stage, President Biden and Trump seek to avoid discussion
of their eight years of mutual failure, including deficits, wars, lockdowns,
chronic disease, and inflation.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Late last night, he then puts out a tweet where
he says, I am happy to report I will meet
the criteria to participate in the CNN debate before the
June twentieth deadline. I look forward to holding President Biden
and Trump accountable for their records in Atlanta on June
twenty seven, to give Americans the debate that they deserve.
(13:48):
So this brings us back to what the CNN debate
qualifications actually are. Can we put a three please back
on the screen so that I can explain a little
bit of this. So CNN's announcement says that to qualify
for participation, candidates must fulfill outline in Article two, Section
one of the Constitution. They must file a statement of
(14:09):
candidcy with the FEC. A candidate's name must appear on
a sufficient number of state ballots to reach two hundred
and seventy electoral vote threshold to win the presidency, and
they must agree to accept the rules in the format.
And they must receive fifteen percent in four separate national
polls or of registered or likely voters that meet CNN
(14:29):
standards of reporting. Now, the fifteen percent threshold is not
going to be difficult for RFK Junior. It's the two
seventy ballot access initiative that matters the most. But the
big question, Crystal is if RFK Junior does qualify, are
they going to rig the rules?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Is Biden going to pull out?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Is Trump going to pull out because both Trump and
Biden have made it very clear they do not want
him there on the stage, and so I foresee some
chicanery somewhere. If I had to guess, it'll be that
he has enough ballots to qualify for the ballot. But
like let's say, maybe he has officially you know, the
state sector sector and state hasn't signed it, so they'll
use that as a pretext. But I mean, he's got
(15:06):
California and textas already. That's like one hundred electoral votes
right there. You don't need a lot more. He's got
to get on in the big states, New York, you know, Ohio,
a few others, and you're there, You're at two seventy.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean he should be on the stage, Like
that's the point. Obviously, it's incredibly consequential. He could be
determinative in terms of this election. He has demonstrated, you know,
significant levels of support, especially for a third party candidate.
He absolutely am the interest of democracy should be on
the stage. Will he be on the stage, highly doubt it.
I doubt it because they thought they were rigging these
rules to preclude him from having any chance of making
(15:38):
it on apparently not that good at math, right, and listen,
I think he still has I think it's still reached
for him to get there by June twentieth, even you know,
by those standards. And that's because the two parties have
also colluded to make it very difficult to get ballot
access in these states, you.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
Know, in New York.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Jill Stein, doctor Jill Stein, was telling us that New
York actually just passed a law to make it even
more more difficult in New York to get on the
ballot there. Obviously that's a massive electoral prize in terms
of the number of delegates that you get there. So yeah,
they've the two parties have colluded to make it very
very difficult to get on these ballots, and then they
use that collusion to also collude with CNN to try
(16:16):
to block any third party candidates from being on the stage.
Because listen, it shouldn't just be Cornell west On, I mean,
it shouldn't just be RFK Junior on the stage.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
I think Jill Stein should be there.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
And I think if Cornell west is able to you know,
get on a significant number of ballots, I think he
should be there as well.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
In the interest of you know, having a wide range.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Of who's out there and people really having a choice
and feeling like they're able to evaluate different positions from
these different candidates. You know, on an issue like Israel, RFK,
Trump and Bien are all like basically the same. So
nice to have another candidate there to offer a different vision.
And they're going to be aligned with CNN too, by
the way, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. So in any case,
the more democracy the better. That's why I'm a little
(16:55):
ambivalent about like the end of the Presidential Debate Commission
because listen, I mean, they would probably do the same thing.
They probably also don't really want RFK Junior up on
the stage, but there'd be a little bit more of
a sense of like, these are the rules, we've splayed
them down, everyone has to follow them, et cetera, et cetera,
versus this just just two campaigns negotiating for their own benefit.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
So, like you said, there's trade.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Offs, I agree. The main thing is that it's structural.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Structural, So for example, the Commission on Presidential Debates officially
has as it's two members, the rn C and the DNC.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
That's nuts to me.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
You can't literally allow the two parties to be the
only ones to negotiate. Now, I again, this is why
I celebrated when the RNC pulled out of the Commission,
and not to mention that the commercials and the sponsors
for it are like rat They're like, all these Fortune
five hundred companies is grotesque.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Yeah, to look at it.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I mean, you know, to this date, Crystal they have
millions and millions of dollars of unspent money in their conference.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
What do you think they're using that for?
Speaker 2 (17:57):
And that's where I think the Biden people are correct
in this certain sense. It's like a self perpetuating machine
where you donate to the Commission, then you get to
attend the Commission on Presidential debates, and that's why you have.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
All these big donors and billionaires.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And I mean, who can't forget, like all the spectacles
of the famous people who are in the audience. So yeah,
the more that we just get rid of it, and
if we have more debates, now I agree, in the
short term, it's not great, right, Like, what do campaigns do.
The reason the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the
events are the Campaigns Debates was because the two campaigns,
I think do I forget exactly who it was they
(18:30):
were found to be colluding with each other, and the
league was like, we're not going to deal with that.
They're like, we have debates where we get to ask,
you know, the best questions, and if you go back
and you watch them, they were so much better. So
all I'm saying is this just make things a lot
more interesting and possible. The other thing is that the
mainstream media should be freaking out about this because they
basically had a collusion with the CPD where you get
(18:52):
to live cast everything on their networks, and obviously they
could sell ad time and all these other things, and
they're anchors were the ones who are always considered.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
So this shake things up to basically.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Allow and not disqualify the future candidates from participating in
whatever forms that they want. So it's going to be
a lot more like the nineteen seventies and eighties where
people can just do anything, and in general I think
that's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Maybe, I mean, it seems to me like we need
to have just like major reform of the Presidential Debate
Commission where it's truly independent, where it's not just you know,
a tool of the RNC and the DNC and big donors,
where there's legislation that compels these candidates to have to debate,
because I think in the interest of democracy and all
of us being able to evaluate our choices, I think
that that should be mandatory, not just the presidential level,
(19:38):
but at all level. If you're seeking off as a
very minimal that you should have to do is like
present yourself to the voters and debate your opponent and
like take seriously the democratic process. But obviously we're a
long way from that. So is this an improvement.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
I don't know. We'll see, We'll see how it all
shakes out.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I mean, in general, I'm excited. I'm glad that they're
actually going to do it.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
That I'm glad about.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
The one last thing that I'll say in terms of
how this will go, because I mean, the obvious assumption
is that Trump is going to be better debater than
Joe Biden. I think that's a very fair assumption. But
let's just remember that last time around that was also
the assumption, and Trump was such an asshole in the
first debate.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
It wasn't because Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Did well, but Trump was such a like I think
he must have been taken something for COVID.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
He was such a jerk and so like, you know,
just constantly cutting Joe Biden off, et cetera, et cetera,
that he really ruined his own prospects there and was
widely seen, I think accurately so as having lost that debate.
So it's not a foregone conclusion that this is going
to be better for Trump.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I saw someone say we are going to see Manhattan
Project levels of presidential stimulants for both of these kings.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Oh yeah, I'm already working on the cocktail.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I was going to say, whatever that cocktail is, let
me know, I want to take it all right, like
I fire me up, put it in both of the veins,
and I'll take it before we start.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
On Trump's that whatever they gave him before that debate.
They need to dial that about eighty percent because there
was way too much.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
You gotta check that out, man. I would love to
be in the in the in the room. It's gonna
be like medafinil.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Adderall like all the chemists. The chemists are going wild.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
You're gonna they're gonna have like little drip beakers and things.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
So it's gonna be it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
So we have additional campaign news as we covered earlier
this week New York Times Siana pole which came out,
which is I mean, this is considered one of the
sort of like gold standard polls, and it was an utter,
incomplete disaster for Joe Biden. He was losing in almost
every battleground state. He was losing by double digits in Nevada.
What was it thirteen points, yes, thirteen that he was
(21:39):
losing by in Nevada when you drilled in it was
because young people, African Americans, Latinos were all fleeing his campaign.
Just I mean, there was no way to spit in
this thing as remotely positive for him. But morning Joe
decided they would go ahead and try. Let's listening to
what Joe Scarborough had to say and his incredible cope
with regards to the poll.
Speaker 6 (22:00):
Where are the polls talking us directionally about the race?
I understand there's a difference though with the New York
Times Siena poll. And you know this, it's given disproportionate
impact this year this cycle. It is skewed wildly and
Donald Trump's direction hold on, and the New York Times
feasts on it with clickbait stories like a dozen at
(22:23):
a time. And I and what I'm trying to focus
on is what I think people should pay attention to.
But what I'm trying to focus on is New York
Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles. Where
this poll comes out on a Sunday and on Monding,
people go oh, and I heard it, And I'm sitting
there going, oh, don't be so stupid. That's why we're
doing this, So hold on, sacond hold on, no, no,
(22:45):
hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls
come out every time New York Times fall is oh, well,
everything that Joe Biden's done since the since the the
State of the Union address, all of these all this
money that he's put out, all of the.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Campaigning is for not.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
No, it's not, no, it's not There's one pole that's
wildly skewed. Every time after every New York Times Siena
pole comes out, it completely changes the political battlefield out
there for about a week, week and a half. It
distorts the questions that are asked of the White House.
(23:21):
It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump.
It distorts all of the opinion, It distorts everything, and
that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And
then finally about two weeks later, after the residue of
The New York Times, Siena pole leaves people go, oh,
I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then
two weeks later it comes out again and it's garbage.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Speaking of drugs that people are taking. I would like
to take that. I actually love that. Imagine living in
that fantasy.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Imagine.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Okay, The allegation here is that The New York Times
is actually cooking the books in favor of Donald Trump
and putting out what Joe's Carbon describes as click bait
articles to shape the cut, like imagine think the New
York Times is in the tank for Donald Trump, Like
it's completely insane. And then just factually he's asserting, oh,
(24:11):
we know that this is gard.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
We know it's wildly skewed.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Get No, last time in twenty twenty, it was skewed
in the other direction. It wildly overstated Joe Biden's support
versus Donald Trump. Maybe things have changed, we don't know.
Other poles have gone another possible. But to just dismiss
this like, oh, don't be ridiculous. And here's the other thing,
Sagar is he's pretending like these are outliers. That's the problem.
(24:34):
This is not an outlier. Now, some of the national
polling has been okay for Joe Biden. Some have even
had him up by a few points, some have had
it tied, some have had him down by you know,
a little bit, but within the margin of error.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
But every single battleground.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
Pole that I've seen recently, maybe there's some out there
that I haven't seen, but the battleground poles have consistently
been bad for Joe Biden. And to just like dismiss
that is incredible. But that's the White House is apparently
in this delusional state as well, where they don't believe
the polls. They're in like hashtag unskew the polls mode.
(25:09):
They don't think these accurately reflect his support. And so
even though you know, everyone looking at this objectively would
be like, you're not in a good position right now,
they're just staying the course.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
They think it's all well and good.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
So I'm looking, for example, at the battlegrounds and the
RCP polling average in every single battleground state has Trump leading.
His lowest margin is in the state of Wisconsin at
point six. In Arizona, the average is five point two.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
For his lead.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
In Georgia, the average is four point six. In Michigan
point eight, in Pennsylvania two points, in North Carolina five,
and in Nevada six point two.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
So that's the thing.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
It's not about the New York Times now again, as
you just said, and this would be a more accurate
freak out. Hey, guys, in twenty twenty two, they were
totally wrong. And so you know what, We're just going
to keep doing what we're doing, and we're going to
hope for abortion. We're going to show a little bit
more vigor. You know, he should be happy that Biden
is doing the debate. He's like, yeah, there you go,
Like that's the Joe that we need.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
And you know, that's not a terrible case. I could
make that case.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
I think there's roughly fifty percent chance that that could
be true.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
You know, I have enough, I'm humble enough.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
To have been here in our studio on the midterms
and just seeing things so shockingly wrong that you can't
state anything with any confidence now though, as Heyloman was
trying to say, he's like, look, we're just trying to
get indicators about the way things are going, and in
general I would not be comfortable with where they are.
But the problem is is that Scarborough and Biden are
(26:37):
actually comfortable where they are. And what kind of politician
is that? Maybe it will work out for you, but
that's not how you achieve victory.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Well, I think if I had to say, Biden, I
think actually believes because they they gained this perspective in
twenty twenty that like everyone online is wrong and we
know better and it's all find good And even after
they got their butts kicked in Iowa and got their
butts kicked in New Him, they still were like, no, no, no,
it's going to be It's gonna be okay. And it
(27:03):
turned out to be correct because you know, at the
end of the day, like there was no other candidate
in the sort of like you know, centrist, mainstream lane
who had any appeal with diverse voters, and you know,
the whole party coalesce behind Joe and they're able to
stay about the Bernie Sanders movement and.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Worked out for him.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
So they took that as an indication of like, no,
everything is always going to be fine, like the freak
outs and the online chatter and what the media class
has to say, Like none of this has any veracity
ever whatsoever. We're just going to assume that it's twenty
twenty and it's the Democratic primary all over again, and
we're just fine. And they don't get it, and we
(27:41):
get it and they're freaking out and they're panicking, but
really everything's fine. I think they overlearned that lesson, and
so now even as more and more data points come
in that clearly indicate you're down thirteen points in Nevada,
and you're like, it's all cool and good. Even if
you have even the pull is off by half, you're
still getting your butt kicked in the state that you
(28:02):
won pretty easily last time around. So you're just gonna
dismiss all of that and pretend like that's all fine.
So I think the Biden people, Joe Biden himself, because
we'll get to this axis report in a minute, but
there are some people in his camp who are like,
we're kind of nervous, I'm worry maybe we should do something.
But he himself in the other top brass are like, no,
we're good, It's all fine.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Like I think they actually live in that delusional world.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
I think Scarborough is just saying what his audience wants
to hear, and also what Joe Biden wants to hear,
because he wants to maintain his position. Is Joe Biden's
like favorite MSNBC anchor and stay in good graces with
the White House. I guarantee you he had a call
with someone in Biden World who was pushing exactly this
line of messaging, and he's just parroting it because it
(28:47):
feels good to the MSNBC audience, and it feels good
to his audience of one, a term we used to
use in the Trump years.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
All the time.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Biden Biden is his own audience of one for Joe Scarborough.
And so I think he's getting this directly from White
House and putting it out to an audience that is.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
Incredibly were so it was desperate to hear.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
This kind of nonsense analysis and fantasy world prognostication.
Speaker 7 (29:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So I have here in front of me the results
from Nevada. Joe Biden won fifty percent of the vote
and Donald Trump got forty seven percent, so he won
it by roughly three The polls at that time, back
in twenty twenty, even when they understated Trump's support on
the eve of the election, had Joe Biden winning approximately
by four to five percent.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Okay, so there you go. I mean we share with
in the realm comfortable.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
Here.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
There's another guy, John Rawston, who I know, you know,
Crystal kind of the Nevada political guru. He did a
whole ride up of this and he said, I think
these are bad results for Joe Biden. And he even
warned that the same New York Time poll that found
Jackie Rosen leading in the Senate race, he goes, there's
no way a split ticket.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
The split ticket.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Phenomenon that we have seen in the past just simply
does not match up with this. And if I was Rosen,
I would be freaking out.
Speaker 7 (29:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
And that's the other thing we're learning is that Biden
is actually dragging Democrats down on the ticket exactly. If
you take him out of the equation, they're actually doing
pretty well.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
It's the opposite of the Obama phenomenon, right.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Because so they want to take these results seriously from
the New York Times when it comes to the Senate candidates,
because the Democratic Senate candidates all did well in these polls.
But when it comes to Joe Biden, Oh well that's
a different matter. Now we need to hashtag unskew the polls. Yeah,
good luck with that, I mean, good luck with just
staying the course and hoping that works out for you,
because it certainly certainly doesn't look very good right now.
(30:28):
And if you were counting on Trump's legal troubles to
save you at some point, like that's not happening.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It's not happening.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Even if he's found guilty in this soul Stormy Daniels situation,
very unlikely. I think it's unlikely he faces prison time
over that. And public really hasn't tuned into it like
they're sort of it hasn't changed his poll numbers, like
it's happening right now, the damning testimony from Michael Cohen
and Stormy Daniels and whoever, David Pecker, it's happening right now,
(30:54):
and his polls are not moving or they're even edging
even you know more in his directtion, So hope you're.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Not counting on that to save the day.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
CNN did their own somewhat more mild version of this
cope is not quite as extraordinary as Joe Scarborough. But suddenly,
when a really bad result comes in from Joe Biden,
suddenly CNN learns like, oh, well, the polls, who can
even say? Who can even say whether these poles are
right whatsoever? Let's take a listen to Harry Unson's analysis here.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Polls are a snapshot in time. All right, So I
went back since nineteen hundred and seventy two. How far
are the poles off at this point? On average? They're off,
get this, by six points. They've been off by as
large as fifteen points. Michael Ducaucus was ahead of George
hw Bush at this point in nineteen eighty eight by
high single digits. It was actually George hw Bush who
(31:44):
won by high single digits. And keep in mind Trump's
only up by a point at this at this particular junction.
Speaker 7 (31:49):
So the fact is the polls can shift a lot.
Speaker 8 (31:52):
Yes, Joe Biden is in trouble, but we'll see where
we are a month, two months, three months, five months,
six months.
Speaker 7 (31:59):
Down the road.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
And when it comes to battleground polls in general, how
accurate are they?
Speaker 7 (32:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (32:04):
So this is looking at the national polls at this
point in time, What if we looked at the battleground
polls on the day of the election. All right, so
go back again. Since nineteen hundred and seventy two, they're
off by an average of four points. They're off by
an average of four points. In twenty twenty they were a
little larger.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
The era was a little larger. It was five points.
Speaker 8 (32:22):
And of course most of those polls underestimated Donald Trump.
The key thing to keep in mind here in those
pivotal battleground states in the Great Lakes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Donald Trump is ahead, but only by between one and
two points.
Speaker 7 (32:35):
So yeah, you would consider him favored. But if there's
one lesson we've.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
Learned over the last few cycles, John, it's do not
take polls to the bank, especially when the margins were
as close as they are right now.
Speaker 7 (32:45):
And who do the polls tend to be wrong for? Right?
Speaker 8 (32:51):
So one of the chief complaints that Biden the Democrats
have is in twenty twenty two, the polls underestimated Democrats, right.
In twenty twenty, it was Republicans. In twenty two twenty two,
Joe Biden, the Democrats like to argue that the polls
underestimated Democrats. Now, that was true in the key battleground
states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those major races, the polls
on average underestimated the Democratic candidates by about five points.
(33:13):
But if you look nationally, look at the National House Volte,
the polls actually underestimated Republicans by about two points. So
I'm not necessarily sure you could look at twenty twenty
two and argue that the polls will somehow this time
underestimate Joe Biden.
Speaker 7 (33:26):
The fact is the poll errors John go back and forth.
Speaker 8 (33:28):
They go back and forth within a cycle, and they
go back and forth when you compare over a bunch
of years.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
So listen, that's all. That's all accurate. I'm not saying, yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
That's all therapy sessions.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Well, that's it is.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Imagine this poll had come out in the other direction
and it showed Joe Biden up in all these battleground states.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Do you think they would be doing this segment.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Of like the Poles if they really really can't read
into this they I genuinely think it comes from a
place of they live in a bubble where they really
don't know any Trump supporters. You know, occasionally they'll run
into one in the green room that they have to
fight against or whatever, but they don't really know any
And so to look at the results and see that
Donald Trump may be leading in all these battleground states,
(34:08):
They're like, that can't possibly be true. That just doesn't
match my experience of the world and my experience of
like the people around me and how they think about
Donald Trump and how they think about Joe Biden. And
so they've got to come up with some reason why
this pole doesn't match up with their experience of life
in America, and I think this is their attempt to
(34:29):
do it. Last thing we have for you is that
Axios report I referenced earlier where I think Joe Biden
himself genuinely does believe the polls are wrong, genuinely does
believe his support is understated. Biden's pulling denial. Why doesn't
believe he's behind? And listen, again, I don't rule it out.
It is possible, but you can't be certain, Like you
(34:49):
cannot be certain. In fact, history would indicate you should
probably lean in the other direction, because when we have
had we had a previous Biden Trump race, and in
that previous Biden Trump race, which is obviously the most
analogous thing to the circumstance, it really overestimated Joe Biden,
really underestimated Donald Trump. So a midterm election is not
(35:10):
quite as analogous. And even as CNN points even that
was a mixed bag, even that wasn't clearly consistently skewed
in Democrats directions. So in any case, they have this
quote here from Biden, who has talked to donors about
how he thinks the poll numbers are wrong. He even
said to CNN in that interview that he thought that
(35:31):
the polling numbers are wrong.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
He said, quote, the.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
Polling data has been wrong all along. How many you
guys do a poll at CNN? How many folks do
you have to call to get one response? So he's
basically saying, like polling methodology has collapsed again, could be true?
Would you one hundred percent feel confident in that? There's
no way you could. You're just denying like possible reality here.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
This is to me the problem with Biden himself. And look,
this is what being freaking eighty whatever years olf that
he is. Yeah, they're just that in his way. Yeah,
they're set in their way and they don't have any urgency.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
I mean, every book you ever read about victory is
that the people who achieve it always massively underestimated their
chances of success.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
They never slept on it.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
I was just reading this book called The Supreme Commander
by Steven Ambrose.
Speaker 3 (36:18):
It's a history of Eisenhower and World War Two.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
I mean, even though he had overwhelming odds on his side, manpower,
the agony that this man lived with and thinking over
every single minute details to try and achieve victory, because
also understanding that even if one thing went wrong, it
could possibly screw the entire operation. Like, that's what I
want in a president. You know, that's what most people
would want in a president. If you really believe Biden says.
(36:43):
All the time democracy has had taken all that, it's like, okay, man,
you should probably act like it. You know, you should
fight for everything and leave it all out on the field.
But when you're this old, I mean, this is probably
as good as he can get.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Well.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
And I think that gets to something really key here,
which is, listen, one thing he could do that would
probably help his fortunes with young people in particular, and
this was also born out in New York Times polls.
He could actually change his policy visa vi Israel, he
clearly ideologically is just totally.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
Unwilling to do that.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And then the other thing he could do is literally
be a different person, because truly, truly, because part of
the core problem here is you, yourself and your age
and the lack of comfort with that among the American people.
So it's like, all right, well, you either recognize that
you are the wrong person to be running and you
drop out and you know, elevate someone else who is
(37:34):
more equipped for the challenge, or you live in dreamland
and you you know, stick with your denial. And so
I think that's where they are is because if they
actually acknowledge like Joe Biden is a uniquely weak Democratic candidate,
underperforming every single Democratic Senate candidate in the entire country,
then the only logical conclusion of that is not like, oh,
(37:54):
we need to do some more rallies or get out
the vote. It's you have to step aside because you're
not getting any You're not getting any more coherent. The
American people aren't getting any more comfortable with you personally,
So I think that's why they have to in a
sense live in the streamland.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's turn down to
foreign affairs. There was some shocking news yesterday. Prime Minister
of Slovakia, Robert Fiso, had an attempted assassination attempt after
he was leaving a public meeting. Now, just a warning,
we've blurred out and stopped any very disturbing images, but
in general this is very chaotic. So let's go and
(38:29):
put this up there on the screen. You can see
the prime minister walking there to greet some members of
the public. We froze it right there where a lone
bystander pulled out a gun, pointed it down and began shooting.
You can see his security detail immediately grab him up
under the arms, throw him into his armored vehicle, and
immediately they sped off to the hospital. The news yesterday
(38:52):
was that he was in a life threatening condition, although
it appears now that he is no longer suffering. He
did have under he did underwent emergency surgery. His condition
has been downgraded to serious, but they no longer life threatening.
So that's where things stand right now, Crystal. There are
a lot of questions swirling around this because Robert Fizo.
(39:13):
We covered him here previously in the past. He is
a very interesting figure. He was elected in Slovakia, which
is a member of NATO, almost explicitly on an anti
Ukraine AID position. He's a fascinating kind of populist figure,
which we'll get to.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
In a little bit. But you read a lot about
the assailant crystal. So what do we know?
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Yeah, well, I mean we know who this individual was.
More or less. He's a seventy one year old from
a small western town. Apparently he works as a security guard.
Speaker 7 (39:45):
You know.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
The weapon reportedly was his own. The only thing we
know about his politics is according to a local Slovakian
TV station, they pulled a video where he complains. He says,
I don't agree with the guarman's policies. Why are the
media being targeted? Why is RTVS, which is their public broadcasting,
(40:07):
under attack? Why was Mazak dismissed from his position. That's
a reference to an individual. So apparently Fio is a
very divisive figure for a whole lot of reasons. Ukraine
AID is his position on Ukraine is one of those reasons.
But he's also launched this full throated attack against public
broadcasting that's been incredibly divisive in the subject of current
protests in the country. And then there's also been a
(40:30):
lot of investigations of him in the past because he
was in government four and then his government collapsed over
allegations regarding actually a targeted murder, and so the people
that investigated him and his party over those allegations, over
corruption allegations, he has fired a bunch of those.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
So this is one of those individuals who was fired.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So according to at least what we know of this individual,
it seems like he had a lot of problems with
the direction of the government under Robert Fiso.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
So that's what we know at.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
This as do we know so far.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
It did not stop though some international observers, especially in
the UK, they hate his guts basically all of the
West does because he doesn't agree with them. On Ukraine,
it's him and it's Victor Orbon. We had a sky
News report almost immediately after which just look at the
way that they basically try and justify this assassination attempt.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
Take a listen. We don't know his condition yet, but
he's being treated.
Speaker 9 (41:21):
But it's worth thinking about who this individual is, as
I said, described in reporting as a populist as a nationalist.
Speaker 10 (41:27):
Yeah, well that would make sense. I mean Slovakia is
a very conflicted place at the moment. I mean I
Figo himself. I mean, he established this smear party SMER,
which is a social democracy party, back in nineteen ninety nine,
and he's been I think it was you just saying
prime minister three times. So he is a well known figure.
But he's become very pro Russian over the years. One
(41:49):
wonders why and how, but maybe that's his conviction and
he's I mean like Victor Orbann in Hungary. I mean
he's set his teeth against going along with sanctions, with
EU sanctions against common procurement, which Slovakia is very it's
a small country. I mean the sense that it's it's
you know, the Czechoslovakia, as was the Czech Republic, is
the bigger bit. Slovakia is the is the smaller bit,
(42:11):
although it was the more industrial in the old days,
so it's not to be it's not negligible, but Slovakia
is not a major player within the EU, but a
bit like Hungary, which is also a bigger country. It's
not a very big player in the EU economically. They
dig their toes in against aid to Ukraine and against
(42:34):
any sort of sympathy with Kiv and they keep saying, look,
we want the war to finish, and by that they
mean they want the Russians to succeed and then the
war will be over if Ukraine would just surrender and
give up territory. And so that's the view he takes. Now,
that's very divisive in Slovakia. It's divisive within the EU.
So it's not surprising that this sort of event might
(42:55):
take place because it's a very unhappy country at the moment, Slovakia,
not just on this basis, but on the basis of
how the country is going in general towards more authoritarian future.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Not surprising, not not at all. And it's like rampant speculation.
It's not even true whenever it turns out, well, we
know about the assailant. It turns out Slovakia is its
own country with its own problems.
Speaker 4 (43:17):
And they everything's about us, right yeah now or Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
It's like, hey, yeah, actually maybe people in Slovakia aren't
thinking all that much about Ukraine, but to them, oh
it's fine, you know. Imagine if it was a flip,
you know, and it was somebody who was a pro
Ukraine leader, let's say in Estonia or something like that,
another very insignificant, tiny country in Eastern Europe. And there
was speculation, you know, you know, in the interim that
they would be losing it here in Washington. But because
(43:42):
he has the wrong views on Ukraine, oh he's you know, basically,
it's fine, whatever happened to him. We actually have a
video just to give you an idea. What does this
man actually think. Let's play some of it, Okay, I'll
read from the subtitles. A couple of years ago, he says,
I believe the war in Ukraine began earlier in twenty fourteen,
when Ukrainian fashion killed citizens of Russian nationality in Ukraine.
(44:03):
So then he continues, I have a different opinion on
this matter. I still believe the Americans are fighting Russia
with Ukrainian soldiers. In twenty fourteen, Russia launched inoffensive against
the dun Boss. It all started with the murder or
murders of citizens of Russian nationality by Ukrainian fascists. And
please do not again distort all the data that exists here.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
So what do we learn from this?
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Now, he clearly has a longer view of the situation,
and he believes that it's a proxy war. That is
the same position held by Viktor Orbon of Hungary. And
even though those two gentlemen are members of NATO, prime ministers,
duly elected and very popular in their own hometowns, because
they have different dissonant and different views. You know, you
(44:49):
have Sky News here and the seat of the UK
and in Europe just being like, oh, it's okay, it's
totally fine.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (44:56):
I mean, they really walk like right up to the
door of just outright just yeah, it's understandable someone would
target an attempt to assassinate the prime minister of Slovakia,
and I mean, in some ways, to me, the most
revealing part is just how they immediately fixate on his
position on Ukraine. Now, maybe that played into the motivations
of this. We don't know, and you didn't know, And
(45:19):
in fact, the only political commentary we have from the
alleged shooter doesn't say anything about Ukraine. So there's also
a level of chauvinism here of just assuming that the
reason that this broadcaster is upset with feats so it
must be the same reason that the shooter was upset
with him. And by the way, it's kind of understandable
really when you think about it, Isn't it so just
an incredible, like revealing moment that they would spend so
(45:42):
much time in that instant digging into what his position
is Ukraine versus Russia when there was no indication that
actually had anything to do with this targeted assassination. They
just jumped right to the conclusion that, like, this must
be about us, right, because everything's about us.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
But they're also saying is like he was asking for it,
he was asking me for it, And it's pretty much,
by the way, according to your own press, Britz, how
is it going in Ukraine? Oh shocking. Let's put this
up there on the screen. You're not going to see
this on the front page of the New York Times.
President Zelenski has been trapesing all over the world with
his hand out asking for weapons. Has now canceled all
upcoming foreign trips as Russia advances.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
Quote in the Kharkiv region.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
So as the news that we brought you on what
was it on Tuesday in our show, things are going
terribly for the Ukrainians on the battlefield, bad enough that
Zelenski no longer feels comfortable even leaving the country, and
their generals are in a full blown panic. But of
course they're not going to lead with that, when they're
going to continue painting everybody with false visions of victory.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
It's a sad situation, all really is.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
All right, Let's get to another deeply sad situation, although
you know, somewhat amusing, I guess in this case Red Lobster.
Speaker 3 (46:52):
This is what I fought for in the show.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
I've been laughing about this for two days, and I
think a lot of people would like to know the details.
Speaker 3 (46:58):
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Dozens of Red Lobster locations suddenly were ended overnight and
just shut down. Why because the company is on the
verge of total bankruptcy, saying that they were going to
have to auction off equipment of fifty different locations all
had to close for foot for quote footprint rationalization. Now,
(47:23):
what spawned the sudden closure of all of these store crystals.
It appears to be a potential Chapter eleven filing on
the heels of all you can Eat Shrimp endless Shrimp
as it was called. It turns out that Red Lobster,
which was already on the face of financial brinksmanship, their
(47:44):
CEOs or their executives of a new team came up
with this idea. They're like, all right, we got to
get butts back in the seats. Inflation is killing us.
These chain restaurants continue to lose customers because that's one
of the main ones where lower income and middle class
diners usually were consistent customers. Well, what we're going to
do is we're going to bring them in here with
(48:05):
an endless shrimp all you can eat promotion. But it
turns out that they were massively underestimated the American public's
appetite for endless shrimp, and they lost it in general
millions of dollars in the span of just a year
or so on the so called endless shrimp deal, so
(48:25):
much so that their tie suppliers of shrimp were shocked
at the amount that they were going through, and they
were running massive losses because customers were so taking advantage
of quote, all you can eat endless shrimp at the table.
Speaker 1 (48:41):
So your reaction, yeah, I mean they said all you
can eat, and Americans were like, challenge okay, challenge. You
know me, it's deeply personally sad. I have like a
deep emotional connection to Bread Lobster. First of all, I
still eat their Chutter biscuits all the time. You can
buy the mix.
Speaker 3 (48:57):
They still sell.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
It, and my mom makes them particularly well. She adds
even extra butter, and they're so working delicious. She literally
made them for me like two nights ago, and they're amazing.
And if that goes away, I'm going to be really sad.
I'm going to be really sad because those Chatter biscuits
are an important contribution to the culinary landscape of America.
In my personal opinion, that's number one.
Speaker 4 (49:16):
Number two.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
When I was a kid, we really, we very rarely
went out to eat. You know, we'd occasionally do like McDonald's,
like after swim meet we go to McDonald's, or if
it was like a really important occasion, like a Mother's
Day kind of a thing, we might go to Red Lobster.
And so I have very fond memories of going to
Red Lobster. It was always a big deal and very
special when we went there. So I still have a
(49:37):
you know, deep sentimental connection to Red Lobster. I have
to say I must be part of their decline because
I haven't actually eaten in the restaurant in many years.
I think, you know, the landscape was sliding against them
for quite a while. Now I do wonder if they
were in better financial position though, if this endless stromp
thing might have worked out for.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
Them in the end.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
It's certainly possible.
Speaker 4 (49:59):
It could be that. Okay, you take the loss.
Speaker 1 (50:01):
I mean, businesses do this all the time, where you
take a short term loss and you sort of underprice
your item to get people. At Walmart used to this
is part of how Walmart grew in the early days.
You underprice something to bring people in, and then once
you get them there and get them, then then remember like,
oh that was a great experience, let's go back, let's
do it again, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (50:19):
So maybe in the end it wouldn't have been a
bad decision.
Speaker 1 (50:21):
But yeah, you never underestimate American's ability to eat endless
amounts of whatever.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
Americans are Like, what did you think endless meant? Bro?
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Yeah, it's it's like we're going to take advantage America's
always been great. Yeah, I mean, on the one siand
it's also kind of sad whenever you consider it, But
the business dynamics behind it are still not one that
we should celebrate. I mean, it is largely according to
their own customer research, it's the casual dining spend with
customers of incomes of fifty thousand dollars or less that
(50:49):
have had to dramatically reduce visits and order fewer items
when eating out, and more likely to take advantage of
endless shrimp. Yeah, because they don't have any money and
inflation is just murdering them.
Speaker 3 (51:00):
I say other thing.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
Too again, I like, you have not been in a
red lobster in many years. We don't even have many
around us. But some entrees are going for like thirty
forty bucks. Wow, person, which is wild. I mean when
you consider that at a chain restaurant, it's like, well,
what's even the point. I might as well go to
somewhere nice. We're gonna pay forty or fifty bucks. Apparently
there have been that similar. There have been similar bankruptcies
(51:23):
in the last several months with similar types of chains.
So the text mex chain, the Wall Street Journal notes
is the Tijuana Flat, New York based Sticky Fingers joint
filed for chapter eleven. And then there was a famous
one one that hit me particularly hard. Fox Trot Markets,
which just suddenly overnight just collapsed. It was that they
were very they're urban, so that we had one in
(51:45):
my neighborhood.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
There was well, there are many, like a high end
pharmacy or something.
Speaker 3 (51:48):
It's not farm.
Speaker 2 (51:48):
It was like, it was like, I don't know, they
build themselves like a high end corner store. It's like
a place you can get coffee and upscale goods or whatever.
It's just convenient because it's it's like a CBS, but
it's the nicer goods way.
Speaker 1 (52:01):
Okay, got and that concept didn't work actually, because well
I think that clientele has money.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
Yeah, but they do, but I don't think they had
enough because they were they were billing all these like
delivery things. They were they opened massive amounts of stores
and then it turned out they just closed completely overnight.
I actually got a message I posted about this on
Instagram one of the people who worked at a red lobster.
They said that they were worked at one of the
top ten red lobsters in revenue just last year and
(52:26):
then overnight just lose their job.
Speaker 3 (52:28):
You know. He's like a server there.
Speaker 2 (52:30):
And then overnight they were just like, yeah, actually, every
single one of you is fired. So it's devastating. Actually,
you know, for a lot of the people who liked
the restaurant, and.
Speaker 4 (52:37):
My sisters used to work at the.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Really were the tips.
Speaker 4 (52:41):
Yeah, I think they were pretty.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
Good, Actually they did. I think they liked working there.
They enjoyed that experience. Yeah, I think your point about
the structure of the economy is the most important one,
which is, you know, the audience they're catering to, was like,
it's like a working class audience, and those are the
people who have been hit hardest by inflation, those people
who have been hit hardest by high interest rates. So
(53:03):
the fact that this would be the moment when it's like,
first of all, if you're giving me a deal on
shrimp that I can't refuse, like I'm getting I'm getting
in there, I'm taking advantage of it. And second of all, yeah,
but that's going to be it, Like I can't be
in red lobster every week.
Speaker 4 (53:17):
That's not going to work for me.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
And my budget is like nowhere near flush enough to
take advantage of that. So I'm sure they took a
hit during COVID as well, So a lot of these
chains were probably like struggling COVID hits them struggling war.
Speaker 4 (53:30):
This was like a last ditch effort. And now here
we are.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
Let's go ahead and skip ahead, guys to D three
here and talk about Boeing because this is very important.
The Justice Department it says that Boeing has violated the
deal that would avoid prosecution after the seven thirty seven
Max crash. So, for those who don't remember, the seven
thirty seven Max had the software update system where for guidance,
which they did not tell the pilots or properly train
(53:55):
them about. This led to the deaths of several hundred
people in two separate crashes twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen.
Boeing then reached not only a settlement with the Department
of Justice where they would pay some two point five
billion dollars, but one which would have them avoid prosecution
on any charges of fraud misleading federal regulators who approved
(54:15):
the plane. They blamed basically deception on two low level employees,
fired them, and they avoided prosecution for themselves and for
the chief pilot, even though a lot of evidence at
that time pointed both towards the company high level culpability.
Speaker 3 (54:30):
Yeah, they escaped, go to the they escaped for sure.
It was BS.
Speaker 7 (54:33):
Well.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
It's pretty interesting because now the head of the Justice
Department's Criminal Fraud Division says that Boeing actually has violated
the terms of that settlement by quote, failing to make
promised changes to detect and prevent violations of federal anti
fraud laws. So what that means is not only can
(54:53):
they be prosecuted for previous actions, but they can also
be prosecuted for any federal criminal violation of which the
US has knowledge, which includes the current investigation into what
happened with the door plug flying off in the mid
flight during that Alaska Airlines flight, where they have already
found quality checks and other systemic problems inside of Boeing.
(55:16):
This comes on the heels now of two whistleblowers suddenly dying,
you know, in the midst of this investigation. But the
reason it's so so significant is that this opens up
crystal prosecution at the highest levels of the company and
further finds after they really did get away scott free
last time around. I mean, two point five billion is
(55:36):
nothing for them when you consider even how much of
their own stock they bought back, which is like ten.
Speaker 3 (55:40):
To twelve billion.
Speaker 4 (55:41):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
And I mean, we don't know whether they are going
to face any sort of federal charges. This doesn't guarantee
that that will actually happen, but it really opens the
door for it. And Asaga was just alluding to, including
that original charge of fraud because they lied to the
government about what happened with those seven thirty seven maxes
(56:03):
that crashed, killing hundreds of people.
Speaker 4 (56:05):
They lied about that and covered it up. They got caught.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
And the way they got out of charges that first
time is bought through this It's called a consent decree.
Through this consent decree that required them to pay some
amount of money to victims. This two point five billion dollars,
et cetera, which I know, you know, two point five
billion dollars sounds like a lot, but in the grand
scheme of Boeing and in the grand scheme of executives
actually facing criminal charges and potential prison time, it's a
(56:31):
drop in the bucket. So now that situation that they
thought they had sort of wrapped up with the bow
and put behind them and were able to move forward,
now totally one hundred percent back on the table. Of course,
this comes as there are more and more whistleblowers coming
out about the culture at Boeing and how sloppy it
is and how profits rule over safety every single time.
(56:55):
We've now had two of those whistleblowers quote unquote end
up dead. Apparently they need to get rid of a
few more whistleblowers since they're going to get themselves out
of this trouble. It looks like because a picture has
already been painted of incredibly sloppy and negligent practices with
absolutely disastrous results. I mean, we are so lucky that
(57:18):
with that door plug situation, that that wasn't yet another
mass casualty event, because if they were a little higher,
if you'd had you know, people happens to be wearing
their sweet belts, thank god, and didn't get sucked out
of the spaces created there. I mean, we are so
that was such a narrow miss. But really, you know,
shin of light once again on and how they basically
(57:41):
haven't changed since causing since killing these hundreds of people previously.
So floodgates are open and Boeing is I think has
feel like they're in big trouble at this point, I
would hope.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
So we'll see, let's return to that DOJ release that
came out previously. Let's put this up there on the
screen just to show every This was the original one
that was announced in January of twenty twenty one. So
this is actually under the Trump and Biden administration here
where they were charged with the Max fraud conspiracy and
agreed to pay the fine. They basically avoided all criminal prosecution.
(58:14):
And it's just in a matter of three years re materialize.
Don't forget this too. Boeing got a massive bailout from
the federal government back in twenty twenty during the COVID,
the COVID bailouts in March of twenty twenty. And you know,
they've been a major recipient of taxpayer dollars on top
of all of the government contracts that they get. This
is a very vital company to the US. So for
(58:37):
all of this to happen and for this basically the government,
you know, had the chance to actually do something about
this and let them get away with it. Again, that's
a major story of corporate corruption. So we're going to
stay on top of it because we know how important
it is, and we'll give everybody updates when the time comes.
Speaker 1 (58:54):
All right, let's go ahead and turn to the very
latest on of Israel. Some really extraordinary noteworthy to developments
from the domestic politics there.
Speaker 4 (59:02):
Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (59:04):
So Israeli Defense Minister Yoev Galant is calling directly called
a press conference and called on Netnu directly to reject
military rule in Gaza. Let me go ahead and read
you a little bit of his comments here. He said
that he wanted to he challenged him to promote an
alternative governing body to Hamas's rule. He goes on to say,
(59:26):
as early as October seventh, the military establishment said it
was necessary to work towards finding an alternative to Hamas,
emphasizing that the end of the military campaign is a
political decision. The day after Hamas will only be achieved
by actors who replace Hmas. This is first and foremost
and Israeli interest. Galant said the military's plan was not
flagged for discussion, and worst, no alternative was.
Speaker 4 (59:46):
Brought in its place.
Speaker 1 (59:47):
Military rule in Gaza is a bad and dangerous alternative
for the State of Israel. According to him, such a
decision would be paid for quote in blood and victims,
and it will come at a heavy economic cost. NETANYAHUO
responded to this, saying, after the terrible massacre, I ordered
the destruction of Hamas Idea fighters and security forces are
fighting for this. As long as Hamas remains, no other
(01:00:09):
actor will run Gaza, and certainly not the Palestinian authority.
Psycho Bezaliel Smocher Chus Finance minister said quote. Defense Minister
Galant effectively announced today his support for the establishment of
a Palestinian terrorist state as a reward to terrorism and
Hamas for the worst massacre to have been carried out
against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Such a defense
(01:00:30):
minister must be replaced in order to achieve the war's goals.
That was Ben Gavier who said that last part. So basically,
now even the Israeli Defense Minister Saber is Hamas, is
pro Hamas. That's the level of discourse that we're at.
I mean, listen, you have Golant has been in favor
of total war and annihilation from the beginning. So now
to at this point be like, oh wait, you don't
have a plan for the day after it is preposterous
(01:00:52):
because we're you know, just YouTubers, and we've been talking
about this since day one. It was very clear there
was never any plan. The only plan was devastation and destruction.
That has been abundantly evident. So you're just now noticing that.
But still the fact that he very publicly called bb
to the carpet. This comes on the heels of the
generals also briefing in a very similar manner against Bebe
(01:01:14):
the gance. Also, Benny Gantz also took the side of, yo,
have galant here siding, you know, on the side of like, hey,
you need to come up with some sort of plan
of what's going to happen next. And of course the
Smotrich and the ben Gavier's of the world, they have
a plan and this is not speculation. They're out there
talking about we need to push Palestinians out, we need
(01:01:37):
to fully resettle Gaza.
Speaker 4 (01:01:39):
That's their plan. Bibe has just sort of pushed this
all off because to.
Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Agree with them is to blow up the coalition on
the more quote unquote moderate side, and to agree with
the quote unquote moderates and whatever their plan is, which
isn't even really clear either, would be to blow up
the coalition on the other side. So all of these
people are complicit in, you know, the utter destruction and
devastation and utter stupidity from an Israeli national interest perspective
(01:02:07):
of the situation. But now they're starting to play the
blame game and try to throw each other under the Bible.
Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
I told you it was going to happen, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
And by the way, I went back and I found
the full quote, and some of these are just amazing
because they're saying it, you know, in academic speak, but
you can read between the lines. So here's one from
Colonel Peter Mansur. He wrote a book on the search.
I highly recommend it. It's like an actual military history.
He was chief of staff that David Petraeus back in
two thousand and seven. Here's a direct quote that he
(01:02:34):
says to the Washington Post. The Israelis and Gaza are
committing the same primary mistake of the Americans in Afghanistan
in Iraq, seeking a primary military solution to fundamentally a
political issue. By pursuing the destruction of Hamas and ignoring
the root causes of the conflict, the Israelis, by their actions,
are creating more future combatants than they are eliminating. Inevitably,
Hamas two point zero will rise from the ashes of
(01:02:55):
the current fighting and they already have. Yeah, no, no,
I know why they're playing the playing game now because
now they're like, oh, it's not this actually turns out
and it's really not working, and that our JV military
is not particularly good at what it does. I mean
just today, you know, I see the news five israelis
what is it? We're killed by friendly fire? They fired
on their.
Speaker 1 (01:03:14):
Own and a number of others injured. They yeah, they
murdered their own soldiers.
Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
They murder their own soldiers, They murdered their own hostages,
and not a single sat which has been rescued. I mean,
which Palestinian is going to govern this place in the future.
Speaker 7 (01:03:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
The only thing too, is he's trying to get out
of a military occupation. I'm like, no, no, yeah, I
want you to do it, because it's like they're the
ones now you got to eat and reap and what
if you have sown from the future. And that's why
the Palestinian authority, the US and the Arabs, nobody should
bail them out of their own problem. They got to
eat the cost of what they've done.
Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
I mean, it's just, it's just that there is no
answer other than horrifying ones from this point forward, not
nothing that's actually on the table. I mean, ideally Palaestins
would be able to govern themselves and have their own state,
et cetera, et cetera, but clearly that's.
Speaker 4 (01:03:57):
Not in the cards. I saw.
Speaker 1 (01:04:00):
Even the Arab states at this point are just like,
we need some sort of a statement they're committed to
two state solution for us to cooperate.
Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
With you whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
Even that is not even possible because net Nyahoo is
adamantly opposed to even pretending that that is something that
he's interested.
Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
He is dead set against it.
Speaker 1 (01:04:18):
Has been his entire career, brags about it, has staked
his entire political power and career on being the guy
that is going to forever block a two state solution.
So yeah, every every answer is a horrifying one and
has been from the beginning, which is why I have
You know, I have no sympathy for the Yoaw of Galantza,
the world or these generals or whatever. The military is
(01:04:39):
the one who they're the ones who came up with
this plan for total war and all out annihilation. What
did you think it was gonna look like the day after?
What did you think that was going to lead to?
Who did you think you were dealing with here in
terms of net Nyahu and Smotrich and Bengevir. But it
is incredible that you now have even you know, Smotridge
basically accusing the Defense Minister of being pro home, which
(01:05:01):
just shows you the utter insanity of the situation. For
what it's worth, the US came out and you know,
backed up you have Golan said we agree with him.
Speaker 4 (01:05:08):
There needs to be a plan. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
It's just an it's sort of an utterly ridiculous conversation
because it's been so obvious from the beginning that Hamas
cannot be quote unquote defeated in the way that they
portrayed from the beginning. The plan that they were, you know,
enacting this total annihilation, which is devastating, devastating to the
civilian population, of civilian life in Gaza, was not a
(01:05:33):
plan designed even to achieve that objective as a plan
to designed to achieve revenge and destruction.
Speaker 4 (01:05:41):
That's what it was.
Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
To satiate the anger and the outrage, understandable outrage after
October seventh, But it was never about anything other than
we are going to destroy. We're going to have massive devastation.
And now, I mean, this is interesting. So there's starting
to be all these acknowledgments from a bunch of the
mayor officials and even a bunch of Israeli officials that
(01:06:02):
you know, you're not going to actually defeat Hamas. And
latest version of this in the Wall Street Journal. It's
both true and interesting that this is being put out there. Now,
put this up on the screen. So they're saying Hamas
shift to gorilla tactics raise the specter of forever war
for Israel. The Islamist militant group is using hit and
run tactics and smaller groups of fighters to show it
(01:06:22):
can fight for months, if not years. They go into
some interesting details here about how HAMAS has continued to
be able to effectively hit the IDF and how you
know they were able to use their tunnel system more
effectively than anticipated. They still haven't been able to get
sin war, etcetera, etcetera. These are all things we've been
talking about. But I think it's funny how they frame
the saga that their shift to gorilla tactics as if
(01:06:44):
Hamas was ever like a regular fighting force, you know,
I mean, this was always a gorilla insurgency, even as
they were technically the government of the Gaza Strip. And
so I also read into this a bit of cobe
of like, oh, well, the reason we won't be able
to defeat them is because they've shifted to these gorilla tactics.
This was is no different than from the beginning. This
(01:07:05):
was very obvious and very apparent. And by the way,
you have given Hamas and Islamic Jihad and whoever else
so much recruiting material that you know, as a social
movement and as an appealing form of resistance to Palestinian people,
like who do you think these orphans or these you know,
kids who watch their brother or sister killed and their
(01:07:27):
home destroyed, or who themselves were shot in Angela, Who
do you think that they're going to support?
Speaker 4 (01:07:32):
What sort of political ideology do you think that they're
going to have?
Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
So so, in any case, that's the framing now is like,
oh well, gosh, the quote here is actually interesting. From this,
the head of the Middle East and North Africa program
at International Crisis Group says, quote Hamas is everywhere in Gaza.
Hamas is far from defeated. So that's where we are.
Even as they have gone into Rafa. Now remember Rafa
was suppose, Oh this is the last day and this
(01:07:56):
is how we'll really defeat Hamas. We at the same time,
they've had to go back into northern Gaza, Gaza City, Shibali,
your refugee can't because guess what when you left and
there was just nothing but a vacuum. Yeah, who else
is going to come back into power than Hamas?
Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Yeah, And I think that actually another way to look
at Gallant's comments, He's trying to bail out himself from
the future.
Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
What the future will look again?
Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
You know, he said, at all of this, what their
military took in terms of casualties is child's play compared
to what will come from actual military occupation. Look no
further than US military casualties in Iraq. If you're actually
responsible for governing this place, you better gear up. You
better have the best suicide bomb. You know, you bet,
I have the best practices that you possibly can. And
(01:08:40):
even then, hundreds of you know, possibly thousands of your
troops are going to get killed. And this was inevitable
from the beginning. This is not the way that they
should have fought the war. But there I really I
want them to reap what they have sown because they
need to bear the cost. And a lot of this
also is I think that they're trying to get the
US and the Arab States to basically fail them out
(01:09:00):
of whatever will look like in the future. But I
don't support that at all because they're the ones. And
you know, I don't know if you noted this too,
it's not just the military. He's like, the economic cost
of this will be terrible. I'm like, you blew the
shit out of this place, You're paying for it. But
of course, knowing US will probably build them out.
Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
In the end.
Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
I just want I just want adjust resolution. I just
want people to not be starving to death. I want
kids to stop getting massacred. And I don't know when
that is ever going to come. I mean, it just
feels like there's no end insight. Adding to the horror
we showed you earlier this week, the way that these
right wing activists have been upping their attacks on aid convoys,
(01:09:38):
you have a dire humanitarian situation there.
Speaker 4 (01:09:41):
I really encourage you.
Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
Ryan and Emily did a gut wrenching interview with an
American nurse who is trapped in a hospital in Conunis
and talking about the situation for her and her colleagues
and for regular Palestinians. It's just it's unimaginable. And you
have these psychos who are protesting by blocking the little
(01:10:03):
bit of aid, trying to block whatever AID is actually
managing to make its way into the Gaza Strip, furthering
what are already in portions of the Gaza Strip deemed
to be famine conditions. The US National Security Advisor Jake
Sullivan actually responded to some of the latest settler attacks,
the ones that we showed you on the show earlier
this week.
Speaker 4 (01:10:21):
Let's take a listen to what Jake Sullivan had to say.
Speaker 9 (01:10:23):
Since Israel took the Rafa crossing, we have seen difficulty
getting aid through either Rafa or Karen Shalom, and this
is a matter of great concern to us. This is
something we're working not just with the Israeli government, but
the Egyptian government in the United Nations, because it will
take all three of them working together to make this happen.
This is an urgent and critical situation. We have got
to get those crossings open to get more aid in.
(01:10:46):
That has been an issue of the past through days,
since these military operations, and it's something we are working
through with all the relevant parties. It is a total
outrage that there are people who are attacking and looting
these convoys come from Jordan going to Gaza to deliver
humanitarian assistance. We are looking at the tools that we
(01:11:06):
have to respond to this, and we are also raising
our concerns at the highest level of the Israeli government
and it's something that we make no bones about. This
is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
So some tutting there over these settlers, Yeah, tough words.
I'm sure they're having difficult conversations behind the scenes, Sagrath.
They've raised this with the highest levels of government, and
since they're not willing to actually do anything, and even
their little like you know, slight pause on a weapon
shipment was immediately overcome, Ryan and Emily covered. Now they're
shipping another billion dollars in weapons, So they're willing to
(01:11:39):
actually do anything about these things. Obviously, we're not going
to hold our breath. We got some more details from
how Ratz. This was actually written up in Times of Israel.
The reporting is from Haretz about who these people are,
who these right wing activists are that are blocking these
A convoys, and in particular we have direct reporting about
collaboration with these government which is no surprise because their
(01:12:01):
official government policy has been a complete siege and have
only allowed in a minimal amount of aid under pressure.
Speaker 4 (01:12:08):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
So first of all, the noteworthy thing from the convoy
attacks and from these protests that we've been pointing to
is oftentimes the police and military standing by and doing
absolutely nothing. So in the wake of this and after
this cause this international upset which is the focus of
the headline here Israeli police and the IDF. They traded
blame once said the police said the army was supposed
(01:12:32):
to be guarding the trucks. The army said the incident
fell into the police's jurisdiction. But the reality is they
spoke to a senior security establishment official. That individual told
Haretz that quote, police are turning a blind eye to
the rioting of lawbreakers who luten burned the AID and
also alleged they were receiving inside information regarding the movement
(01:12:56):
of the trucks. So not only as a blind eyed
being turned. They're all so getting information about where the
trucks are going from government sources so that they can
attack those AID convoys, loot and burn them and assault
the drivers too. By the way, the official went on
to say, some members of the police force avoid cracking
down on the activists, while others off only reluctantly agree
(01:13:17):
to tackle the issue.
Speaker 4 (01:13:18):
Quote, there is a feeling they're.
Speaker 1 (01:13:20):
Trying to please someone specific in the government, the official added,
referring to National Security Minister Aamar Ben Kavier, whose office
oversees the police.
Speaker 4 (01:13:30):
So they're turning a blind eye.
Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
They're feeding them non public information so that they can
go and assault these AID convoys. And it's all because
this is official Israeli government policy. I saw another report,
another independent analysis. You know, we talked about the Flower massacre,
the idea of firing on Palestinians who were trying to
get AID off of a truck and killing one hundred
(01:13:52):
of them. There have been eighty some Israeli Defense Force
attacks on AID shipments eighty some, So that was not
an isolated incident. That is part of a pattern and
which you have to you know, you have to assume
is an intentional policy from the Israeli government, because otherwise
it wouldn't be happening some eighty times, they wouldn't be
(01:14:14):
feeding this secret information. Then you know, the last thing
I'll show you here is there was another attack on
a Palestinian driver.
Speaker 4 (01:14:21):
We can put this up on the screen. This is
very disturbing.
Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
You can see him there on the ground, suffering, by
the way, no one helping him, no one caring. There
are soldiers right there doing nothing for him. You'd see
these settlers with giant weapons. And the reason they attacked
this man who happens to be a truck driver. A
senior official says, oh, well, they beat him because they
thought he was delivering aid. I think of the sickness
(01:14:47):
of those where they almost use it as an excuse. Well,
you know, it was understandable that they assault, aggressively assaulted
this Palestinian truck driver because they thought he might be
trying to feed starving people.
Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
Just grotesque.
Speaker 2 (01:14:58):
Yeah, the whole thing is nuts, and it just shows
you how little control that they are not. Okay, either
have control the situation or they don't have control situation.
Speaker 3 (01:15:05):
Both are terrifying.
Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
We also wanted to give everybody an update on the peer,
the military peer.
Speaker 3 (01:15:10):
Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
Ken Klippenstein for End of the Show can exclusively report
the Pentagon expects to have the Gods of PA peer
in place as soon as the next twenty four hours.
But that has now been confirmed by the US military.
But then the question is is how much aid is
actually going to go in this? Like what's happening? It
will quote soon flow to Israel and or so soon flow. Remember,
(01:15:33):
there's several questions here. Are is really troops going to
pre screen the aid that's going in? Are we going
to make sure that our troops aren't attacked? The bill
for this is some known three hundred and fifty million dollars,
while there's perfectly good trucks sitting at the Rafa crossing
which we don't even have to pay for and is
waiting to go in. Our own producer Mac was flagging
(01:15:54):
the possibility that this they may then just shut all
aid off that's coming in through a much more inefficient peer.
Just has to also happens to be that we have
to pay for it and facilitate.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
Yeah, so the whole thing is a.
Speaker 2 (01:16:05):
Boondoggle where you know, instead of exerting diplomatic pressure for them.
Just let aid that's already coming in. Our troops are
in harms way, we're eating the cost. I cannot think
of a better example of our policy towards Israel.
Speaker 1 (01:16:17):
Complete insanity. Yeah, at the very best, this is a
virtue signal. At the very best, it's an ass covering bullshit, expensive,
dangerous virtue signal. At worst, it's much more nefarious because
remember Babe said, hey, maybe we can use this peer
to help ship some of these Palestinians on here and
achieve his goal of quote unquote fitting out the population.
So at worst, we end up being complicit in the
(01:16:39):
ethnic cleansing, not just complicit, but actively aiding and betting
the ethnic cleansing. Biden announced this in a State of
the Union. Actually, ah, it's his idea, Gus, he's some
great humanitarian while reporting comes on off to the fact, Oh, actually,
this was Bebe's idea. This was Bebe's idea, So tell
me what his intentions are for. So that's number one.
Number two, the US has defunded and refuses to work
(01:17:00):
with UNRA, the number one aid organization actually.
Speaker 4 (01:17:03):
On the ground.
Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
And even though it has now turned out that the
allegations about ANRA having Hamas terras whatever, total and complete bullshit.
Speaker 4 (01:17:11):
The Israelis never provided.
Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
A shred of evidence to back up those claims which
were used to defund this critical agency at a time
when Palestines are literally starving to death. So we're not
working with UNRA. So how is the aid getting distributed?
Speaker 4 (01:17:26):
No one knows.
Speaker 1 (01:17:26):
Answered that, no one knows how to answer that, there's
very little in the way of planning. And then third
to the point about this being very dangerous. Gaza is
an active war zone in case you don't know, And yeah,
Hamas is still out there and I don't think they
love us too much right now.
Speaker 4 (01:17:42):
And by the way, while they were constructing this.
Speaker 1 (01:17:44):
Peer, there were actually tempted attacks in the area and
you know, directly aimed at our people that are constructing
this peer. So total insanity comes at a time when
the Rafa crossing, which has been the key entry point
for aid, has been because of the Israeli invasion into Rafa.
Another crossing was also closed. You have increasingly dire situation
(01:18:09):
in the northern Gaza strip was the place that was
under the most to us and where you know, UN
officials had said officially famine had set in. Now the
southern Gaza strip is also approaching those level of conditions.
We don't really know exactly the dire circumstances that they
are facing there, but based on the report from the
nurse on the ground and other things, we're anecdotally getting out.
(01:18:30):
It's a very bad situation because some of the key
crossings have already been closed. So dire situation. And our
solution is this utter and complete, dangerous, stupid, expensive nonsense.
Speaker 3 (01:18:40):
Yep, there's just two Peru.
Speaker 2 (01:18:41):
There's no, there's there's no it's bottomless, just what we
will the stolishness, the foolishness and humiliation on behalf of Israel.
Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
But I do want to put quick shout out to
Ken He just went independent.
Speaker 3 (01:18:53):
That's right, he's got his new newsletters. You guys should
be a member.
Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
The subscribe, support him. He's just a fantastic reporter. I mean,
think about here. He is independent journalists. This is a
big scoop.
Speaker 4 (01:19:02):
No, it's huge, and he got it before New York Times.
Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
Watch out any of these people, you know, Axios, CNN.
He beat them to this big scoop. Even as an
independent journalist. He's got fantastic sources, really good, does an
excellent job, so please give him a.
Speaker 4 (01:19:17):
Follow if you're able to.
Speaker 3 (01:19:18):
There you go. All right, Hey everybody, thank you so
much for watching.
Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
As we said, Premium subscribers, what day Sunday. Check your email,
big subscriber that is coming, big announcement that is coming to.
Speaker 3 (01:19:30):
All of you. We love you.
Speaker 2 (01:19:31):
We're a lot of work that's going on behind the scenes.
It's a big announcement exclusively for you, and we will
see you all on Monday.
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. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today. When do
we have crystal?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Indeed, we do.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We have what I would describe us some actually kind
of good news. Presidential debates are actually happening by through
down the gauntlin Trump accepted, blah blah blah. Anyway, we'll
get into all of that. RFK Junior also trying to
get on the stage, even though they are very much
aggressively trying to block in. Yeah, so there's a lot
to discuss there and why this is all happening. We
also have some extreme levels of cope that are happening
(00:51):
over on both CNN, but in particular over at Morning Joe,
over that New York Times CNA poll that we covered
earlier this week, which is an absolute train wreck for
Joe Biden, so we will show you that. Also, some
bad and also interesting news from overseas the Slovakian Prime
Minister Robert Fico. He was shot in an attempted assassination effort.
(01:12):
He is now appears to be recovering and on his
way hopefully to full recovery, but extraordinary circumstances and a
lot of indications about what might have been behind the
motive for that attack.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
We'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Red Lobster is going bankrupt because Americans take all you
can eat a little too seriously, Guys out there, when
it came to shrimp, we were all in and Red
Lobster was apparently not ready for that.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
We went too far. America's never been greater than it
is today.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Rip Red Lobster.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
We also have some additional, perhaps more significant corporate news,
which is that Boeing could actually be facing criminal prosecution
now after the government officially said a judge officially said
that they had violated the consent decree that they had
with the federal government that opens them up to all
sorts of charges, in particular over those crowd that caused
hundreds of fatalities a few years back. So we'll get
(02:03):
into that and what that could mean. A lot of
news coming out of Israel. Israel's Defense Minister Joev Galant
really throwing down with bb Net and Yahoo will take
you inside what that is all about and what it
potentially means. By the way, the US siding with Uov Glant.
We also have some horrifying images of how settlers beat
a Palestinian truck driver because they suspected he might be
(02:25):
bringing aid to Gaza. We also have an update on
the Peer guys. Looks like the long anticipated and much
vaunted Peer for Humanitarian Aid is actually complete. So what
does that mean and what is that going to look
like going forward? Break that down for you as well.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Okay, Before we get to that, we have two important
things first and foremost, Counterpoints had an amazing interview with
Beto O'Rourke, former presidential candidate. Beto formerly no best known
I think for standing on large services. Emily Ryan and
him had an amazing discussion. So if you want to
check that out, it's dropping to our premium subscribers early.
And then this is a special message to our premium suscribers.
(03:04):
I'm going to reiterate this and I'm going to ask
the you pay attention. We have a major announcement coming.
As we have said, you need to check your email
on Sunday, all right, So Sunday, please check your email.
And you know usually your guys are used to getting
your AMA email. There's going to be something special inside
of that. So that's for our premium subscribers only. Please
take a listen. We will be sending you reminders and
(03:25):
all of that. But if you hear this, just put
that up in your head, put it.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
On your calendar and mark the date. Because something is coming.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Make sure you check out that email. There will be
some small action required from you, but I think you're
going to be really excited about what you find there
as well, and also with ours counterpoints in Beto, we
haven't watched this one yet. Apparently Emily and Beta really
got into it on immigration. Yes, yes, so I'm very
very interested to see how that all went down.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Absolutely right, Beta, Let's get to the debates.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
As Crystal said, so yesterday it was kind of a
flurry of debate news. Clearly it was pre arranged at
least some so President Joe Biden releasing a video from
his campaign account taunting Donald Trump to a debate, but
in different circumstances than you may have expected.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Donald Trump loss two debates to me in twenty twenty
since Sandy hadn't shown up for debate. Now e'xactly like
he wants to debate me again. Will make my day, Pal.
I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates. Donald,
I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
All right, you're free on Wednesdays. He's taunting him. The
Biden malarkey energy is back. Uh the push up.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Yeah, look fat, look fat fat, frankly best moments. I THENK,
so what does all this mean?
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Now?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
This is I'm actually particularly excited about it because what
this means actually and what you didn't hear there were
some of the details. Let's put this up there on
the screen. This was actually a letter that was sent
at the very same time the release of that video
from the Biden campaign to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Now,
in this letter, President Biden and the campaign informs the
CPD they will not be part ti dissipating in the
(05:01):
Commission on Presidential Debates preset schedule. This is the organization
which has run presidential debates since the ninety I think
nineteen eighty after the League of Women Voters dropped out
after they accused campaigns of coordinating with each other. In
my opinion, it's always been a travesty. The Commission on
Presidential Debates is basically run by the RNC and the DNC.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It's totally rigged.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
It has established from politicians, it has all of these
major fortune five hundred donors, and they have rigged the
process to keep people out. And this basically shakes things
up and makes thing a negotiation between the two campaigns
as to how this is going to work. Now, there
are some downsides to this, as we will get to
with h RFK Junior. But some of the reasoning that
they give here is that they believe that the Commission
(05:44):
schedule has the debates begin after the American people have
their first chance to cast votes early. That is true,
especially because the third debate is well into late October two.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
This is interesting. I really want to hear what you
have to say, Crystal.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
They say that the Commission model of building huge spectacles
with large audiences at great expense is not necessary or
conducive to good debates, And in it they say they
don't want donors or a live audience, so they wanted
to take place purely in a studio, a llah the
nineteen sixty Nixon Kennedy debate or in modern times. I
(06:20):
guess the last one that we've seen anything like this
was the March of twenty twenty Joe Biden versus Bernie
Sanders debate that took place in the CNN studio with.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
No live audience.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So the third and the final one is that they're
still very upset with the Commission over COVID and handling
of COVID, basically saying that they allowed Trump to attend
the first debate while he attended COVID.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
That's way true, and I think that's fair. It's probably
he could have very easily killed Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
There's a one I will take. I'll take it because
now the Commission is dead. This is a terrible antiquated tradition.
The two campaigns now have agreed to two dates. Let's
put that up there on the screen. The first and
foremost was from CNN. This will be the our first
presidential debate June twenty seventh at nine pm. No audience
moderators have now been announced. It's Dana Bash and Jake
(07:07):
Tappert and they will live stream on CNN and I
guess on HBO Max.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
That's going to be a.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Great Israel conversation that they lead there.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Yeah, that's right, Well, we'll separate the moderator stuff. But
I'm curious what you think specifically about the audience thing
and why Biden is insisting on that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Okay, So on the audience thing, I do actually think
it's better not to have the audience in the room,
because I mean it does just sort of like stack
the deck depending on and oftentimes as a sort of
indicated there, who you'll have in the audience is like
the big donors for the campaigns. They have a very
different agenda than the rest of America. That came out
a lot actually in twenty sixteen. Remember in the Republican debates,
(07:42):
Well and Trump would like directly call out like, oh yeah, well,
those are Jebstoners basically in the audience. That's why they
think that way. So I think it's better just not
to have the audience so that people at home have
more of an opportunity just to judge for themselves without sharing, booing,
et cetera, and an audience that may be clearly slanted
one way or another. So on the audience thing, I
(08:02):
think that's right.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I guess I'm a.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Little more ambivalent about the destruction of the Presidential Debate
Commission because now it's like, Okay, well, instead of them
rigging it, it's the two candidates themselves colluding.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
To rig it. So is that really better?
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't really know if it's better or worse or whatever,
but I'm just glad that there are agreeing.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
To some debates because there was a massive question.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
I mean, there is still a lot of logic to
Joe Biden not doing these debates. I think he's doing
it because basically he's down. He saw that after his
State of the Union performance, it was good enough that
he appeared to get a little bit of a temporary
bump in the polls, and so I think he realizes that,
(08:41):
you know, if he has an opportunity, actually performs well
and exceeds expectations. And again we're not talking about him
being like, you know, the best debater of all time,
but the expectations for him are so low that if
he can surpass those very minimal on the floor expectations,
that may and ure to his benefit. But you know,
the speculation is that the the timing of the debates
(09:01):
is also very intentional on his part, because it's on
the one hand, Okay, get the opportunities to show like
I'm not going to just literally like collapse and die
on the stage, and I can formulate at least like
half coherent sentences. On the other hand, if it doesn't
go well, there's a lot of time between these debates
and when the bulk of the people will actually vote,
so that I can hopefully recover from any potential disasters
(09:23):
from the debate performance. That's kind of the theory that's
out there. I think Nate Silver and others were floating
that I basically buy into that.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
I think that makes some logical, like straightforward sense.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It makes some sense.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
I mean I went back and I re reviewed all
of the political science. I mean, there's just basically no
evidence that these debates matter. And what's actually even more
interesting is that whatever moments the media decides are the.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Game changing moments.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, even back to the eighties and the monoculture moment,
they're like those have no impact on it.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
They usually have a temporary impact on the poles and then.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
And then it reverts right back to where it is,
and it turns out it all comes back to fundamentals.
And especially in a more partisan age like where we
are right now, very few undecided voters, and a lot
of the data on undecided voters is that they don't
particularly make up their minds on debates. Let me, like
I said, I still think debates are very important.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Absolutely, and they're important not just because of what they
mean for the horse race. But part of why Joe
Biden has felt pressure, for example, to at least do
something on student loan debt is because he had to
make those promises on a stage in the debates. I mean,
there is other political science that shows as much as
these people break promises left and right, they are more
likely to follow to actually follow up and do something
(10:31):
if they've promised it on the campaign trail, if they've
promised it on debate stage. So it doesn't just matter
for like who's up or whose doubt or how to
voters feel about these candidates, It can actually matter more
for governance, which is even more important. And not to mention,
you know, transparency, and I would make I just want
to offer the countercase for why it could be different
this time and the debates could actually be more significant
(10:52):
and meaningful, which is, we have a very unique circumstances
circumstance which is one of the primary concerns about Joe
Biden voters is is this man even.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Capable of doing the job?
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So it's you know, there are also obviously problems with
him on policy, economics, Israel, et cetera. But one of
the core concerns is just like can he do it?
And so because that is, in a very unique way,
a central issue and concern in this campaign, I think
perhaps the debates could be more impactful and more meaningful
(11:26):
than they have been other times because the circumstances are
so distinct and so unusual.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's put the next
one up there on the screen. In terms of what
the other debate is going to be, Trump says, it
is my great honor to accept the CNN debate. He says, likewise,
I accept ABC News debate against Crooked Joe on September tenth.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Thank you, Donald Trump. So there we have it. June
twenty seventh and September tenth.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Now, Trump seemed like he was trying to push for
another third debate on Fox News.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Do you know what's going on with that?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
So there is a third debate that was proposed by
Fox and by Trump. Trump obviously wants to do as
many debates as possible. Last time around, he actually I
wanted to add a fourth debate even because he had
to skip the second one over COVID. This time around,
he wants to do actually, as far as I know
and understand, he wants to do literally as many as
Biden is up for, which is kind of interesting in
(12:14):
terms of the challenge that is being thrown down now.
As you said, Biden has not committed to that Fox debate.
It's very very unlikely that he will do so. He
said in that video, I will only do two debates.
Both of those the justification for the campaign, as there before,
early voting actually starts in all of them. So the
September twenty seventh debate likely to be the most consequential
(12:35):
of any if it is so. The ABC News debate
will also stream live on all platforms and will be
available to others, while CNN in peak CNN form is
keeping it confined to the CNN universe. They won't allow
others to stream enter any of that, so there will
be more widely available. We'll see exactly what happens now.
We would be remiss if we didn't talk here about
(12:56):
RFK Junior. Let's put this up there on the screen.
There's some confusion right now. So RFK Junior's initial response
is that President Trump and Biden are including to lock
America into a head to head matchup. Seventy percent of
people say they do not want They're trying to exclude
me from their debate because they're afraid that I would win.
Keeping viable candidates off the stage undermines democracy. Forty three
percent of Americans ide him independence. By excluding me from
(13:17):
the stage, President Biden and Trump seek to avoid discussion
of their eight years of mutual failure, including deficits, wars, lockdowns,
chronic disease, and inflation.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Late last night, he then puts out a tweet where
he says, I am happy to report I will meet
the criteria to participate in the CNN debate before the
June twentieth deadline. I look forward to holding President Biden
and Trump accountable for their records in Atlanta on June
twenty seven, to give Americans the debate that they deserve.
(13:48):
So this brings us back to what the CNN debate
qualifications actually are. Can we put a three please back
on the screen so that I can explain a little
bit of this. So CNN's announcement says that to qualify
for participation, candidates must fulfill outline in Article two, Section
one of the Constitution. They must file a statement of
(14:09):
candidcy with the FEC. A candidate's name must appear on
a sufficient number of state ballots to reach two hundred
and seventy electoral vote threshold to win the presidency, and
they must agree to accept the rules in the format.
And they must receive fifteen percent in four separate national
polls or of registered or likely voters that meet CNN
(14:29):
standards of reporting. Now, the fifteen percent threshold is not
going to be difficult for RFK Junior. It's the two
seventy ballot access initiative that matters the most. But the
big question, Crystal is if RFK Junior does qualify, are
they going to rig the rules?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Is Biden going to pull out?
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Is Trump going to pull out because both Trump and
Biden have made it very clear they do not want
him there on the stage, and so I foresee some
chicanery somewhere. If I had to guess, it'll be that
he has enough ballots to qualify for the ballot. But
like let's say, maybe he has officially you know, the
state sector sector and state hasn't signed it, so they'll
use that as a pretext. But I mean, he's got
(15:06):
California and textas already. That's like one hundred electoral votes
right there. You don't need a lot more. He's got
to get on in the big states, New York, you know, Ohio,
a few others, and you're there, You're at two seventy.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean he should be on the stage, Like
that's the point. Obviously, it's incredibly consequential. He could be
determinative in terms of this election. He has demonstrated, you know,
significant levels of support, especially for a third party candidate.
He absolutely am the interest of democracy should be on
the stage. Will he be on the stage, highly doubt it.
I doubt it because they thought they were rigging these
rules to preclude him from having any chance of making
(15:38):
it on apparently not that good at math, right, and listen,
I think he still has I think it's still reached
for him to get there by June twentieth, even you know,
by those standards. And that's because the two parties have
also colluded to make it very difficult to get ballot
access in these states, you.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
Know, in New York.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Jill Stein, doctor Jill Stein, was telling us that New
York actually just passed a law to make it even
more more difficult in New York to get on the
ballot there. Obviously that's a massive electoral prize in terms
of the number of delegates that you get there. So yeah,
they've the two parties have colluded to make it very
very difficult to get on these ballots, and then they
use that collusion to also collude with CNN to try
(16:16):
to block any third party candidates from being on the stage.
Because listen, it shouldn't just be Cornell west On, I mean,
it shouldn't just be RFK Junior on the stage.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
I think Jill Stein should be there.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
And I think if Cornell west is able to you know,
get on a significant number of ballots, I think he
should be there as well.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
In the interest of you know, having a wide range.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Of who's out there and people really having a choice
and feeling like they're able to evaluate different positions from
these different candidates. You know, on an issue like Israel, RFK,
Trump and Bien are all like basically the same. So
nice to have another candidate there to offer a different vision.
And they're going to be aligned with CNN too, by
the way, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. So in any case,
the more democracy the better. That's why I'm a little
(16:55):
ambivalent about like the end of the Presidential Debate Commission
because listen, I mean, they would probably do the same thing.
They probably also don't really want RFK Junior up on
the stage, but there'd be a little bit more of
a sense of like, these are the rules, we've splayed
them down, everyone has to follow them, et cetera, et cetera,
versus this just just two campaigns negotiating for their own benefit.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
So, like you said, there's trade.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Offs, I agree. The main thing is that it's structural.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Structural, So for example, the Commission on Presidential Debates officially
has as it's two members, the rn C and the DNC.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
That's nuts to me.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
You can't literally allow the two parties to be the
only ones to negotiate. Now, I again, this is why
I celebrated when the RNC pulled out of the Commission,
and not to mention that the commercials and the sponsors
for it are like rat They're like, all these Fortune
five hundred companies is grotesque.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Yeah, to look at it.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I mean, you know, to this date, Crystal they have
millions and millions of dollars of unspent money in their conference.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
What do you think they're using that for?
Speaker 2 (17:57):
And that's where I think the Biden people are correct
in this certain sense. It's like a self perpetuating machine
where you donate to the Commission, then you get to
attend the Commission on Presidential debates, and that's why you have.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
All these big donors and billionaires.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And I mean, who can't forget, like all the spectacles
of the famous people who are in the audience. So yeah,
the more that we just get rid of it, and
if we have more debates, now I agree, in the
short term, it's not great, right, Like, what do campaigns do.
The reason the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the
events are the Campaigns Debates was because the two campaigns,
I think do I forget exactly who it was they
(18:30):
were found to be colluding with each other, and the
league was like, we're not going to deal with that.
They're like, we have debates where we get to ask,
you know, the best questions, and if you go back
and you watch them, they were so much better. So
all I'm saying is this just make things a lot
more interesting and possible. The other thing is that the
mainstream media should be freaking out about this because they
basically had a collusion with the CPD where you get
(18:52):
to live cast everything on their networks, and obviously they
could sell ad time and all these other things, and
they're anchors were the ones who are always considered.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
So this shake things up to basically.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Allow and not disqualify the future candidates from participating in
whatever forms that they want. So it's going to be
a lot more like the nineteen seventies and eighties where
people can just do anything, and in general I think
that's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Maybe, I mean, it seems to me like we need
to have just like major reform of the Presidential Debate
Commission where it's truly independent, where it's not just you know,
a tool of the RNC and the DNC and big donors,
where there's legislation that compels these candidates to have to debate,
because I think in the interest of democracy and all
of us being able to evaluate our choices, I think
that that should be mandatory, not just the presidential level,
(19:38):
but at all level. If you're seeking off as a
very minimal that you should have to do is like
present yourself to the voters and debate your opponent and
like take seriously the democratic process. But obviously we're a
long way from that. So is this an improvement.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
I don't know. We'll see, We'll see how it all
shakes out.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I mean, in general, I'm excited. I'm glad that they're
actually going to do it.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
That I'm glad about.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
The one last thing that I'll say in terms of
how this will go, because I mean, the obvious assumption
is that Trump is going to be better debater than
Joe Biden. I think that's a very fair assumption. But
let's just remember that last time around that was also
the assumption, and Trump was such an asshole in the
first debate.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
It wasn't because Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Did well, but Trump was such a like I think
he must have been taken something for COVID.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
He was such a jerk and so like, you know,
just constantly cutting Joe Biden off, et cetera, et cetera,
that he really ruined his own prospects there and was
widely seen, I think accurately so as having lost that debate.
So it's not a foregone conclusion that this is going
to be better for Trump.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
I saw someone say we are going to see Manhattan
Project levels of presidential stimulants for both of these kings.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Oh yeah, I'm already working on the cocktail.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I was going to say, whatever that cocktail is, let
me know, I want to take it all right, like
I fire me up, put it in both of the veins,
and I'll take it before we start.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
On Trump's that whatever they gave him before that debate.
They need to dial that about eighty percent because there
was way too much.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
You gotta check that out, man. I would love to
be in the in the in the room. It's gonna
be like medafinil.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Adderall like all the chemists. The chemists are going wild.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
You're gonna they're gonna have like little drip beakers and things.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
So it's gonna be it's gonna be interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
So we have additional campaign news as we covered earlier
this week New York Times Siana pole which came out,
which is I mean, this is considered one of the
sort of like gold standard polls, and it was an utter,
incomplete disaster for Joe Biden. He was losing in almost
every battleground state. He was losing by double digits in Nevada.
What was it thirteen points, yes, thirteen that he was
(21:39):
losing by in Nevada when you drilled in it was
because young people, African Americans, Latinos were all fleeing his campaign.
Just I mean, there was no way to spit in
this thing as remotely positive for him. But morning Joe
decided they would go ahead and try. Let's listening to
what Joe Scarborough had to say and his incredible cope
with regards to the poll.
Speaker 6 (22:00):
Where are the polls talking us directionally about the race?
I understand there's a difference though with the New York
Times Siena poll. And you know this, it's given disproportionate
impact this year this cycle. It is skewed wildly and
Donald Trump's direction hold on, and the New York Times
feasts on it with clickbait stories like a dozen at
(22:23):
a time. And I and what I'm trying to focus
on is what I think people should pay attention to.
But what I'm trying to focus on is New York
Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles. Where
this poll comes out on a Sunday and on Monding,
people go oh, and I heard it, And I'm sitting
there going, oh, don't be so stupid. That's why we're
doing this, So hold on, sacond hold on, no, no,
(22:45):
hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls
come out every time New York Times fall is oh, well,
everything that Joe Biden's done since the since the the
State of the Union address, all of these all this
money that he's put out, all of the.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Campaigning is for not.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
No, it's not, no, it's not There's one pole that's
wildly skewed. Every time after every New York Times Siena
pole comes out, it completely changes the political battlefield out
there for about a week, week and a half. It
distorts the questions that are asked of the White House.
(23:21):
It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump.
It distorts all of the opinion, It distorts everything, and
that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And
then finally about two weeks later, after the residue of
The New York Times, Siena pole leaves people go, oh,
I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then
two weeks later it comes out again and it's garbage.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Speaking of drugs that people are taking. I would like
to take that. I actually love that. Imagine living in
that fantasy.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Imagine.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Okay, The allegation here is that The New York Times
is actually cooking the books in favor of Donald Trump
and putting out what Joe's Carbon describes as click bait
articles to shape the cut, like imagine think the New
York Times is in the tank for Donald Trump, Like
it's completely insane. And then just factually he's asserting, oh,
(24:11):
we know that this is gard.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
We know it's wildly skewed.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Get No, last time in twenty twenty, it was skewed
in the other direction. It wildly overstated Joe Biden's support
versus Donald Trump. Maybe things have changed, we don't know.
Other poles have gone another possible. But to just dismiss
this like, oh, don't be ridiculous. And here's the other thing,
Sagar is he's pretending like these are outliers. That's the problem.
(24:34):
This is not an outlier. Now, some of the national
polling has been okay for Joe Biden. Some have even
had him up by a few points, some have had
it tied, some have had him down by you know,
a little bit, but within the margin of error.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
But every single battleground.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
Pole that I've seen recently, maybe there's some out there
that I haven't seen, but the battleground poles have consistently
been bad for Joe Biden. And to just like dismiss
that is incredible. But that's the White House is apparently
in this delusional state as well, where they don't believe
the polls. They're in like hashtag unskew the polls mode.
(25:09):
They don't think these accurately reflect his support. And so
even though you know, everyone looking at this objectively would
be like, you're not in a good position right now,
they're just staying the course.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
They think it's all well and good.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
So I'm looking, for example, at the battlegrounds and the
RCP polling average in every single battleground state has Trump leading.
His lowest margin is in the state of Wisconsin at
point six. In Arizona, the average is five point two.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
For his lead.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
In Georgia, the average is four point six. In Michigan
point eight, in Pennsylvania two points, in North Carolina five,
and in Nevada six point two.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
So that's the thing.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
It's not about the New York Times now again, as
you just said, and this would be a more accurate
freak out. Hey, guys, in twenty twenty two, they were
totally wrong. And so you know what, We're just going
to keep doing what we're doing, and we're going to
hope for abortion. We're going to show a little bit
more vigor. You know, he should be happy that Biden
is doing the debate. He's like, yeah, there you go,
Like that's the Joe that we need.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
And you know, that's not a terrible case. I could
make that case.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
I think there's roughly fifty percent chance that that could
be true.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
You know, I have enough, I'm humble enough.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
To have been here in our studio on the midterms
and just seeing things so shockingly wrong that you can't
state anything with any confidence now though, as Heyloman was
trying to say, he's like, look, we're just trying to
get indicators about the way things are going, and in
general I would not be comfortable with where they are.
But the problem is is that Scarborough and Biden are
(26:37):
actually comfortable where they are. And what kind of politician
is that? Maybe it will work out for you, but
that's not how you achieve victory.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Well, I think if I had to say, Biden, I
think actually believes because they they gained this perspective in
twenty twenty that like everyone online is wrong and we
know better and it's all find good And even after
they got their butts kicked in Iowa and got their
butts kicked in New Him, they still were like, no, no, no,
it's going to be It's gonna be okay. And it
(27:03):
turned out to be correct because you know, at the
end of the day, like there was no other candidate
in the sort of like you know, centrist, mainstream lane
who had any appeal with diverse voters, and you know,
the whole party coalesce behind Joe and they're able to
stay about the Bernie Sanders movement and.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Worked out for him.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
So they took that as an indication of like, no,
everything is always going to be fine, like the freak
outs and the online chatter and what the media class
has to say, Like none of this has any veracity
ever whatsoever. We're just going to assume that it's twenty
twenty and it's the Democratic primary all over again, and
we're just fine. And they don't get it, and we
(27:41):
get it and they're freaking out and they're panicking, but
really everything's fine. I think they overlearned that lesson, and
so now even as more and more data points come
in that clearly indicate you're down thirteen points in Nevada,
and you're like, it's all cool and good. Even if
you have even the pull is off by half, you're
still getting your butt kicked in the state that you
(28:02):
won pretty easily last time around. So you're just gonna
dismiss all of that and pretend like that's all fine.
So I think the Biden people, Joe Biden himself, because
we'll get to this axis report in a minute, but
there are some people in his camp who are like,
we're kind of nervous, I'm worry maybe we should do something.
But he himself in the other top brass are like, no,
we're good, It's all fine.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Like I think they actually live in that delusional world.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
I think Scarborough is just saying what his audience wants
to hear, and also what Joe Biden wants to hear,
because he wants to maintain his position. Is Joe Biden's
like favorite MSNBC anchor and stay in good graces with
the White House. I guarantee you he had a call
with someone in Biden World who was pushing exactly this
line of messaging, and he's just parroting it because it
(28:47):
feels good to the MSNBC audience, and it feels good
to his audience of one, a term we used to
use in the Trump years.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
All the time.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Biden Biden is his own audience of one for Joe Scarborough.
And so I think he's getting this directly from White
House and putting it out to an audience that is.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
Incredibly were so it was desperate to hear.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
This kind of nonsense analysis and fantasy world prognostication.
Speaker 7 (29:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So I have here in front of me the results
from Nevada. Joe Biden won fifty percent of the vote
and Donald Trump got forty seven percent, so he won
it by roughly three The polls at that time, back
in twenty twenty, even when they understated Trump's support on
the eve of the election, had Joe Biden winning approximately
by four to five percent.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Okay, so there you go. I mean we share with
in the realm comfortable.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
Here.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
There's another guy, John Rawston, who I know, you know,
Crystal kind of the Nevada political guru. He did a
whole ride up of this and he said, I think
these are bad results for Joe Biden. And he even
warned that the same New York Time poll that found
Jackie Rosen leading in the Senate race, he goes, there's
no way a split ticket.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
The split ticket.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Phenomenon that we have seen in the past just simply
does not match up with this. And if I was Rosen,
I would be freaking out.
Speaker 7 (29:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
And that's the other thing we're learning is that Biden
is actually dragging Democrats down on the ticket exactly. If
you take him out of the equation, they're actually doing
pretty well.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
It's the opposite of the Obama phenomenon, right.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Because so they want to take these results seriously from
the New York Times when it comes to the Senate candidates,
because the Democratic Senate candidates all did well in these polls.
But when it comes to Joe Biden, Oh well that's
a different matter. Now we need to hashtag unskew the polls. Yeah,
good luck with that, I mean, good luck with just
staying the course and hoping that works out for you,
because it certainly certainly doesn't look very good right now.
(30:28):
And if you were counting on Trump's legal troubles to
save you at some point, like that's not happening.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It's not happening.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Even if he's found guilty in this soul Stormy Daniels situation,
very unlikely. I think it's unlikely he faces prison time
over that. And public really hasn't tuned into it like
they're sort of it hasn't changed his poll numbers, like
it's happening right now, the damning testimony from Michael Cohen
and Stormy Daniels and whoever, David Pecker, it's happening right now,
(30:54):
and his polls are not moving or they're even edging
even you know more in his directtion, So hope you're.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Not counting on that to save the day.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
CNN did their own somewhat more mild version of this
cope is not quite as extraordinary as Joe Scarborough. But suddenly,
when a really bad result comes in from Joe Biden,
suddenly CNN learns like, oh, well, the polls, who can
even say? Who can even say whether these poles are
right whatsoever? Let's take a listen to Harry Unson's analysis here.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Polls are a snapshot in time. All right, So I
went back since nineteen hundred and seventy two. How far
are the poles off at this point? On average? They're off,
get this, by six points. They've been off by as
large as fifteen points. Michael Ducaucus was ahead of George
hw Bush at this point in nineteen eighty eight by
high single digits. It was actually George hw Bush who
(31:44):
won by high single digits. And keep in mind Trump's
only up by a point at this at this particular junction.
Speaker 7 (31:49):
So the fact is the polls can shift a lot.
Speaker 8 (31:52):
Yes, Joe Biden is in trouble, but we'll see where
we are a month, two months, three months, five months,
six months.
Speaker 7 (31:59):
Down the road.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
And when it comes to battleground polls in general, how
accurate are they?
Speaker 7 (32:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (32:04):
So this is looking at the national polls at this
point in time, What if we looked at the battleground
polls on the day of the election. All right, so
go back again. Since nineteen hundred and seventy two, they're
off by an average of four points. They're off by
an average of four points. In twenty twenty they were a
little larger.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
The era was a little larger. It was five points.
Speaker 8 (32:22):
And of course most of those polls underestimated Donald Trump.
The key thing to keep in mind here in those
pivotal battleground states in the Great Lakes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Donald Trump is ahead, but only by between one and
two points.
Speaker 7 (32:35):
So yeah, you would consider him favored. But if there's
one lesson we've.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
Learned over the last few cycles, John, it's do not
take polls to the bank, especially when the margins were
as close as they are right now.
Speaker 7 (32:45):
And who do the polls tend to be wrong for? Right?
Speaker 8 (32:51):
So one of the chief complaints that Biden the Democrats
have is in twenty twenty two, the polls underestimated Democrats, right.
In twenty twenty, it was Republicans. In twenty two twenty two,
Joe Biden, the Democrats like to argue that the polls
underestimated Democrats. Now, that was true in the key battleground
states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those major races, the polls
on average underestimated the Democratic candidates by about five points.
(33:13):
But if you look nationally, look at the National House Volte,
the polls actually underestimated Republicans by about two points. So
I'm not necessarily sure you could look at twenty twenty
two and argue that the polls will somehow this time
underestimate Joe Biden.
Speaker 7 (33:26):
The fact is the poll errors John go back and forth.
Speaker 8 (33:28):
They go back and forth within a cycle, and they
go back and forth when you compare over a bunch
of years.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
So listen, that's all. That's all accurate. I'm not saying, yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
That's all therapy sessions.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Well, that's it is.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Imagine this poll had come out in the other direction
and it showed Joe Biden up in all these battleground states.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Do you think they would be doing this segment.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Of like the Poles if they really really can't read
into this they I genuinely think it comes from a
place of they live in a bubble where they really
don't know any Trump supporters. You know, occasionally they'll run
into one in the green room that they have to
fight against or whatever, but they don't really know any
And so to look at the results and see that
Donald Trump may be leading in all these battleground states,
(34:08):
They're like, that can't possibly be true. That just doesn't
match my experience of the world and my experience of
like the people around me and how they think about
Donald Trump and how they think about Joe Biden. And
so they've got to come up with some reason why
this pole doesn't match up with their experience of life
in America, and I think this is their attempt to
(34:29):
do it. Last thing we have for you is that
Axios report I referenced earlier where I think Joe Biden
himself genuinely does believe the polls are wrong, genuinely does
believe his support is understated. Biden's pulling denial. Why doesn't
believe he's behind? And listen, again, I don't rule it out.
It is possible, but you can't be certain, Like you
(34:49):
cannot be certain. In fact, history would indicate you should
probably lean in the other direction, because when we have
had we had a previous Biden Trump race, and in
that previous Biden Trump race, which is obviously the most
analogous thing to the circumstance, it really overestimated Joe Biden,
really underestimated Donald Trump. So a midterm election is not
(35:10):
quite as analogous. And even as CNN points even that
was a mixed bag, even that wasn't clearly consistently skewed
in Democrats directions. So in any case, they have this
quote here from Biden, who has talked to donors about
how he thinks the poll numbers are wrong. He even
said to CNN in that interview that he thought that
(35:31):
the polling numbers are wrong.
Speaker 4 (35:32):
He said, quote, the.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
Polling data has been wrong all along. How many you
guys do a poll at CNN? How many folks do
you have to call to get one response? So he's
basically saying, like polling methodology has collapsed again, could be true?
Would you one hundred percent feel confident in that? There's
no way you could. You're just denying like possible reality here.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
This is to me the problem with Biden himself. And look,
this is what being freaking eighty whatever years olf that
he is. Yeah, they're just that in his way. Yeah,
they're set in their way and they don't have any urgency.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
I mean, every book you ever read about victory is
that the people who achieve it always massively underestimated their
chances of success.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
They never slept on it.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
I was just reading this book called The Supreme Commander
by Steven Ambrose.
Speaker 3 (36:18):
It's a history of Eisenhower and World War Two.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
I mean, even though he had overwhelming odds on his side, manpower,
the agony that this man lived with and thinking over
every single minute details to try and achieve victory, because
also understanding that even if one thing went wrong, it
could possibly screw the entire operation. Like, that's what I
want in a president. You know, that's what most people
would want in a president. If you really believe Biden says.
(36:43):
All the time democracy has had taken all that, it's like, okay, man,
you should probably act like it. You know, you should
fight for everything and leave it all out on the field.
But when you're this old, I mean, this is probably
as good as he can get.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Well.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
And I think that gets to something really key here,
which is, listen, one thing he could do that would
probably help his fortunes with young people in particular, and
this was also born out in New York Times polls.
He could actually change his policy visa vi Israel, he
clearly ideologically is just totally.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
Unwilling to do that.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And then the other thing he could do is literally
be a different person, because truly, truly, because part of
the core problem here is you, yourself and your age
and the lack of comfort with that among the American people.
So it's like, all right, well, you either recognize that
you are the wrong person to be running and you
drop out and you know, elevate someone else who is
(37:34):
more equipped for the challenge, or you live in dreamland
and you you know, stick with your denial. And so
I think that's where they are is because if they
actually acknowledge like Joe Biden is a uniquely weak Democratic candidate,
underperforming every single Democratic Senate candidate in the entire country,
then the only logical conclusion of that is not like, oh,
(37:54):
we need to do some more rallies or get out
the vote. It's you have to step aside because you're
not getting any You're not getting any more coherent. The
American people aren't getting any more comfortable with you personally,
So I think that's why they have to in a
sense live in the streamland.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Let's turn down to
foreign affairs. There was some shocking news yesterday. Prime Minister
of Slovakia, Robert Fiso, had an attempted assassination attempt after
he was leaving a public meeting. Now, just a warning,
we've blurred out and stopped any very disturbing images, but
in general this is very chaotic. So let's go and
(38:29):
put this up there on the screen. You can see
the prime minister walking there to greet some members of
the public. We froze it right there where a lone
bystander pulled out a gun, pointed it down and began shooting.
You can see his security detail immediately grab him up
under the arms, throw him into his armored vehicle, and
immediately they sped off to the hospital. The news yesterday
(38:52):
was that he was in a life threatening condition, although
it appears now that he is no longer suffering. He
did have under he did underwent emergency surgery. His condition
has been downgraded to serious, but they no longer life threatening.
So that's where things stand right now, Crystal. There are
a lot of questions swirling around this because Robert Fizo.
(39:13):
We covered him here previously in the past. He is
a very interesting figure. He was elected in Slovakia, which
is a member of NATO, almost explicitly on an anti
Ukraine AID position. He's a fascinating kind of populist figure,
which we'll get to.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
In a little bit. But you read a lot about
the assailant crystal. So what do we know?
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Yeah, well, I mean we know who this individual was.
More or less. He's a seventy one year old from
a small western town. Apparently he works as a security guard.
Speaker 7 (39:45):
You know.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
The weapon reportedly was his own. The only thing we
know about his politics is according to a local Slovakian
TV station, they pulled a video where he complains. He says,
I don't agree with the guarman's policies. Why are the
media being targeted? Why is RTVS, which is their public broadcasting,
(40:07):
under attack? Why was Mazak dismissed from his position. That's
a reference to an individual. So apparently Fio is a
very divisive figure for a whole lot of reasons. Ukraine
AID is his position on Ukraine is one of those reasons.
But he's also launched this full throated attack against public
broadcasting that's been incredibly divisive in the subject of current
protests in the country. And then there's also been a
(40:30):
lot of investigations of him in the past because he
was in government four and then his government collapsed over
allegations regarding actually a targeted murder, and so the people
that investigated him and his party over those allegations, over
corruption allegations, he has fired a bunch of those.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
So this is one of those individuals who was fired.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So according to at least what we know of this individual,
it seems like he had a lot of problems with
the direction of the government under Robert Fiso.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
So that's what we know at.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
This as do we know so far.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
It did not stop though some international observers, especially in
the UK, they hate his guts basically all of the
West does because he doesn't agree with them. On Ukraine,
it's him and it's Victor Orbon. We had a sky
News report almost immediately after which just look at the
way that they basically try and justify this assassination attempt.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
Take a listen. We don't know his condition yet, but
he's being treated.
Speaker 9 (41:21):
But it's worth thinking about who this individual is, as
I said, described in reporting as a populist as a nationalist.
Speaker 10 (41:27):
Yeah, well that would make sense. I mean Slovakia is
a very conflicted place at the moment. I mean I
Figo himself. I mean, he established this smear party SMER,
which is a social democracy party, back in nineteen ninety nine,
and he's been I think it was you just saying
prime minister three times. So he is a well known figure.
But he's become very pro Russian over the years. One
(41:49):
wonders why and how, but maybe that's his conviction and
he's I mean like Victor Orbann in Hungary. I mean
he's set his teeth against going along with sanctions, with
EU sanctions against common procurement, which Slovakia is very it's
a small country. I mean the sense that it's it's
you know, the Czechoslovakia, as was the Czech Republic, is
the bigger bit. Slovakia is the is the smaller bit,
(42:11):
although it was the more industrial in the old days,
so it's not to be it's not negligible, but Slovakia
is not a major player within the EU, but a
bit like Hungary, which is also a bigger country. It's
not a very big player in the EU economically. They
dig their toes in against aid to Ukraine and against
(42:34):
any sort of sympathy with Kiv and they keep saying, look,
we want the war to finish, and by that they
mean they want the Russians to succeed and then the
war will be over if Ukraine would just surrender and
give up territory. And so that's the view he takes. Now,
that's very divisive in Slovakia. It's divisive within the EU.
So it's not surprising that this sort of event might
(42:55):
take place because it's a very unhappy country at the moment, Slovakia,
not just on this basis, but on the basis of
how the country is going in general towards more authoritarian future.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Not surprising, not not at all. And it's like rampant speculation.
It's not even true whenever it turns out, well, we
know about the assailant. It turns out Slovakia is its
own country with its own problems.
Speaker 4 (43:17):
And they everything's about us, right yeah now or Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
It's like, hey, yeah, actually maybe people in Slovakia aren't
thinking all that much about Ukraine, but to them, oh
it's fine, you know. Imagine if it was a flip,
you know, and it was somebody who was a pro
Ukraine leader, let's say in Estonia or something like that,
another very insignificant, tiny country in Eastern Europe. And there
was speculation, you know, you know, in the interim that
they would be losing it here in Washington. But because
(43:42):
he has the wrong views on Ukraine, oh he's you know, basically,
it's fine, whatever happened to him. We actually have a
video just to give you an idea. What does this
man actually think. Let's play some of it, Okay, I'll
read from the subtitles. A couple of years ago, he says,
I believe the war in Ukraine began earlier in twenty fourteen,
when Ukrainian fashion killed citizens of Russian nationality in Ukraine.
(44:03):
So then he continues, I have a different opinion on
this matter. I still believe the Americans are fighting Russia
with Ukrainian soldiers. In twenty fourteen, Russia launched inoffensive against
the dun Boss. It all started with the murder or
murders of citizens of Russian nationality by Ukrainian fascists. And
please do not again distort all the data that exists here.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
So what do we learn from this?
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Now, he clearly has a longer view of the situation,
and he believes that it's a proxy war. That is
the same position held by Viktor Orbon of Hungary. And
even though those two gentlemen are members of NATO, prime ministers,
duly elected and very popular in their own hometowns, because
they have different dissonant and different views. You know, you
(44:49):
have Sky News here and the seat of the UK
and in Europe just being like, oh, it's okay, it's
totally fine.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (44:56):
I mean, they really walk like right up to the
door of just outright just yeah, it's understandable someone would
target an attempt to assassinate the prime minister of Slovakia,
and I mean, in some ways, to me, the most
revealing part is just how they immediately fixate on his
position on Ukraine. Now, maybe that played into the motivations
of this. We don't know, and you didn't know, And
(45:19):
in fact, the only political commentary we have from the
alleged shooter doesn't say anything about Ukraine. So there's also
a level of chauvinism here of just assuming that the
reason that this broadcaster is upset with feats so it
must be the same reason that the shooter was upset
with him. And by the way, it's kind of understandable
really when you think about it, Isn't it so just
an incredible, like revealing moment that they would spend so
(45:42):
much time in that instant digging into what his position
is Ukraine versus Russia when there was no indication that
actually had anything to do with this targeted assassination. They
just jumped right to the conclusion that, like, this must
be about us, right, because everything's about us.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
But they're also saying is like he was asking for it,
he was asking me for it, And it's pretty much,
by the way, according to your own press, Britz, how
is it going in Ukraine? Oh shocking. Let's put this
up there on the screen. You're not going to see
this on the front page of the New York Times.
President Zelenski has been trapesing all over the world with
his hand out asking for weapons. Has now canceled all
upcoming foreign trips as Russia advances.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
Quote in the Kharkiv region.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
So as the news that we brought you on what
was it on Tuesday in our show, things are going
terribly for the Ukrainians on the battlefield, bad enough that
Zelenski no longer feels comfortable even leaving the country, and
their generals are in a full blown panic. But of
course they're not going to lead with that, when they're
going to continue painting everybody with false visions of victory.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
It's a sad situation, all really is.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
All right, Let's get to another deeply sad situation, although
you know, somewhat amusing, I guess in this case Red Lobster.
Speaker 3 (46:52):
This is what I fought for in the show.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
I've been laughing about this for two days, and I
think a lot of people would like to know the details.
Speaker 3 (46:58):
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Dozens of Red Lobster locations suddenly were ended overnight and
just shut down. Why because the company is on the
verge of total bankruptcy, saying that they were going to
have to auction off equipment of fifty different locations all
had to close for foot for quote footprint rationalization. Now,
(47:23):
what spawned the sudden closure of all of these store crystals.
It appears to be a potential Chapter eleven filing on
the heels of all you can Eat Shrimp endless Shrimp
as it was called. It turns out that Red Lobster,
which was already on the face of financial brinksmanship, their
(47:44):
CEOs or their executives of a new team came up
with this idea. They're like, all right, we got to
get butts back in the seats. Inflation is killing us.
These chain restaurants continue to lose customers because that's one
of the main ones where lower income and middle class
diners usually were consistent customers. Well, what we're going to
do is we're going to bring them in here with
(48:05):
an endless shrimp all you can eat promotion. But it
turns out that they were massively underestimated the American public's
appetite for endless shrimp, and they lost it in general
millions of dollars in the span of just a year
or so on the so called endless shrimp deal, so
(48:25):
much so that their tie suppliers of shrimp were shocked
at the amount that they were going through, and they
were running massive losses because customers were so taking advantage
of quote, all you can eat endless shrimp at the table.
Speaker 1 (48:41):
So your reaction, yeah, I mean they said all you
can eat, and Americans were like, challenge okay, challenge. You
know me, it's deeply personally sad. I have like a
deep emotional connection to Bread Lobster. First of all, I
still eat their Chutter biscuits all the time. You can
buy the mix.
Speaker 3 (48:57):
They still sell.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
It, and my mom makes them particularly well. She adds
even extra butter, and they're so working delicious. She literally
made them for me like two nights ago, and they're amazing.
And if that goes away, I'm going to be really sad.
I'm going to be really sad because those Chatter biscuits
are an important contribution to the culinary landscape of America.
In my personal opinion, that's number one.
Speaker 4 (49:16):
Number two.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
When I was a kid, we really, we very rarely
went out to eat. You know, we'd occasionally do like McDonald's,
like after swim meet we go to McDonald's, or if
it was like a really important occasion, like a Mother's
Day kind of a thing, we might go to Red Lobster.
And so I have very fond memories of going to
Red Lobster. It was always a big deal and very
special when we went there. So I still have a
(49:37):
you know, deep sentimental connection to Red Lobster. I have
to say I must be part of their decline because
I haven't actually eaten in the restaurant in many years.
I think, you know, the landscape was sliding against them
for quite a while. Now I do wonder if they
were in better financial position though, if this endless stromp
thing might have worked out for.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
Them in the end.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
It's certainly possible.
Speaker 4 (49:59):
It could be that. Okay, you take the loss.
Speaker 1 (50:01):
I mean, businesses do this all the time, where you
take a short term loss and you sort of underprice
your item to get people. At Walmart used to this
is part of how Walmart grew in the early days.
You underprice something to bring people in, and then once
you get them there and get them, then then remember like,
oh that was a great experience, let's go back, let's
do it again, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (50:19):
So maybe in the end it wouldn't have been a
bad decision.
Speaker 1 (50:21):
But yeah, you never underestimate American's ability to eat endless
amounts of whatever.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
Americans are Like, what did you think endless meant? Bro?
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Yeah, it's it's like we're going to take advantage America's
always been great. Yeah, I mean, on the one siand
it's also kind of sad whenever you consider it, But
the business dynamics behind it are still not one that
we should celebrate. I mean, it is largely according to
their own customer research, it's the casual dining spend with
customers of incomes of fifty thousand dollars or less that
(50:49):
have had to dramatically reduce visits and order fewer items
when eating out, and more likely to take advantage of
endless shrimp. Yeah, because they don't have any money and
inflation is just murdering them.
Speaker 3 (51:00):
I say other thing.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
Too again, I like, you have not been in a
red lobster in many years. We don't even have many
around us. But some entrees are going for like thirty
forty bucks. Wow, person, which is wild. I mean when
you consider that at a chain restaurant, it's like, well,
what's even the point. I might as well go to
somewhere nice. We're gonna pay forty or fifty bucks. Apparently
there have been that similar. There have been similar bankruptcies
(51:23):
in the last several months with similar types of chains.
So the text mex chain, the Wall Street Journal notes
is the Tijuana Flat, New York based Sticky Fingers joint
filed for chapter eleven. And then there was a famous
one one that hit me particularly hard. Fox Trot Markets,
which just suddenly overnight just collapsed. It was that they
were very they're urban, so that we had one in
(51:45):
my neighborhood.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
There was well, there are many, like a high end
pharmacy or something.
Speaker 3 (51:48):
It's not farm.
Speaker 2 (51:48):
It was like, it was like, I don't know, they
build themselves like a high end corner store. It's like
a place you can get coffee and upscale goods or whatever.
It's just convenient because it's it's like a CBS, but
it's the nicer goods way.
Speaker 1 (52:01):
Okay, got and that concept didn't work actually, because well
I think that clientele has money.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
Yeah, but they do, but I don't think they had
enough because they were they were billing all these like
delivery things. They were they opened massive amounts of stores
and then it turned out they just closed completely overnight.
I actually got a message I posted about this on
Instagram one of the people who worked at a red lobster.
They said that they were worked at one of the
top ten red lobsters in revenue just last year and
(52:26):
then overnight just lose their job.
Speaker 3 (52:28):
You know. He's like a server there.
Speaker 2 (52:30):
And then overnight they were just like, yeah, actually, every
single one of you is fired. So it's devastating. Actually,
you know, for a lot of the people who liked
the restaurant, and.
Speaker 4 (52:37):
My sisters used to work at the.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Really were the tips.
Speaker 4 (52:41):
Yeah, I think they were pretty.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
Good, Actually they did. I think they liked working there.
They enjoyed that experience. Yeah, I think your point about
the structure of the economy is the most important one,
which is, you know, the audience they're catering to, was like,
it's like a working class audience, and those are the
people who have been hit hardest by inflation, those people
who have been hit hardest by high interest rates. So
(53:03):
the fact that this would be the moment when it's like,
first of all, if you're giving me a deal on
shrimp that I can't refuse, like I'm getting I'm getting
in there, I'm taking advantage of it. And second of all, yeah,
but that's going to be it, Like I can't be
in red lobster every week.
Speaker 4 (53:17):
That's not going to work for me.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
And my budget is like nowhere near flush enough to
take advantage of that. So I'm sure they took a
hit during COVID as well, So a lot of these
chains were probably like struggling COVID hits them struggling war.
Speaker 4 (53:30):
This was like a last ditch effort. And now here
we are.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
Let's go ahead and skip ahead, guys to D three
here and talk about Boeing because this is very important.
The Justice Department it says that Boeing has violated the
deal that would avoid prosecution after the seven thirty seven
Max crash. So, for those who don't remember, the seven
thirty seven Max had the software update system where for guidance,
which they did not tell the pilots or properly train
(53:55):
them about. This led to the deaths of several hundred
people in two separate crashes twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen.
Boeing then reached not only a settlement with the Department
of Justice where they would pay some two point five
billion dollars, but one which would have them avoid prosecution
on any charges of fraud misleading federal regulators who approved
(54:15):
the plane. They blamed basically deception on two low level employees,
fired them, and they avoided prosecution for themselves and for
the chief pilot, even though a lot of evidence at
that time pointed both towards the company high level culpability.
Speaker 3 (54:30):
Yeah, they escaped, go to the they escaped for sure.
It was BS.
Speaker 7 (54:33):
Well.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
It's pretty interesting because now the head of the Justice
Department's Criminal Fraud Division says that Boeing actually has violated
the terms of that settlement by quote, failing to make
promised changes to detect and prevent violations of federal anti
fraud laws. So what that means is not only can
(54:53):
they be prosecuted for previous actions, but they can also
be prosecuted for any federal criminal violation of which the
US has knowledge, which includes the current investigation into what
happened with the door plug flying off in the mid
flight during that Alaska Airlines flight, where they have already
found quality checks and other systemic problems inside of Boeing.
(55:16):
This comes on the heels now of two whistleblowers suddenly dying,
you know, in the midst of this investigation. But the
reason it's so so significant is that this opens up
crystal prosecution at the highest levels of the company and
further finds after they really did get away scott free
last time around. I mean, two point five billion is
(55:36):
nothing for them when you consider even how much of
their own stock they bought back, which is like ten.
Speaker 3 (55:40):
To twelve billion.
Speaker 4 (55:41):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
And I mean, we don't know whether they are going
to face any sort of federal charges. This doesn't guarantee
that that will actually happen, but it really opens the
door for it. And Asaga was just alluding to, including
that original charge of fraud because they lied to the
government about what happened with those seven thirty seven maxes
(56:03):
that crashed, killing hundreds of people.
Speaker 4 (56:05):
They lied about that and covered it up. They got caught.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
And the way they got out of charges that first
time is bought through this It's called a consent decree.
Through this consent decree that required them to pay some
amount of money to victims. This two point five billion dollars,
et cetera, which I know, you know, two point five
billion dollars sounds like a lot, but in the grand
scheme of Boeing and in the grand scheme of executives
actually facing criminal charges and potential prison time, it's a
(56:31):
drop in the bucket. So now that situation that they
thought they had sort of wrapped up with the bow
and put behind them and were able to move forward,
now totally one hundred percent back on the table. Of course,
this comes as there are more and more whistleblowers coming
out about the culture at Boeing and how sloppy it
is and how profits rule over safety every single time.
(56:55):
We've now had two of those whistleblowers quote unquote end
up dead. Apparently they need to get rid of a
few more whistleblowers since they're going to get themselves out
of this trouble. It looks like because a picture has
already been painted of incredibly sloppy and negligent practices with
absolutely disastrous results. I mean, we are so lucky that
(57:18):
with that door plug situation, that that wasn't yet another
mass casualty event, because if they were a little higher,
if you'd had you know, people happens to be wearing
their sweet belts, thank god, and didn't get sucked out
of the spaces created there. I mean, we are so
that was such a narrow miss. But really, you know,
shin of light once again on and how they basically
(57:41):
haven't changed since causing since killing these hundreds of people previously.
So floodgates are open and Boeing is I think has
feel like they're in big trouble at this point, I
would hope.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
So we'll see, let's return to that DOJ release that
came out previously. Let's put this up there on the
screen just to show every This was the original one
that was announced in January of twenty twenty one. So
this is actually under the Trump and Biden administration here
where they were charged with the Max fraud conspiracy and
agreed to pay the fine. They basically avoided all criminal prosecution.
(58:14):
And it's just in a matter of three years re materialize.
Don't forget this too. Boeing got a massive bailout from
the federal government back in twenty twenty during the COVID,
the COVID bailouts in March of twenty twenty. And you know,
they've been a major recipient of taxpayer dollars on top
of all of the government contracts that they get. This
is a very vital company to the US. So for
(58:37):
all of this to happen and for this basically the government,
you know, had the chance to actually do something about
this and let them get away with it. Again, that's
a major story of corporate corruption. So we're going to
stay on top of it because we know how important
it is, and we'll give everybody updates when the time comes.
Speaker 1 (58:54):
All right, let's go ahead and turn to the very
latest on of Israel. Some really extraordinary noteworthy to developments
from the domestic politics there.
Speaker 4 (59:02):
Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (59:04):
So Israeli Defense Minister Yoev Galant is calling directly called
a press conference and called on Netnu directly to reject
military rule in Gaza. Let me go ahead and read
you a little bit of his comments here. He said
that he wanted to he challenged him to promote an
alternative governing body to Hamas's rule. He goes on to say,
(59:26):
as early as October seventh, the military establishment said it
was necessary to work towards finding an alternative to Hamas,
emphasizing that the end of the military campaign is a
political decision. The day after Hamas will only be achieved
by actors who replace Hmas. This is first and foremost
and Israeli interest. Galant said the military's plan was not
flagged for discussion, and worst, no alternative was.
Speaker 4 (59:46):
Brought in its place.
Speaker 1 (59:47):
Military rule in Gaza is a bad and dangerous alternative
for the State of Israel. According to him, such a
decision would be paid for quote in blood and victims,
and it will come at a heavy economic cost. NETANYAHUO
responded to this, saying, after the terrible massacre, I ordered
the destruction of Hamas Idea fighters and security forces are
fighting for this. As long as Hamas remains, no other
(01:00:09):
actor will run Gaza, and certainly not the Palestinian authority.
Psycho Bezaliel Smocher Chus Finance minister said quote. Defense Minister
Galant effectively announced today his support for the establishment of
a Palestinian terrorist state as a reward to terrorism and
Hamas for the worst massacre to have been carried out
against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Such a defense
(01:00:30):
minister must be replaced in order to achieve the war's goals.
That was Ben Gavier who said that last part. So basically,
now even the Israeli Defense Minister Saber is Hamas, is
pro Hamas. That's the level of discourse that we're at.
I mean, listen, you have Golant has been in favor
of total war and annihilation from the beginning. So now
to at this point be like, oh wait, you don't
have a plan for the day after it is preposterous
(01:00:52):
because we're you know, just YouTubers, and we've been talking
about this since day one. It was very clear there
was never any plan. The only plan was devastation and destruction.
That has been abundantly evident. So you're just now noticing that.
But still the fact that he very publicly called bb
to the carpet. This comes on the heels of the
generals also briefing in a very similar manner against Bebe
(01:01:14):
the gance. Also, Benny Gantz also took the side of, yo,
have galant here siding, you know, on the side of like, hey,
you need to come up with some sort of plan
of what's going to happen next. And of course the
Smotrich and the ben Gavier's of the world, they have
a plan and this is not speculation. They're out there
talking about we need to push Palestinians out, we need
(01:01:37):
to fully resettle Gaza.
Speaker 4 (01:01:39):
That's their plan. Bibe has just sort of pushed this
all off because to.
Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Agree with them is to blow up the coalition on
the more quote unquote moderate side, and to agree with
the quote unquote moderates and whatever their plan is, which
isn't even really clear either, would be to blow up
the coalition on the other side. So all of these
people are complicit in, you know, the utter destruction and
devastation and utter stupidity from an Israeli national interest perspective
(01:02:07):
of the situation. But now they're starting to play the
blame game and try to throw each other under the Bible.
Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
I told you it was going to happen, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
And by the way, I went back and I found
the full quote, and some of these are just amazing
because they're saying it, you know, in academic speak, but
you can read between the lines. So here's one from
Colonel Peter Mansur. He wrote a book on the search.
I highly recommend it. It's like an actual military history.
He was chief of staff that David Petraeus back in
two thousand and seven. Here's a direct quote that he
(01:02:34):
says to the Washington Post. The Israelis and Gaza are
committing the same primary mistake of the Americans in Afghanistan
in Iraq, seeking a primary military solution to fundamentally a
political issue. By pursuing the destruction of Hamas and ignoring
the root causes of the conflict, the Israelis, by their actions,
are creating more future combatants than they are eliminating. Inevitably,
Hamas two point zero will rise from the ashes of
(01:02:55):
the current fighting and they already have. Yeah, no, no,
I know why they're playing the playing game now because
now they're like, oh, it's not this actually turns out
and it's really not working, and that our JV military
is not particularly good at what it does. I mean
just today, you know, I see the news five israelis
what is it? We're killed by friendly fire? They fired
on their.
Speaker 1 (01:03:14):
Own and a number of others injured. They yeah, they
murdered their own soldiers.
Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
They murder their own soldiers, They murdered their own hostages,
and not a single sat which has been rescued. I mean,
which Palestinian is going to govern this place in the future.
Speaker 7 (01:03:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
The only thing too, is he's trying to get out
of a military occupation. I'm like, no, no, yeah, I
want you to do it, because it's like they're the
ones now you got to eat and reap and what
if you have sown from the future. And that's why
the Palestinian authority, the US and the Arabs, nobody should
bail them out of their own problem. They got to
eat the cost of what they've done.
Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
I mean, it's just, it's just that there is no
answer other than horrifying ones from this point forward, not
nothing that's actually on the table. I mean, ideally Palaestins
would be able to govern themselves and have their own state,
et cetera, et cetera, but clearly that's.
Speaker 4 (01:03:57):
Not in the cards. I saw.
Speaker 1 (01:04:00):
Even the Arab states at this point are just like,
we need some sort of a statement they're committed to
two state solution for us to cooperate.
Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
With you whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
Even that is not even possible because net Nyahoo is
adamantly opposed to even pretending that that is something that
he's interested.
Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
He is dead set against it.
Speaker 1 (01:04:18):
Has been his entire career, brags about it, has staked
his entire political power and career on being the guy
that is going to forever block a two state solution.
So yeah, every every answer is a horrifying one and
has been from the beginning, which is why I have
You know, I have no sympathy for the Yoaw of Galantza,
the world or these generals or whatever. The military is
(01:04:39):
the one who they're the ones who came up with
this plan for total war and all out annihilation. What
did you think it was gonna look like the day after?
What did you think that was going to lead to?
Who did you think you were dealing with here in
terms of net Nyahu and Smotrich and Bengevir. But it
is incredible that you now have even you know, Smotridge
basically accusing the Defense Minister of being pro home, which
(01:05:01):
just shows you the utter insanity of the situation. For
what it's worth, the US came out and you know,
backed up you have Golan said we agree with him.
Speaker 4 (01:05:08):
There needs to be a plan. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
It's just an it's sort of an utterly ridiculous conversation
because it's been so obvious from the beginning that Hamas
cannot be quote unquote defeated in the way that they
portrayed from the beginning. The plan that they were, you know,
enacting this total annihilation, which is devastating, devastating to the
civilian population, of civilian life in Gaza, was not a
(01:05:33):
plan designed even to achieve that objective as a plan
to designed to achieve revenge and destruction.
Speaker 4 (01:05:41):
That's what it was.
Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
To satiate the anger and the outrage, understandable outrage after
October seventh, But it was never about anything other than
we are going to destroy. We're going to have massive devastation.
And now, I mean, this is interesting. So there's starting
to be all these acknowledgments from a bunch of the
mayor officials and even a bunch of Israeli officials that
(01:06:02):
you know, you're not going to actually defeat Hamas. And
latest version of this in the Wall Street Journal. It's
both true and interesting that this is being put out there. Now,
put this up on the screen. So they're saying Hamas
shift to gorilla tactics raise the specter of forever war
for Israel. The Islamist militant group is using hit and
run tactics and smaller groups of fighters to show it
(01:06:22):
can fight for months, if not years. They go into
some interesting details here about how HAMAS has continued to
be able to effectively hit the IDF and how you
know they were able to use their tunnel system more
effectively than anticipated. They still haven't been able to get
sin war, etcetera, etcetera. These are all things we've been
talking about. But I think it's funny how they frame
the saga that their shift to gorilla tactics as if
(01:06:44):
Hamas was ever like a regular fighting force, you know,
I mean, this was always a gorilla insurgency, even as
they were technically the government of the Gaza Strip. And
so I also read into this a bit of cobe
of like, oh, well, the reason we won't be able
to defeat them is because they've shifted to these gorilla tactics.
This was is no different than from the beginning. This
(01:07:05):
was very obvious and very apparent. And by the way,
you have given Hamas and Islamic Jihad and whoever else
so much recruiting material that you know, as a social
movement and as an appealing form of resistance to Palestinian people,
like who do you think these orphans or these you know,
kids who watch their brother or sister killed and their
(01:07:27):
home destroyed, or who themselves were shot in Angela, Who
do you think that they're going to support?
Speaker 4 (01:07:32):
What sort of political ideology do you think that they're
going to have?
Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
So so, in any case, that's the framing now is like,
oh well, gosh, the quote here is actually interesting. From this,
the head of the Middle East and North Africa program
at International Crisis Group says, quote Hamas is everywhere in Gaza.
Hamas is far from defeated. So that's where we are.
Even as they have gone into Rafa. Now remember Rafa
was suppose, Oh this is the last day and this
(01:07:56):
is how we'll really defeat Hamas. We at the same time,
they've had to go back into northern Gaza, Gaza City, Shibali,
your refugee can't because guess what when you left and
there was just nothing but a vacuum. Yeah, who else
is going to come back into power than Hamas?
Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Yeah, And I think that actually another way to look
at Gallant's comments, He's trying to bail out himself from
the future.
Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
What the future will look again?
Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
You know, he said, at all of this, what their
military took in terms of casualties is child's play compared
to what will come from actual military occupation. Look no
further than US military casualties in Iraq. If you're actually
responsible for governing this place, you better gear up. You
better have the best suicide bomb. You know, you bet,
I have the best practices that you possibly can. And
(01:08:40):
even then, hundreds of you know, possibly thousands of your
troops are going to get killed. And this was inevitable
from the beginning. This is not the way that they
should have fought the war. But there I really I
want them to reap what they have sown because they
need to bear the cost. And a lot of this
also is I think that they're trying to get the
US and the Arab States to basically fail them out
(01:09:00):
of whatever will look like in the future. But I
don't support that at all because they're the ones. And
you know, I don't know if you noted this too,
it's not just the military. He's like, the economic cost
of this will be terrible. I'm like, you blew the
shit out of this place, You're paying for it. But
of course, knowing US will probably build them out.
Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
In the end.
Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
I just want I just want adjust resolution. I just
want people to not be starving to death. I want
kids to stop getting massacred. And I don't know when
that is ever going to come. I mean, it just
feels like there's no end insight. Adding to the horror
we showed you earlier this week, the way that these
right wing activists have been upping their attacks on aid convoys,
(01:09:38):
you have a dire humanitarian situation there.
Speaker 4 (01:09:41):
I really encourage you.
Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
Ryan and Emily did a gut wrenching interview with an
American nurse who is trapped in a hospital in Conunis
and talking about the situation for her and her colleagues
and for regular Palestinians. It's just it's unimaginable. And you
have these psychos who are protesting by blocking the little
(01:10:03):
bit of aid, trying to block whatever AID is actually
managing to make its way into the Gaza Strip, furthering
what are already in portions of the Gaza Strip deemed
to be famine conditions. The US National Security Advisor Jake
Sullivan actually responded to some of the latest settler attacks,
the ones that we showed you on the show earlier
this week.
Speaker 4 (01:10:21):
Let's take a listen to what Jake Sullivan had to say.
Speaker 9 (01:10:23):
Since Israel took the Rafa crossing, we have seen difficulty
getting aid through either Rafa or Karen Shalom, and this
is a matter of great concern to us. This is
something we're working not just with the Israeli government, but
the Egyptian government in the United Nations, because it will
take all three of them working together to make this happen.
This is an urgent and critical situation. We have got
to get those crossings open to get more aid in.
(01:10:46):
That has been an issue of the past through days,
since these military operations, and it's something we are working
through with all the relevant parties. It is a total
outrage that there are people who are attacking and looting
these convoys come from Jordan going to Gaza to deliver
humanitarian assistance. We are looking at the tools that we
(01:11:06):
have to respond to this, and we are also raising
our concerns at the highest level of the Israeli government
and it's something that we make no bones about. This
is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
So some tutting there over these settlers, Yeah, tough words.
I'm sure they're having difficult conversations behind the scenes, Sagrath.
They've raised this with the highest levels of government, and
since they're not willing to actually do anything, and even
their little like you know, slight pause on a weapon
shipment was immediately overcome, Ryan and Emily covered. Now they're
shipping another billion dollars in weapons, So they're willing to
(01:11:39):
actually do anything about these things. Obviously, we're not going
to hold our breath. We got some more details from
how Ratz. This was actually written up in Times of Israel.
The reporting is from Haretz about who these people are,
who these right wing activists are that are blocking these
A convoys, and in particular we have direct reporting about
collaboration with these government which is no surprise because their
(01:12:01):
official government policy has been a complete siege and have
only allowed in a minimal amount of aid under pressure.
Speaker 4 (01:12:08):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
So first of all, the noteworthy thing from the convoy
attacks and from these protests that we've been pointing to
is oftentimes the police and military standing by and doing
absolutely nothing. So in the wake of this and after
this cause this international upset which is the focus of
the headline here Israeli police and the IDF. They traded
blame once said the police said the army was supposed
(01:12:32):
to be guarding the trucks. The army said the incident
fell into the police's jurisdiction. But the reality is they
spoke to a senior security establishment official. That individual told
Haretz that quote, police are turning a blind eye to
the rioting of lawbreakers who luten burned the AID and
also alleged they were receiving inside information regarding the movement
(01:12:56):
of the trucks. So not only as a blind eyed
being turned. They're all so getting information about where the
trucks are going from government sources so that they can
attack those AID convoys, loot and burn them and assault
the drivers too. By the way, the official went on
to say, some members of the police force avoid cracking
down on the activists, while others off only reluctantly agree
(01:13:17):
to tackle the issue.
Speaker 4 (01:13:18):
Quote, there is a feeling they're.
Speaker 1 (01:13:20):
Trying to please someone specific in the government, the official added,
referring to National Security Minister Aamar Ben Kavier, whose office
oversees the police.
Speaker 4 (01:13:30):
So they're turning a blind eye.
Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
They're feeding them non public information so that they can
go and assault these AID convoys. And it's all because
this is official Israeli government policy. I saw another report,
another independent analysis. You know, we talked about the Flower massacre,
the idea of firing on Palestinians who were trying to
get AID off of a truck and killing one hundred
(01:13:52):
of them. There have been eighty some Israeli Defense Force
attacks on AID shipments eighty some, So that was not
an isolated incident. That is part of a pattern and
which you have to you know, you have to assume
is an intentional policy from the Israeli government, because otherwise
it wouldn't be happening some eighty times, they wouldn't be
(01:14:14):
feeding this secret information. Then you know, the last thing
I'll show you here is there was another attack on
a Palestinian driver.
Speaker 4 (01:14:21):
We can put this up on the screen. This is
very disturbing.
Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
You can see him there on the ground, suffering, by
the way, no one helping him, no one caring. There
are soldiers right there doing nothing for him. You'd see
these settlers with giant weapons. And the reason they attacked
this man who happens to be a truck driver. A
senior official says, oh, well, they beat him because they
thought he was delivering aid. I think of the sickness
(01:14:47):
of those where they almost use it as an excuse. Well,
you know, it was understandable that they assault, aggressively assaulted
this Palestinian truck driver because they thought he might be
trying to feed starving people.
Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
Just grotesque.
Speaker 2 (01:14:58):
Yeah, the whole thing is nuts, and it just shows
you how little control that they are not. Okay, either
have control the situation or they don't have control situation.
Speaker 3 (01:15:05):
Both are terrifying.
Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
We also wanted to give everybody an update on the peer,
the military peer.
Speaker 3 (01:15:10):
Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
Ken Klippenstein for End of the Show can exclusively report
the Pentagon expects to have the Gods of PA peer
in place as soon as the next twenty four hours.
But that has now been confirmed by the US military.
But then the question is is how much aid is
actually going to go in this? Like what's happening? It
will quote soon flow to Israel and or so soon flow. Remember,
(01:15:33):
there's several questions here. Are is really troops going to
pre screen the aid that's going in? Are we going
to make sure that our troops aren't attacked? The bill
for this is some known three hundred and fifty million dollars,
while there's perfectly good trucks sitting at the Rafa crossing
which we don't even have to pay for and is
waiting to go in. Our own producer Mac was flagging
(01:15:54):
the possibility that this they may then just shut all
aid off that's coming in through a much more inefficient peer.
Just has to also happens to be that we have
to pay for it and facilitate.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
Yeah, so the whole thing is a.
Speaker 2 (01:16:05):
Boondoggle where you know, instead of exerting diplomatic pressure for them.
Just let aid that's already coming in. Our troops are
in harms way, we're eating the cost. I cannot think
of a better example of our policy towards Israel.
Speaker 1 (01:16:17):
Complete insanity. Yeah, at the very best, this is a
virtue signal. At the very best, it's an ass covering bullshit, expensive,
dangerous virtue signal. At worst, it's much more nefarious because
remember Babe said, hey, maybe we can use this peer
to help ship some of these Palestinians on here and
achieve his goal of quote unquote fitting out the population.
So at worst, we end up being complicit in the
(01:16:39):
ethnic cleansing, not just complicit, but actively aiding and betting
the ethnic cleansing. Biden announced this in a State of
the Union. Actually, ah, it's his idea, Gus, he's some
great humanitarian while reporting comes on off to the fact, Oh, actually,
this was Bebe's idea. This was Bebe's idea, So tell
me what his intentions are for. So that's number one.
Number two, the US has defunded and refuses to work
(01:17:00):
with UNRA, the number one aid organization actually.
Speaker 4 (01:17:03):
On the ground.
Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
And even though it has now turned out that the
allegations about ANRA having Hamas terras whatever, total and complete bullshit.
Speaker 4 (01:17:11):
The Israelis never provided.
Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
A shred of evidence to back up those claims which
were used to defund this critical agency at a time
when Palestines are literally starving to death. So we're not
working with UNRA. So how is the aid getting distributed?
Speaker 4 (01:17:26):
No one knows.
Speaker 1 (01:17:26):
Answered that, no one knows how to answer that, there's
very little in the way of planning. And then third
to the point about this being very dangerous. Gaza is
an active war zone in case you don't know, And yeah,
Hamas is still out there and I don't think they
love us too much right now.
Speaker 4 (01:17:42):
And by the way, while they were constructing this.
Speaker 1 (01:17:44):
Peer, there were actually tempted attacks in the area and
you know, directly aimed at our people that are constructing
this peer. So total insanity comes at a time when
the Rafa crossing, which has been the key entry point
for aid, has been because of the Israeli invasion into Rafa.
Another crossing was also closed. You have increasingly dire situation
(01:18:09):
in the northern Gaza strip was the place that was
under the most to us and where you know, UN
officials had said officially famine had set in. Now the
southern Gaza strip is also approaching those level of conditions.
We don't really know exactly the dire circumstances that they
are facing there, but based on the report from the
nurse on the ground and other things, we're anecdotally getting out.
(01:18:30):
It's a very bad situation because some of the key
crossings have already been closed. So dire situation. And our
solution is this utter and complete, dangerous, stupid, expensive nonsense.
Speaker 3 (01:18:40):
Yep, there's just two Peru.
Speaker 2 (01:18:41):
There's no, there's there's no it's bottomless, just what we
will the stolishness, the foolishness and humiliation on behalf of Israel.
Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
But I do want to put quick shout out to
Ken He just went independent.
Speaker 3 (01:18:53):
That's right, he's got his new newsletters. You guys should
be a member.
Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
The subscribe, support him. He's just a fantastic reporter. I mean,
think about here. He is independent journalists. This is a
big scoop.
Speaker 4 (01:19:02):
No, it's huge, and he got it before New York Times.
Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
Watch out any of these people, you know, Axios, CNN.
He beat them to this big scoop. Even as an
independent journalist. He's got fantastic sources, really good, does an
excellent job, so please give him a.
Speaker 4 (01:19:17):
Follow if you're able to.
Speaker 3 (01:19:18):
There you go. All right, Hey everybody, thank you so
much for watching.
Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
As we said, Premium subscribers, what day Sunday. Check your email,
big subscriber that is coming, big announcement that is coming to.
Speaker 3 (01:19:30):
All of you. We love you.
Speaker 2 (01:19:31):
We're a lot of work that's going on behind the scenes.
It's a big announcement exclusively for you, and we will
see you all on Monday.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.