5/2/24: Destiny v. Omar Debate Preview, CNN Says Campus Protests Are 1930s Germany, Congress Bans Israel Criticism, Bibi Vows Rafah Invasion, Trump Terrified Of RFK, Wall St Panic Over Mega Landlord Ban, Greenwald Exposes Mike Johnson On FISA, Boeing Whistleblower Dies

Krystal and Saagar discuss BP's Destiny v Omar debate, CNN says campus protests are 1930s Germany, Congress bans Israel criticism, Bibi vows Rafah invasion, Trump terrified of RFK Jr, Wall St panics over mega landlord bans, Glenn Greenwald exposes Mike Johnson on FISA, and another Boeing whistleblower dies.

 

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.

Episode Transcript

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. What do
we have, Krystal?

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Indeed, we do so. Ryan and Emilin yesterday hosted a
big old debate on Israel, Palestine, campus protests, free speech
and all the rest. It was Omar Badar and Destiny
or Stephen Banell or mister.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Barelli Itelli Binell, Okay Banell, all right.

Speaker 4 (00:47):
We'll go with that.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
I hope I'm not screwing that up anyway. I watched
the rough cut of it last night. We're gonna have
it for premium subscribers tonight for everybody else tomorrow, and
Ryan and Amla are going to join us to break
down some of the highlights from that debate and give
us a little sneak peek, so definitely want to tune
in for that. At the same time, we have some
absolutely unhinged media reaction to the campus protests and the

(01:12):
also unhinged crackdown on those protests. You are not going
to believe some of the things that were said, some
of the things that were claimed. I am losing my
mind over all of this. And we have a completely
unhinged congressional reaction to all of this, by the way,
as well, as they seek to codify and ban certain
criticisms of Israel. Foreign government not allowed to criticize that,

(01:33):
so insanity all the way around. The White House handling
this in the worst possible way, of course, So break
all of that down for you. At the same time,
we have a lot of news coming out of Israel
as ces fire talks continue, more screw us from bb
towards Biden as his humiliation toward continues. So we've got
that for you. We also have Trump World panicking over

(01:53):
RFK Junior as they realized this could actually be a
problem for them. He's on a lot of conservative media.
There's also some new poll numbers about his vaccine views
that could be challenging for Trump and his positioning with
his own base. That we'll talk about that. We also
have Marjorie Taylor Green apparently still looking to follow through
on her threat to try to oust Mike Johnson, even
as Democrats say that they will save the speakers since

(02:15):
they love him now, since he got them their Ukraine aid.
And that's all kumbaya apparently with the bipartist and war machine.
And then finally we had to add this in last night.
I can't even believe I'm saying these words. Another Boeing
whistleblower is now dead.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
He's a forty five year old healthy man. We'll tell
it was a forty five year old healthy man.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Some illness. We'll tell a two weeks later he's dead.
So there you go. But let's go ahead and start
with this big debate with Ryan and Emily. We've pulled
a couple of the highlights. Like I said, I watched
it last night. It really was extraordinary. I'm super excited
for you guys to be able to see it. Ryan
and Emily did a phenomenal job. We're going to go
ahead and bring them in now into the studio so
they can give us a breakdown of their experience. So,

(02:55):
as we just mentioned, Ryan and Emily hosted kind of
a major debate yesterday between streamer Destiny real name Stephen
Banel and Omar Batter, who is a fantastic expert on
the least in Israel Palastine specifically, I got to watch
the whole rough cut last night. First of all, kudos
to both of you, because it's not easy. It's almost
harder when you're a duo. Saga and I have experienced

(03:17):
to know when to jump in, how to manage it.
It's a difficult balance to keep things on the rails
but also to make sure that they're able to engage
with each other. I thought you guys both to a
fantastic job with that. Before we've got a couple of
like little highlight clips that we want to share with
the audience. But before I do that, I mean, what
was your kind of like, what was the vibe, what
was your sense of how all.

Speaker 5 (03:38):
Questions, FIBs were good, vibes were goodactly what you would expect. Yeah,
that conversation, Now I hadn't watched previously they did a debate.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
I didn't know.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
That before we had booked them.

Speaker 5 (03:50):
Yeah, so we kind of had to go back and
figure out what their dynamic was. They had met before,
and then they'd continued to exchange these barbs online nasty
stuff to us.

Speaker 6 (04:01):
We were not actually trying to go around keep yourself
right grudge match.

Speaker 5 (04:05):
It just kind of yeah, yeah, but we also wanted
to make sure that it didn't go down a rabbit
hole of just personal because you know, the YouTube beef,
sometimes it's like it's it's inseparable. Sometimes you're just like, well,
you said this on this stream month, this day. So
we wanted to make sure that didn't happen.

Speaker 3 (04:18):
And I think that worked.

Speaker 6 (04:19):
Yeah, Yeah, it actually was pretty substantive. Yeah, because it's like,
on the one hand, it's kind of embarrassing, you're like, really,
you're gonna have a streamer on you just kind of
only learned in October, like said, like she says, like
I learned in October about this issue.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
I didn't care about it before.

Speaker 6 (04:36):
But he is an extremely sharp guy, and he makes
a lot of the arguments that you see being made
from people in his camp.

Speaker 4 (04:44):
Yeah, and he makes them very effectively.

Speaker 6 (04:45):
Okay, so I think it's useful to see how those
can and can't be you know, combat had counteracted, and
I think, uh, we also brought it to a little
bit of a higher level where we ask questions about
kind of broader issues like racism, islamophobia, anti Semitism, like

(05:06):
root causes and root solutions to the conflict which can't
which which you can't really take those down a rabbit
hole and and kind of get distracted. And I thought
that was the most enlightening part.

Speaker 5 (05:18):
The only other thing I would add to that is
the value of the way Destiny approaches it is he
says things that people on his side think but probably
would just tiptoe around, wouldn't actually actually gets out of
exactly and then right, and then Omar can respond to
that instead of like, you know, tiptoeing around it.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
It's useful to have the actual position laid out because
when you get into the well I didn't say that,
it's like, yeah, but you freaking mean it. We all
know what you mean to say, so that is helpful
when you actually like, just say it. Just say that
they're using cookies to make rockets, for example, is one
thing that came up.

Speaker 3 (05:53):
In the debated one.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
In any case, the first clip we have for you
is an exchange about safe soans in the context of like, okay,
like if you're a palacetint in Gaza, what do you do.
Let's take a listen to how that went down.

Speaker 7 (06:06):
Look, they've destroyed eighty percent of the building, they've displayed it,
They've displayed.

Speaker 4 (06:10):
Through they've displaced ninety percent of the population.

Speaker 7 (06:12):
Can you name any other conflict in which you displaced
ninety percent of the civilian pop.

Speaker 8 (06:16):
Nation, because usually they just destroyed them. Do you think
it dressden they told the civilians to flee? Do you
think in the Tokyo fire bombs Saki Hairoshima and we
tell the civilians to leave? Can you can you acknowledge
what he just was incredibly fucking stupid that, No, they
don't sell civilians to leave first.

Speaker 3 (06:29):
Normally they just kill.

Speaker 4 (06:30):
Them ycause.

Speaker 7 (06:33):
Because because he thinks, because he thinks that that's a
clever line, let me explain something to you.

Speaker 4 (06:37):
He's not going to I'm going to acknowledge.

Speaker 7 (06:39):
I'm going to acknowledge that, yes, they told civilians to
leave and then they dropped massive two thousand bombs on
the safe zones.

Speaker 4 (06:46):
That they told the civilians.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
Just want to say, no, the beach or whatever.

Speaker 7 (06:50):
There have been countless incidents of them dropping.

Speaker 4 (06:53):
Now you're just lying.

Speaker 8 (06:54):
I looked it up, like all the data on all
the same four hours of roads make Safe York. They
Guarantee Travels investigation that attackers.

Speaker 7 (07:02):
A New York Times investigation, and there's an NBC investigation.
Both of them document the fact that Israel is bombing
safe zones where they tell civilians to flee.

Speaker 3 (07:09):
And real investigations hold on it.

Speaker 5 (07:12):
It's really admitted at CNN that intelligence indication that these
places were safe houses for commanders of the Row of
a brigade of the Hamas Terra organization. This is back
in December about bombing areas that were supposed to be
evacuation routes.

Speaker 3 (07:24):
Evacuation routes are not safe zones.

Speaker 8 (07:25):
There's been one official declared they shouldn't Hams not operate
from there.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
I mean, we're talking again, that's a good question question.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
Okay, So they're talking about Al Malassie. Is what he
I think is referring to there? And I want to
get your reaction, which is so I was gonna say.

Speaker 5 (07:41):
I asked him if that's what he was referring to.
I like wrote it down on a piece of paper.
Because we had it fact checked and I handed it over.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
To him and he said, yes, yes, that's it a Malasi,
So we covered when they at first we're like, go
to Al Malassie. There's like nothing, there's no infrastructure, there's
not sufficient sanitation, water, food, it's or the idea that
millions of Palestinians could shelter in this area is preposterous.
But he's kind of getting this technicality of like, well,

(08:07):
this is the official safe zone, so no, no, no
safe roots, evacuation roots, that doesn't count. I'm talking about
specifically this one safe zone.

Speaker 6 (08:15):
And I think this was I think why it's useful
for people to see this. This was the most kind
of bitchy, nasty back and forth, whereas I think everything
else was a little bit calmer and more reason might
not be the word, but reason like that that was the.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
Kind of it was. I mean, you were kind of bad.
There wasn't a bitchiness, which I don't mind.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Right, I thought this was the height of it.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
This was one of the more like tense you know,
and sort of message.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
It wasn't that bad.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
I've seen it, you know, ten times worse, and it
is more you know, a shout out to your guys's moderation.
How was it with Omar as well, Like, in terms
of the challenging questions, did you throw it to him?

Speaker 9 (08:53):
More?

Speaker 3 (08:53):
Was Destiny throwing things to him? How is it handling that?

Speaker 10 (08:56):
Uh?

Speaker 6 (08:56):
Destiny was actually I thought respectful in this of Omar's time,
and in a way that I was worried he might
not be like when we would come in and be like, look,
just look enough, let him respond, he would actually he
would actually let him respond. Omar was very good at
not taking the bait. There he called him what effing stupid? Yeah,

(09:17):
that's right. At another time he said, I think you're
probably more anti Semitic than than we even know, or
something like just just a nasty personal attack that was
completely baseless, And he didn't really take the bait. And
because I think he understood that Destiny was going to
try to steal Destiny.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
I had Kyle and I interviewed Omar shortly after his
last debate with Destiny, and a debate that he found
to be extremely frustrating. And he's he's not a YouTuber
like we are, right, he didn't know who Destiny was,
and he consumed his content so we didn't really want
he agreed to the debate. I think he didn't initially,

(10:02):
like the first one, really know what he was getting.
And so I think between then and this one, I
think he was able to develop better strategies for handling
some of the tactics that were thrown out. I mean,
Destney is is like, obviously he has assimilated a large
amount of information about this conflict in a very short
period of time, a large amount of propaganda talking points

(10:22):
in my opinion, in a very short period of time.
He's able to roll them out very effectively. There was
nothing you guys asked him about that he wasn't ready
with an answer that he hadn't thought through, that he
wasn't able to do. And I mean his whole thing
and why he's popular and successful where he's a debate bro.
So he's good at this. And so it seemed to
me like Omar was able to kind of come up

(10:44):
with some better strategies than the first time that he
met up with Destiny that created the initial like you know,
whatever you too, beef situation.

Speaker 6 (10:54):
Kind of meta identifying what Destiny was doing, yes, saying
like okay, in this moment, what you are doing trying.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
To get me to chase this right so that you
can avoid.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
Answering yeah, because he would say, okay, wait to raise
a totally irrelevant rabbit hole point that's going to like
distract me in this direction. But I'm going to focus
on yes, that's that he did do again.

Speaker 6 (11:12):
Otherwise you'll say, well, you're avoiding answer At this point,
it's like, well, the reason I'm avoiding is because it's
just a distraction.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
Well, we have a second clips here that we can
play about the March of Return. This was another interesting
moment that we wanted highlight for everybody. Let's take a
listen and we'll get the reaction on the other side.

Speaker 8 (11:27):
Towards the end of the Great Marshal Return, there were
people that were throwing stones, that were setting over incendiary
balloons that were causing like fires to spread on the
other side of the fence. All this is documented even
by the UN and that was when the majority of
the firing from the Israeli police happened. If you want
to say that they shouldn't be shooting at people who
were close to the fence because you don't like that
policy or whatever, that's fine, But characterizing that is like
just open firing into a bunch of innocent people that

(11:48):
are standing there with the goal of just maiming people
for no reason. Is the most unbelievable retelling of what
happenedwar to the end of that event, that's exactly what happened.

Speaker 7 (11:56):
Actually, just to characterize it, just you know, get an
even more complete pick.

Speaker 4 (12:00):
Sure.

Speaker 7 (12:00):
Israeli policy is people in Gaza have no right to
go in and out of the cage that they've been
placed into, their complete siege, their economies and shambles because
Israel does not allow them to trade with the outside world.
They can't have an airport because Israel doesn't feel like
they are entitled to an airport, can't have a seaport.
You know, when you look at the rates of unemployment
over fifty percent in Gaza at the time, And if

(12:20):
those people who are trapped in this cage come a
little too close to the border, then we open fire
at them and kill them, even when they're unarmed, because
that's border policy.

Speaker 4 (12:26):
If this is something that more than If this is something.

Speaker 3 (12:29):
It's more than six thousand.

Speaker 6 (12:30):
According to the un quote unquote, more than six thousand
unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers week after week
at the protest sites and the separation fence.

Speaker 4 (12:38):
There's no denying that.

Speaker 7 (12:39):
Yes, some people try to open up, and some people
send insidiary balloons over the border and so on, but
by and large, when you look at the cases, human
rights organizations have been clear about the fact that people
were targeted when they posed absolutely no threat to Israeli soldiers.

Speaker 4 (12:51):
So Israeli soldiers open fire on.

Speaker 7 (12:52):
People and targeted specifically metics journalists and children that is, and.

Speaker 8 (12:56):
People who are game that's being played when we say
posed no threat to Israeli soldiers. There was one un
report that came out that analyzed it the claim that
every single shooting except for one was unjustified. But the
way that they got that is they didn't analyze that
as an armed conflict.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
They analyzed that as a policing event.

Speaker 8 (13:12):
And when you analyze things internationally as a policing event,
typically police aren't allowed to shootor kill anybod unless they
pose a direct threat to the individual.

Speaker 6 (13:18):
Why would why would they analyzed as an armed conflict
If one side wasn't dark.

Speaker 8 (13:21):
Because Hamas was present, it doesn't matter if they were shooting.
If you've got an enemy. If you've got an enemy
military that is present amongst people that are that are
there was no ammas, is considered oppositional force.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
And if you've got people that are participating and you.

Speaker 7 (13:37):
Don't have guns not of course nothing to do with
a clear about the fact that the situation. You can
only kill combatants if they're in combat and they're armed.

Speaker 4 (13:47):
You can't somebody, absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
You do not become yster combat You do not.

Speaker 8 (13:51):
You not do you not all of a sudden gain
the protections of a civilian if you're an enemy combatant
without a gun.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
If you have to google l let's do that. Just
to go back to a point that you made earlier
about sort of I just.

Speaker 8 (14:08):
Wanted just so you're saying that like if if there's
a military and you're fighting the enemy, you guys going
to if you just drop your guns, you can just
like run back and nobody can.

Speaker 4 (14:15):
If you drop your guns and raise your arms, you
can't know that surrendering.

Speaker 3 (14:17):
That's different than running away.

Speaker 8 (14:19):
You can't drop your guns and just run away, and
you can't get shock because you're no firef.

Speaker 1 (14:23):
Okay, that exchanged my meal and saying Ryan was your
reaction after this, and I.

Speaker 6 (14:28):
Thought the whole March of Return conversation was was interesting
from beginning to end because he just kind of mentioned
the March of Return as something that you as an
example of something that Hamas had done that had kind
of triggered Israel to like attack it, and Omar and
I pointed out it was a civil society led non
violent action, and that that later led into I thought

(14:50):
the most useful conversation, which was that you know, Hamas
was pressured by the non violent civil society led March
of Return into eventually supporting it. They didn't want to
because it takes away from their argument, which is that
only armed resistance is appropriate against Israel. And it made
our point that the way to dismantle the ideology of

(15:12):
Hamas is through non violence, is through peace, is through
reaching a deal with the Palestinians.

Speaker 3 (15:19):
It is the violence by.

Speaker 6 (15:21):
The Israelis towards the Palestinians that actually supports the ideology
of Hamas, and that I thought was the most interesting
part of the debate to tackle that broader subject.

Speaker 1 (15:32):
Because that was really important. I thought that you brought
up a couple of times Ryan that if you look
at Hamas popularity. It plummets when there's an actual possibility
of negotiated peace and when there's not, and when it
feels to Palestinians like my only chance is armed, like
nothing else is working. We do the Great March of Return,
it's overwhelmingly non violent, and we get snipers firing at us,

(15:54):
like what the hell are we supposed to do here?
That's one support predictably, and also when your mom and
your brother and your sister are being slaughtered, guess what,
that's probably going to create a lot more commitment to you.

Speaker 6 (16:05):
And Destiny understands that on the other side, because he's
he's very quick to say, look, the second reason, the
reason Israeli is one of the genocide the Palestinians is
because of the second and they fought in the suicide bombings.

Speaker 3 (16:17):
Why doesn't it work.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
The other way?

Speaker 3 (16:19):
Well, of course it does.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
I also thought that exchange, though, was very illustrative of
a technique that he uses very effective, which is it
got bogged down in this question about like you know,
arms comeback and dropping your weapons or whatever.

Speaker 3 (16:33):
It's like international did you and whether it was a.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Police action or military action. It takes you away from
the basic facts that because this is what people well,
if if you know, Palestinians had their own gandhi, if
they had their own non violent it could be over
so quickly. And it's like, well, they tried that, and
so you get away from these basic facts of they

(16:57):
tried that and thousands of them were with sniper bullets
and intentionally maimed, and medics and journalists target All of
this is accurate document and by human rights organizations. It
gets you away from those very uncomfortable facts and arguing
about some little minor technicality that he's educated himself on
and everyone's else like I don't really know about it.

Speaker 6 (17:15):
There's a strategic and moral question of whether it is
good for either cause to kill unarmed protesters, right, and
then there's the legal question of whether or not they
are engaged, you know, whether or not they're allowed to
kill them, because hamas count is police or hamas count
as combatants who are somewhere within the vicinity, and so
they're like, right, So we kept trying to push it

(17:36):
back to the strategic and moral and ethical questions and
keep it away from these rabbit holes.

Speaker 3 (17:41):
Any last thoughts, simile, Well.

Speaker 5 (17:43):
You know, I think to the extent that you can
have a spoiler for a debate. What Crystal just mentioned
about Ryan's point on peace support for peace declining in
those particular moments is the devastating that I felt like,
and that comes towards the end. I felt like that
was clearly a moment where we all sort of looked
around and we're like, this is but he kind of,

(18:04):
I don't want to say he changed the terms, but
then he said, but you know, we're talking about peace
from a Western perspective. What both sides really want is justice,
and that is again like coming to that later in
the debate. We just sort of looked around, We're.

Speaker 3 (18:17):
Like, you know, and then he dips into weird oriental stuff.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Okay, well so as we as we already it's a
two hour debate, literally two hours to the mark.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
It was actually hard to wrap.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
Yeah, I've been there.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
Yeah, no, we were getting the messages in real time
our max like, you know, you could probably wrap up now.
And then it goes into the whole conversation about human shields,
which is another interesting moment. Human shields. Okay, when the
idf uses them based on again some you know, legalies
whatever cookies being used to build rockets. That's another interesting moment.

Speaker 5 (18:52):
Yes, and it's also I just wanted it's not a
total pileon, and we maybe made it sound like that,
but like, there are some things that I agree with Destiny,
and there were some moments where we pushed Omar and
he was a good faith willing to engage it.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
I think, so I think people, I think people who
watch it, even if you you know, if you share
Destiny's view, if you share Omar's view, I think you're
gonna feel like your view was well represented, right.

Speaker 3 (19:16):
I mean, and that's all we can ask for.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, that's absolutely right. You guys did a really effective job,
like I said, moderating it, creating that climate, I think,
making everybody feel like they had a chance. I also
will just say, as like, having watched so many of
these Israel debates at this point, one on one is
so much better. It's so then when you have the
panel for four people andever you try, it's so much
better to have had Omar and Destiny have it well moderated.

(19:41):
That to me is like the best model. I think
that's why you were able to get to so much,
so many interesting substantive conversations I'm very excited for people
to watch that. I'm really excited about you guys doing
the Friday show because I think this is just a
great preview of things to come.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
This is an awesome proof of cons.

Speaker 1 (19:56):
Ryan's getting fashion tips from Don, Ryan's getting better.

Speaker 3 (19:59):
Just what else could we have?

Speaker 6 (20:00):
The record I had this last spring, which that's all.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
That's right, Don's ready describe to breaking points.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
If you want to watch it early drop tonight for
our premium subscribers, we publicly available tomorrow. Support us there
if you want to be able to support Friday shows
like this. It's a great proof of concept for what
we're all about. And I guess with that, let's get
to the show.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
So, as you guys likely know, and Ryan and nominally
covered very ably yesterday there was a massive police crackdown
across New York City colleges, including at Columbia University, and
the next day morning, Joe, of course, ready to manufacture consent,
they brought on the Deputy Commissioner of Police to make
some extraordinary claims about some of the tools that these

(20:43):
protesters were using at what Hamilton Hall, what they named
Hins Hall. Let's take a listen, tell us about this change.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
Yeah, so when we will.

Speaker 11 (20:54):
This is not what students bring to school, okayshals bring
to campuses and universities. These are heavy industrial chains that
were locked with Bilock bike locks. And this is what
we encountered on every door inside a Hamilton hall and
so in order for our emergency services group to into
the building, they had to first cut through these chains.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
Heavy industrial chains. This saga is what professionals bring. This
isn't what students would have access to, which plays into
this whole trope that was being pushed relentlessly on CNN
and other places that oh it was actually this isn't
even students. This is outside agitators to make this like
super extra scary. It didn't take long for people to
pull up. This is literally a bikelock that is sold

(21:39):
by Columbia University.

Speaker 2 (21:41):
At the Columbia University gift shop, literally the exact same one,
which is very likely where they bought it from. It
is really hilarious and it's also one of those where
just this morning, Crystal mayor Eric Adams actually was asked
on MSNBC how many people who were not Columbia University
students were arrested. Approximately three hundred of the people who
were arrested, he's only able to name two so far

(22:04):
that we're there, which is actually far below the average
at University of Texas, Austin and others where you actually
saw a majority of the people at some of those
protests which were arrested, which were not students. But in
this particular case, it does seem that the absolute vast
majority two hundred and ninety eight out of three hundred
so far confirmed to have been students at Columbia University.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Yeah, and I mean, just how you understand why this
was like an important propaganda point, and Anderson Cooper was
pushing this, the police department was pushing this whole narrative
of like, we don't even think this is students. We
think this is outside agitators. Is because outside agitator sounds
like crazy, scary, violent radicals, whereas college kids, you're like,

(22:43):
these are college students who've been camping out, who are
engaging in the sort of protest techniques that we've seen,
you know, for decades that are sort of tried and true.
Even if you don't like them or agree with them,
or disagree with them, whatever, it's a very different valence
when you're crafting this narrative about these Gary radical outside
agitators coming in with professional, industrial grade chains, then college

(23:07):
students who have bikelocks that they bought at the campus bookstore.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Yeah, it's just totally ridiculous what we've seen from a
lot of the NYPD, I.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
Will say, the outside agitator.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
Like I said, I initially I was skeptical but willing
to believe some of it because of the UT Austin
numbers that had previously come out. The other thing is
that Columbia University and the NYPD put together an entire
presentation before the raid somewhere around eight pm where they
specifically highlighted students or people who were wearing ski masks
and others that were entering the building, specifically saying that

(23:38):
these individuals were from outside of the university. And it's like, well, okay,
and again, if you'll remember when we were all talking
about this live, I said, this will be a great
claim to check after the arrests have been made, whether
they were telling the truth or not. And I think
people should also understand this is a key pretext for
the launch of the raid on Columbia University. Yes, there
was Hamilton Hall being keep hied, the property damage and

(24:01):
all of that, but the actual pretext, if you look
at the letter that was sent by Columbia University to
NYPD very specifically highlights that it claims that were non
students that were inside of the hall.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
That's really important. And I also want to point out
because you know, the windows that were broken and the
occupation of Hamilton Hall was used as a pretext for this.
Like I mean, you saw how many police and riot
gear and the heavy yell artillery and all of this. Okay,
but it didn't just happen at Columbia University. You know,
at City College, which is just up the street about

(24:32):
twenty blocks that I actually used to live right there
in that neighborhood in Northern Manhattan. There were by all accounts,
entirely peaceful protests far as I know, there were no
was no even property damage, no buildings occupied or anything.
And they still had this overwhelming police crackdown of the
sort that we've seen, you know, on campuses across the country.

(24:53):
So and also obviously this is not the normal response
for broken windows and trespassing. I think we get all
see very clearly the reason for their response is because
They don't want the dissent. They want to make sure
this entire movement is completely crushed. It's all a method
of avoiding the conversation about what these students are actually

(25:14):
protesting and whether or not their cause is actually just.
But we've got more for you from the NYPD. This
is Rebecca Winer, head of the NYPD counter Terrorism Bureau,
talking about why this response was necessary. Take a lesson.

Speaker 9 (25:30):
This is not about students expressing ideas. It is about
a change in tactics that presents a concern, and a
normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric. And I'm not just talking
about language. I'm now talking about tactics and that's what
shifted our response yesterday. But a normalization and mainstreaming of

(25:50):
rhetoric associated with terrorism that has now become pretty common
on college campuses.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
Right.

Speaker 9 (25:57):
You see people wearing headbands associated with foreign terrorist organizations.
This happened in October when you had a viral TikTok
reissuing of Osama bin Laden's two thousand and two letter
to America.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
So that's a larger concern.

Speaker 9 (26:13):
It's separate from what happened yesterday, but they're related. We
do not want ideas. We do not want campuses, which
are where people are supposed to be learning and being
in a conducive environment for all of the things that
we do in schools being turned into places where people
are committing vandalism, property damage, and committing crimes.

Speaker 1 (26:36):
I like the part where she says we don't want ideas.
That's very clear. I mean, this is Listen. You can
hate their cause, you can hate their speech, you can
think that it's, you know, the same thing that a terrorist.
It doesn't matter. There is no car mount in the
First Amendment for hate speech or ideas you don't like.
And that's what's so ridiculous about this and the whole
of government and whole of media effort to censor, crush,

(27:00):
and criminalize certain speech critical of Israel.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
It's insane, and that's what's happening right now.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
I mean, we're got to get to it in terms
of the House of Representative's passage of its anti semitism
while I mean, this is one of the biggest fringe
infringes upon the First Amendment since World War One. If
you go back and you look at some of the
anti war acts that were imposed at that time on
Americans who were trying to dissent from the war machine
of that time about one hundred years ago. So this
is an extraordinary moment. And it's not even for a

(27:29):
war where American troops are dying. Isn't that a little
interesting in terms of the war powers willing to basically
insert and totalitarianize our democracy on behalf of a foreign
power which is prosecuting a war. Similarly, Crystal, I think
it's very important. I realized we haven't even had a
chance to react to some of the things going on
at Columbia. And I think people can say, you know,

(27:49):
I'm not like a pro Kefia person or any of this,
but I did a lot of research and I have
to be honest so tact fact, when we looked previously
at Hamilton Hall and the occupation, I said, I think
the line because in property damage of vandalism and trespassing. However,
I do think and again, and this is kind of
where the discourse breaks apart.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
People are like, well, what would you expect?

Speaker 2 (28:09):
And I don't have any problem with arresting those individuals,
but we have to come back to some of the
original response to January sixth. So immediately in the aftermath
of January sixth, Crystal, you and I were sitting here
in our studio. I'll never forget, not here but over
at the hill, and I'll never forget, you know, having
to go through Bagdad like checkpoints, you know, to get
to our office. Yeah, a full federalization. So again we

(28:32):
were talking there about Okay, so the people should be prosecuted, certainly, right,
people who entered the capital unlawfully. But does it mean
that we should be prosecuting this domestic terrorists? Does it
mean that we should have spent half a billion dollars,
you know, locking down our entire capital, deploying the National Guard,
trying to institute a Patriot Act two point zero. And
that's where I would really urge people, where, even if
you are skeptical or even outright oppositional to some of

(28:55):
these protesters, I would urge proportionality in a response. And
watching one thousand and NYPD police officers basically walk into Colombia,
it's one of the most insane things I've ever seen.
You know, Again, we can arrest people, and we can
have the situation handled in a proportional manner relative to
the crime that is being committed. Another thing is and

(29:15):
I'll be honest, I didn't actually know this is I
went back and did some research. So back in nineteen
eighty five, I talked previously about how protesters had occupied
Hamilton Hall previously. Protesters actually occupied Hamilton Hall for three
weeks in nineteen eighty five, and actually it led to
a Columbia University vote of divestment from apartheid South Africa

(29:37):
at the time. So I have to be real, I
have a lot more sympathy now for the people who
did this, because the university itself has a long history
of both, you know, allowing these types of things to
happen and also even following through with their demands. I
don't even necessarily agree with the fact that you should
be able to trespass on a hall and then your

(29:57):
university three weeks later is going to you know, bout
your demands, but you did it already in the past.
So not only that, based upon all of their recruiting materials,
they have consistently said Columbia is a state of social
justice action. They brag about the Hamilton Hall occupation of
nineteen sixty eight and nineteen eighty five. They talk specifically
about how their student body is like highly socially engaged.

(30:21):
So it is very clear here that we are acting
in a different manner as opposed to Israel. So I
think then that and I want people to hear this
from somebody like me, who's not necessarily the most sympathetic person.
I want them to understand that, Look, a thousand people
coming in to a private university under these pretexts and basically,
you know, occupying this campus. Whenever you have a long

(30:42):
history of allowing such behavior in the past and bragging
about it, that is very, very different, you know, this
time around. So we can have law and order, and
we can have proportionality, and we can also understand, I
think where there is a clear exception being made now
here in the case of Israel, and in that you know,
I have to object as an American citizen for what's happening.

Speaker 1 (31:03):
Amen to all of that, And I mean, listen, just
ask yourself, right, like I said before, what is the
normal response to a broken window and trespassing? Is it
a thousand police in rya gear. I'm pretty sure there's
some other criminal activities happening in New York City where
those cups might be useful. The smearing of these students

(31:25):
as actual terrorists by the NYPD, by you know, the
mourning Joe. It's so I really am losing my mind
over this because we're about to get into what happened
at UCLA as well. In terms of a protest movement,
like we can debate tactics, we've debated tactics. Even within

(31:45):
the movement. There's debates about what tactics work, and what's
going to win people over and what's not going to
be effective, et cetera. That's all fine and good, But
in terms of a protest movement, which is massive in
scale and size and nationwide, et cetera, they've been about
as perfect as you could get. There have been so
few instances of even property damage that it's actually incredible

(32:10):
when you have this many human beings, some of whom
are gonna be a loll out there that doesn't undermine
the justice of their cause in this particular instance. But
you're gonna have radicals, you're gonna have weirdos, you're gonna
have freed that's human beings. Okay. The fact that you've
had so few instances that are even colorably violent is

(32:30):
actually astonishing. And when you look at what happened at UCLA,
the one instance where we had genuine violence. It is
now very clear that it was nearly, if not entirely,
one sided pro Israel counterprotesters coming in, shooting fireworks at them,

(32:51):
busting down their encampment, assaulting them for hours, with the
police nowhere to be seen. So we're gonna talk about
student safety. Dozens of anti war protesters, some of whom
may well have been Jewish, since this is the concern
of the day, which listen, I think old people, including
Jewish people, should be safe. You had dozens of students

(33:13):
sent to the hospital. Where's a media concern about those students' safety. Clearly,
this risk to student safety has been in the crackdown
and has been from these counter protesters who are again
were allowed to assault them and run wild for hours.
Where were the riot cops then, in their gear with
their heavy artillery to protect students when they actually were needed.

(33:37):
They were nowhere to be found. And the UCLA rent
a cop, security guards or whatever they had. They were
treated in hidden and building and were such cowards they
locked out the student journalists who had been given agreement
that they could retreat into that building if their safety
was under threat, and by the way, their safety was
under threat. Four of them were assaulted, according to the

(33:59):
LA Time this morning, were assaulted by those pro Israel counterprotesters.
Where's the media outrage about that? Where's the concern about
Jewish student safety about any of that? Instead you get
this completely insane commentary from Dana Bash. She Dana or Dana,
We'll go with both. Whoever. Dana Bash, who is supposedly

(34:24):
first of all, she's a congression christ but she's not
foreign affairs, she's not opinion, and yet she had the
most insane take on this whole situation. I can scarcely
even believe it. Take a listen to what this lady
had to say.

Speaker 12 (34:38):
Many of these protests started peacefully with legitimate questions about
the war, but in many cases they lost the plot.
They're calling for a ceasefire, Well there was a ceasefire
on October sixth, the day before Hamas terrorists brutally murdered
more than one thousand people inside Israel and took hundreds
more as hostages. Making Jewish students I feel unsafe at

(35:01):
their own schools is unacceptable and it is happening way
too much right now.

Speaker 4 (35:08):
I'm a Ucile A student.

Speaker 3 (35:09):
I deserve to go here.

Speaker 4 (35:11):
We pay tuition, this is our school, and they're not
letting me walk in my classes over there. I want
to use that entrance.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Why can't Will you let me go in? This could
be over in a second.

Speaker 4 (35:20):
Just let me and my friends go in.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
Again.

Speaker 12 (35:25):
What you just saw is twenty twenty four in Los Angeles.
Hearkening back to the nineteen thirties in Europe. And I
do not say that lightly. The fear among Jews in
this country is palpable right now.

Speaker 1 (35:37):
So one video of someone claiming, which how many of
these freaking hoaxes have we seen at this point? That
they're being blocked from going to class, and it's nineteen
thirties in Europe. It's the equivalent to the Holocaust and
millions of Jews being being murdered on an industrial scale.
This is so completely insane, especially Saga, given the fact

(36:00):
that we know the bulk of the violence. Violence has
been perpetrated against the anti war protesters.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
And this is a look, I believe very strongly an
equal application of the law. And I think that those
protesters you know, who were having it took four hours
for the LAPD to come in.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
I think it's outrageous.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
It's very clearly that they just didn't feel like getting involved.
Their excuse was that what that they didn't have enough
troops or something like that, which I just simply don't
believe honestly, because they had campus security there as well.
The other thing is, you know, time for a little
history lesson there, Dana. I believe it is Dana, by
the way, I just looked it up. So for the
nineteen thirties Germany, do people really want to know what happened?

(36:37):
There were thousands of actual street brawls in the street
between the Nazis, between the center right parties, the socialists,
the communists. I mean, it was an absolute bloodbath. Thousands,
tens of thousands of people were killed in street violence.
There wasn't an actually state violence necessarily, and in fact,

(37:00):
the vacuum of power and all of that at the
time the chaos is eventually what led to some of
the rise of the Nazi Party. And that's exactly why
so many of our brain dead comparisons to the nineteen
thirties are frankly insulting, you know, to people who lived
through the period of wy Mar Germany and saw what
happened at that time of violence perpetrated against Jews. I mean,

(37:21):
every once in a while I'll see somebody, for example,
you know, I said here, I said, I think it
crosses the line to break into Hamilton Hall. And then
I go online and people are like, this is Christalnacht
because there's some broken glass, and I'm like, oh again again, Okay,
it is deeply insulting to these survivors of Christalnacht to
compare the occupation and the breaking into Hamilton Hall to

(37:45):
what happened in nineteen thirties Germany.

Speaker 3 (37:47):
But this is in a.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
Consistent Holocaust denial, honestly acts as being anything like the
acts that led.

Speaker 4 (37:55):
Up to that.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Of course, I mean, it'd be like saying that any
time that you detain some that they're like slaves, or
you know, any time that you have you know, even
if you have a I don't know, Like it's like
comparing affirmative action to Jim Crow or something. Right, you
could say it is a policy like Jim Crow, or
like a policy that has the echoes of something, But
even then I think it's outrageous and frankly insulting. So

(38:18):
here again, like everybody, calm down. You know, I even
pulled the numbers and went back Hamilton Hall this time
around was roughly half the number, actually less than half
of the number of people who were arrested in nineteen
sixty eight. There were over seven hundred people were arrested
and had a lot.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Of other buildings.

Speaker 2 (38:34):
They occupied quite a lot of other buildings. There was
actually a shitload more violence than also at the time,
And that's part of why I'm just like, look, guys, everybody,
just take a chill pill. It is not nineteen thirties Germany.
We've gotten through ten times worse in our country, not
even you know, a lot that long ago. It's everybody's fine.
And yet for some reason, you know, everything is just

(38:56):
getting ratcheted up. Where these you know, a CNN anchor
who that let's be honest, he probably has personal security
or something like that. You know, mal time millionaire, longtime
denizen of Washington. You're not unsafe, your kids aren't unsafe.
Everybody's fine. If you are unsafe, it's because there's what
shitload of crime here in DC. Four people got shot
yesterday here in our city. I don't hear them complaining

(39:17):
about that. That's not nineteen thirties Germany.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
It's not because it's like protesters and GW twos.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
Because of protesters at GWA, exactly right. It's that's the
big problem that we have.

Speaker 1 (39:27):
I would love to take a shill pill Soccer, because
I'm losing my mind over this.

Speaker 3 (39:31):
Point, over the media reaction.

Speaker 2 (39:32):
I'm saying, you're not saying, like I am physically unsafe
now at this moment, and that's what I'm talking.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
No, I know, I know, I just yeah, I can't
believe what a bunch of liars these people are. Like
I can't believe how fake this all is. I can't
believe how manufactured it is that now you have. I mean,
we just showed you a little slice of a completely
insane media reaction. Now College, they're Nazis, they're terrorists, they're hummus,

(39:59):
they deserve or you know, the equivalent to nineteen thirties Germany,
when again, the one violent protest, it was entirely because
and caused by and perpetrated by pro Israel protesters assaulting
anti war protesters. And it is so clear what the
game is. It's so clear what the game is. Look

(40:20):
at our poll, look at any polling out there. These
college kids and other members of this protest movement have
won the debate. The numbers in favor of a ceasefire
are overwhelming. Among people who voted for Joe Biden, the
numbers are even more overwhelming, and so to distract from

(40:42):
the clear righteousness of their cause, which, by the way,
all of these people ten years from now will be
pretending that they were on their side, or they'll be
covering their ass about why it was understandable at the
time that they compared them to Nazis and all this crap. Okay,
it's all to distract from what the kids are actually
protesting about and the clear justice of their cause. When

(41:04):
they say I don't want my tax dollars going to
bomb babies. I also think it's important, and Sager brought
this up a number of times and other segments as well,
to keep in mind their specific asks and to make
the comparison. So at Brown University, they had protests, they
had an encampment, and the administration met with them said,
you know what, we're not going to commit to divesting,
which is the specific ass from like Lockey Martin or

(41:26):
whoever they invest in. We're but we are going to
schedule a vote and it's going to be taken up
and we're taking your concerns seriously. Guess what they the
protests Okay, we're going to disband the encampment were also
all fine.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
It also then if they rejected that, then they would
look a lot worse if they were like if they
were like, okay, we'll have a vote and you can
what Brown agreed to, like you said, is not just
a vote, but they said that you can come and
you can present your case to the Board of Governors,
which I think I'm actually totally fine with because that
means that the Bord of Governors will ultimately make an independentency.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
It still gets to, I mean, some of the critique
that you have sometimes with these institutions, which is like
why is why are your investments so dear to you,
like your particular investments, But you're right right exactly, Well, yeah,
and we see too, you know, Robert Kraft and these
other large donors in the way they're willing to say, hey,
we're not going to play goodball if you deal with
these if you don't crack down on these protesters. So

(42:18):
then that's how you end up in this utterly absurd situation.
Just so you know too, Washington Posts had a great
graphic of the way that these protests have spread like
wildfire since that initial Columbia University crackdown, which you'll recall
President of Columbia University gets summoned Capitol Hill to talk
about anti Semitism on campus and basically she pledges to

(42:43):
quote unquote do more. In the very next day, the
cops are brought in and you know, there's a massive
crackdown and that has sparked a huge uptick in terms
of the number of these protests across college campuses and
kids are getting arrested to coast to coast in you know, universities,
small schools, like I said before, the Ivy League and
the elite institutions get a lot of the attention Columbia

(43:06):
does because they're in New York City, but any manner
and variety small, large, more working class, more upscale of
schools across the country now are seeing these protest movements
and attendant crackdowns and arrests. Let's take a look at
these graphics that the Washington Posts pulled together, so you
can see there on the left they have the protests

(43:29):
that amror protests, the size of the protests at the
week beginning April tenth. Then you have the crackdown at
Columbia that was on April twenty third, you can see
how they grew, and then after that you can see
how it really just explodes. And that's when you're talking
about you know, any number of schools, coast to coast,

(43:51):
types of schools, you know, elite, normal state institutions, and
everything in between. So if your goal was to actually
diminished the energy of this protest movement, congratulations, you've done
exactly exactly the opposite. And if you think these students
are going to stop now because of what they've seen,
I've got another thing coming for you. Let's go ahead

(44:15):
and move on to the White House response, which has
also been pissed. Poor Korean. John Pierre was asked specifically
about those UCLA counter protesters pro Israel counter protesters assaulting
the anti war activists. Didn't have a lot to say
about that. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 10 (44:32):
I'm wondering if the White House has any response to
the reports of violent clashes on UCLA's campus last night
that there was a group of counter protesters that tried
to fortunately dismantle the pro Pala sign encampment and the
clash that resulted afterwards.

Speaker 13 (44:48):
So, look what I can say more broadly, any form
of violence we are going to denounce. We're going to
call out violent rhetoric, any type of violence we have
to call out. That doesn't change anything.

Speaker 14 (45:01):
We're going to continue to do that, and that could
quin on the communications with protests and people related to protests.
Has the President spoken to Mayor Adams since the NYPD
became involved in dealing.

Speaker 13 (45:16):
With them, You know, understand the question. Don't have anything
to read out as far as a conversation with the
mayor from the President, but I think we've been very
very clear about what we're seeing on the ground. I've
been answering these questions for the past couple of days.

Speaker 3 (45:28):
Go ahead, thanks.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
So, I think it's really important to understand the role
that the Biden administration has played in green lighting these
unhinged crackdowns. And you know, Biden put out multiple statements
smearing the kids as these college students, as terrorists, effectively
anti Semitic, et cetera. And very soon after this, you know,

(45:49):
specifically with regards to Columbia, put down a statement and
that's when you see all the heavy artillery broad in
in one thousand member police response, and so funny how
when you get asked specifically about actual violence that happened,
the language is very well, in general, we condemn violence,
but you're not going to have this specific violence. You
don't actually have anything to say about this specifically at all.

(46:12):
You're just vaguely Yeah, of course we theoretically condemn violence
if that happened. It's just it's so clear the bias
here and how differently these two groups are treated.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
I would like to live in a world with White
House doesn't have an opinion on all this stuff.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
I've said this before.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
I don't think they really should be weighing in on
local matters at UCLA and everywhere else. But if we're
going to live in a world where we're going to
take you a single transperson or whatever is like allegedly
assaulted somewhere and that's a national demanding of a white
House statement, or here in the Columbia case, it's like
anti semitism is deplorable. But then we're going to ignore
like violence over here on this side and just issue

(46:51):
like no statement, then yeah, you look like an idiot
and a hypocrite, and I think it is very obvious
what is happening here now, and that's part of the
dishonesty in this is honestly driving me really crazy because
what we're watching again is that we basically have a
fake moral panic which is being used to construct the

(47:12):
biggest expansion of the DEI regime in let's say, since
the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act. What we are
watching today is our Congress past a piece of legislation
that declares and expands the definition of anti semitism to
opposition of the State of Israel, codifying that into the
Civil Rights Act, and then empowering the Office of the

(47:33):
Civil Rights Act in the Department of Justice to prosecute
universities and potentially Christal even you or I as commentators,
as American citizens. And I can tell you this, like,
maybe they won't come after us, but they very well
could under the text of that legislation. And I've warned
about this from the very beginning against Bill Ackman and
all these other folks, is that they don't want Jews

(47:54):
to be considered like everybody else. They want them included
as marginal a bipoc, LGBTQ and all this other stuff.
This is a liberal expansion of the regime being used
to try and crush speech in the future, and you know,
we have to speak out.

Speaker 3 (48:12):
We have to stand against.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
This absolutely, absolutely, and listen. It's another thing that drives
me insane is it's really not about protecting Jewish students.
That's bullshit, because there are so many Jewish students who
are you know, being assaulted and arrested and you know,
assaulted by pro Israel protesters. In fact, you mentioned Bill Acne.

(48:34):
Can put this next piece up on the screen. He
helped to fund. I think it was one of the
top funders, if not the top funder of that violent
pro Israel counter protest that assaulted many students at UCLA,
included among them, probably since so many Jewish students are
involved in the anti war protest Jewish students, so they

(48:54):
don't actually care about Jewish students safety. And Jessica Seinfeld,
by the way, Jerry Seinfeld's wife also so kicked in
a number of thousands of dollars to these violent thugs
who rampaged and shot rockets and assaulted anti word demonstrators
for hours before the cops showed up. So it's nonsense
that they even care about Jewish student safety. No, they

(49:15):
care about this ideology of Zionism. That's what they care about,
and that's fine. They're allowed to care about that. That's fine.
But don't conflate it like this is a religious sectarian conflict.
It's not. And certainly do not go and ban Americans
from having a critique of a foreign government. You know,
I a couple things cyber and response to what you

(49:36):
were saying. I was actually talking to Kyle about this
last night. I remember how when Trump was first elected,
there was like some resistance lived journalist who would post
every day like it's day number whatever. And I'm still afraid,
like they thought they were going to be like rounded
up and arrested by Trump, which, listening as his own
authoritarian in stings, I'm not gonna like whatever is certainly
the case. We have never been more actually a danger

(50:00):
of being arrested, criminalized whatever for our views.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
Then right now, oh, absolutely, especially here on the show
that you're absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
And it's because it's because of the bipartisan consensus around this.
I mean, this is we've talked about this a lot
in other context, like the times when you should really
be scared are when you have the elites of both
parties agreeing on a pro censorship regime or a security
state expansion. We've seen this many times. We saw it
during the Iraq War. The other thing that I've been

(50:27):
thinking about is like, you know, obviously it's easiest for
me to compare to my own historical experience because we
live through it and I have a very fine grasp
on what the climate was like. There was a lot
of hysteria around the anti war movement during the Iraq
War and build up to the Iraq War as well,
but people were smeared as being traders and how you stand,

(50:49):
You got to stand with the president, blah blah blah.
But there was never any effort to actually like criminalize
or say you can't even say these things in that way.
This is it really is extraordinary different. And it also
harkens back to I mean, we've had laws on the
books in many states now for years that's anti BDS

(51:09):
laws that's codify exactly the same thing of like you
are not allowed to boycott or divest, or you're not
allowed to participate in this boycott movement against a foreign government.
You can boycott our own government, but you can boycott
this random foreign government. It's complete infringement on our rights.
It is absolutely a gateway to if you're cool with

(51:31):
this particular expansion, what you think it's going to stop there?
Give me a break. This the expansion of the censorship
regime here is truly astonishing. And I can't not that
anyone you know, changes their mind because they're called a hypocrite.
But we had a whole movement of people who claimed
that campus free speech was like the biggest issue of
their time and that they really deeply cared about it.

(51:53):
And now you have an actual House vote to codify
censorship and ban criticism of a foreign government. And they're
on board with it. It's not even that you don't
hear about you just they're by and large they're on
board with it.

Speaker 4 (52:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (52:08):
No, you are absolutely right, Crystal, And let's get to
some of that.

Speaker 2 (52:11):
Let's go ahead and put this up there on the
screen as well, because this is what stage is that
quote unquote democrats enter panic mode as the Gaza protests erupt.

Speaker 3 (52:20):
So you basically have two options. Whenever you're in panic mode.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
You can continue to go after or you can pull back,
and you can try to understand what is going on.

Speaker 3 (52:28):
Well, what do we think all happened.

Speaker 2 (52:30):
Well, we had the introduction and now the passage of
a quote unquote anti semitism piece of legislation now through
our Congress.

Speaker 3 (52:37):
Let's go and put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (52:39):
Shout out to Representative Thomas Massey, a genuine hero on
this subject, who says, today the House will vote on
a bill to define anti Semitism with the intent to
increase prosecutions of activity on campus. This bill has a
problem beyond violating the First Amendment. The definition of anti
Semitism appears nowhere in the bill. What they see is
that they are going to codify into law definition of

(53:00):
anti Semitism that was introduced by the International Holocaust Museum
and Remembrance Organization.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Now it's very clear, because.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
I want to read examples of what we'll be called
anti Semitic quote unquote making accusing Jews as people being
responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single
Jewish person or group, or even acts were committed by
non Jews, denying the fact, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of
the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of
the Nazi Party. So basically, Holocaust denile is now illegal

(53:29):
under US law.

Speaker 3 (53:30):
If this is where to.

Speaker 1 (53:31):
Pass, Dana Bass, I don't sorry about you downplaying the
events leading up to I.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
Do not support Holocaust denile, obviously, but I think people
should have the right to say it.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
And if you don't disagree. If you disagree with me,
you can.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Go and look at the speech of Mark Zuckerberg in
twenty eighteen where he specifically defended holocaust de isle on
the Facebook platform under well established First Amendment law. For
this is my other personal favorite. Accusing Jewish citizens of
being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities
of use worldwide to the interests of their own nation. Again,

(54:04):
once again dual loyalty accusations. They can be tricky. I'll
be honest, This conflict has actually convinced me. It's more
of a real problem than I ever thought before, and
I believe it is my right as an American citizen
to accuse somebody of having dual loyalty if I suspect so. Similarly,
it says applying double standards by requiring a behavior not

(54:25):
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, so that
means directly criticizing the standards of the State of Israel
and their prosecution of this war would then be considered
anti Semitic under US law. And who wants to guess
that this law passed the House of Representatives with over
three hundred votes just last night. It is stunning, it's astounding.

(54:48):
Put this up there, please, just to show everybody look
at this. I mean, one hundred and eighty seven Republicans
voted yes, one hundred and three Democrats, only twenty one
Republicans and seventy Democrats voted No. Crystal three one hundred
and twenty to ninety one to mandate that the Education
Department use this definition when enforcing federal anti discrimination law,

(55:12):
meaning that campus is any organization subject to the Civil
Rights Act which all of us are, either as employers,
as educations, and others, will then be liable to prosecution
under this. It's just insane, it's outrageous.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
And you know what another item in this definition of
anti semitism says you're not allowed to draw comparisons of
contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. And again
it's not like like no matter what they do, like
they can actually do a full on genocide, and you're
not allowed to say the word Nazi in comparison because

(55:47):
some of the ideology is very reminiscent. Sorry it is,
and that what I just said is now apparently that's
that's criminal as illegal according to this vote in the House.
And the other one, which is ironic to me is
quote holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State
of Israel. Well, actually it's these Zionists who I see
doing that by and large, who I see making an

(56:09):
aggressive attempt to conflate Judaism and all Jewish people with
the actions of the State of Israel. That happens almost
exclusively on that side of the Ledger. But you know
when they do it, when they say, you know, we
want the Jews of the future to be able to
look back and say that's what we did in our
destruction of Goz or whatever the quote was from some

(56:32):
Israeli minister, then that's not anti Semitic. When they demand
that every single Jew in the world be conflated and
associated with the State of Israel, when Joe Biden says
no Jews will be safe without the State of Israel.
When they do it, oh, that's not anti Semitic, but
I don't even hear. In fact, the overwhelming number of

(56:52):
people on the anti war side are at pains to
say Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing. And
that's so clear because you you have so many Zionists
who are not Jewish, and we have very clearly in
this movement so many anti Zionists who are Jewish, So
they're not two the same things. Zionism is a political ideology.
Israel is a nation state that, by the way, doesn't

(57:12):
only contain Jewish people. So it's just if you look
at this, it's very clearly an effort to make it
so that you cannot criticize the State of Israel without
being tarred as an officially by the government, tarred as
an anti semi. This is the fondest wish of you know,

(57:32):
the ADL, the State of Israel. They were pushing this
view for years and years and years, and now you
have overwhelming majorities in the House voting in favor. You
can bet there will be similarly overwhelming margins of the Senate,
if not more so. You can bet Joe Biden will
certainly sign this into law. And it's it's complete insanity,

(57:55):
and it doesn't end here. By the way, it doesn't
end here. Once you open the door to hey, we
can codify what is hate speech. We can you know,
make it official at the Department of Education, and your
federal funding can be revoked if we feel that you're
you know, questioning the state of Israel in a way
that we don't like. It does not stop there. It's
so outrageous.

Speaker 2 (58:13):
I could scarcely wrote my head it's crazy, and I
just want to again flip it around. This is what
drives me crazy, is you know, Okay, I'm Indian, so
and we're by the way, we're the richest people in America.
We could if we wanted to exert this amount of
political power. What if we had a highly funded lobby
to make the government pass a law disputing territorial claims
on Kashmir and said that you could, you would be

(58:35):
that basically would criminalize the speech, let's say, of Pakistani Americans.
Do you think that would be acceptable or would you
think that that's an outrageous abuse by a foreign power
who has been, you know, propping up our diaspora community
to enforce outside norms. Now, listen, I'm Indian but I
would speak out against that. But why do they get

(58:55):
a special carve out and why do they you know,
they want the US government to enforce their territorial acquisitional
dreams on the speech of US citizens on college campuses.
But you're right, the ground for this was laid in
the BDS laws. They've always been on. Our only hope
in this case is the Supreme Court. I pray, I

(59:15):
pray you know that something like this actually would make
it up to SCOTUS. But to be honest, you know,
with the current makeup, we don't know for sure.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
Typically in most instances where the ANTIBEDS laws have been challenged,
they've been struck down.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
Yeah, that's it's a state court level. It's never made
it to SCOTUS.

Speaker 1 (59:32):
So I mean that is somewhat hopeful. But yeah, I
mean that is our only hope because the bipartisan consensus
is in favor of using the full force of the
federal government to tell people how, how and when they
are allowed to criticize the state of Israel, and every
American who cares about their free speech rights, I don't
care where you are on the you know, on the

(59:54):
spectrum of opinion about this particular conflict. It really doesn't
matter because it's about so it's about a core right
as an American citizen, a cherished right. And if you
happen to be on the right side of elite opinion
on this one, okay, but it will come for you.
There will be some opinion that you have that is

(01:00:15):
deemed outside of acceptability, and now these same powers can
be used against you as well. You know, free speech
First Amendment rights are about protecting speech that is challenging
to elite consensus, that is can be outright offensive at times.
As I said before, there is no hate speech carve
out in the First Amendment, you know. I mean the

(01:00:36):
Skokie case. You had literal neo Nazis mark marching through
a predominantly Jewish town. Okay, that's offensive as it could
possibly be. We had literal neo Nazis marching through Charleston,
West Virginia. I think they're disgusting, but I think they
have a right to do it. You know, I was
on the side of allowing the Charlottesville ultimately like neo
Nazi rioters to have what should have been a piece.

(01:00:59):
If they had just march piece, I would have supported
their right to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
I didn't know that they tried to block it. Oh
that's crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:05):
There was. Actually it was a whole fall out of
the ACLU because the ACL you backed their permit to
have this march. And then this is part of what
led to the ACL you get a little squishy and
their free speech principles because they had raised a lot
of money in the trump eras, like you know, resistance organization,
So those are the types of people they had on board.
So it caused big schism there. But in any case,

(01:01:25):
this is all just to say, like offensive speech also
is protected. Hate speech, sorry, it also is protected. I
don't think that that's what these anti war protesters have
been doing. I wildly disagree with the mischaracterization of like
their rally chants and whatever. But listen, if you're offended
by it, that's your right, you can be. That's okay.

(01:01:45):
That doesn't mean that it should be criminalized. And that's
exactly the path that we're moving towards.

Speaker 3 (01:01:49):
Agree one hundred percent.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
All right, guys, So have some updates for you coming
out of Israel's specially with regards to these ongoing potential
ceasefire negotiations, so we can put this up on the screen.
Another big screw you from bib to the US. He
told Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln he will not agree
to end the war on Hamas as part of the
hostage deal. Of course it's been we're on the entire

(01:02:13):
Gaza strip, but put that aside for a moment. He
told him he wouldn't accept an end to the war.
He said, we are interested in reaching a deal and
determined to topple Hamas. Israel conveys latest offerreed amaster Egyptian
mediators late last week, expecting response Wednesday evening. We don't
have an update for you this morning, and Israeli official
told The Times of Israel. He also told Blincoln that
a hostage deal with Hamas does not mean an invasion

(01:02:36):
of Rafa would be avoided. Details of this deal, sager,
such as we know them is that you know Israel
wants just a forty day ceasefire is basically what they
have floated. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire. The way this
has been painted in Western media is basically Hamas is
the whole obstacle to any sort of a deal. But

(01:02:56):
in reality, this is a negotiation and Israel's saying basically like, yeah,
we'll pause for forty days, but then we promise we
are going to still do our full on assault on Rafa,
including the reporting that we provided earlier in the week,
or that we shared with you earlier in the week
about how the Israelis are setting up checkpoints to make
sure that all military age men are stopped and kept

(01:03:19):
in Rafa as that assault on that city, that planned
assault and ground invasion on that city proceeds. And you know,
one thing I realized after we talked about that saga,
which is really incredibly sick, is the way that the
death numbers have been reported in the media and the
way that Israel has interpreted the death numbers is basically,

(01:03:41):
any man is deemed and assumed to be a Hamas fighter.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:45):
So if you want to improve what the media is
claiming to be your ratio of civilian to militant deaths,
you just murder a lot of men. Innocent men, non
innocent men. Any men are just characterized as some ass militants.
So it's a great way to improve your supposed proportional
death rate and be able to say, oh, all these men,

(01:04:07):
they're all Hamas fighters, if you just massively slaughter thousands
and thousands of men. So I think that's part of
the part of the strategy here in terms of what
they're planning for Rafa.

Speaker 3 (01:04:18):
No, yeah, it's very possible.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
And again this is why the death numbers can't really
be trusted on all sides. We really have no idea
if unall likely, it's probably much higher than at whatever
it is, what the proportion is, maybe ten years from
now will be lucky if we ever find out. But
you flagged this crystal there. It was a development with
this Israeli minister smow Tritch.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
I know you wanted to get to that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
Yeah, so you actually had an op ed in Haratz
even calling for Smotrich to step down. He's the Israeli
finance minister. So his word's a little bit more important
than what some random nineteen year old may or may
not have said on a college campus somewhere. That's just
my personal opinion. On the media doesn't seem to see
it that way. We can put some of his latest
comments here up on the screen. He says, moments before redemption,

(01:04:57):
we must not hesitate, we must just destroy Rafa. Nuserret
and dear al Balah wipe out the memory of Amelek.
There's no half measure Rafa dear al balas absolute destruction.
So just not even it's not even colorable. It's just
out and out genocidal rhetoric from a top and very

(01:05:19):
influential minister within the Netanyahu government. And you know why
these statements matter is not just because they say, you know,
this is what I always say. Oh, it's just you know,
it's heated rhetoric or it's populoust rhetoric or whatever. But
it's also consistent and commeasure it with the actions that
the government is actually taking. So it's not just that
it's words. As you know, if you don't like a

(01:05:40):
rally channel on a college campus, those are just words.
Those college students don't have any actual ability to effectuate
the policies that they want to see and acted. This man,
on the other hand, does, and so that's why it's
important to pay attention to things that he's saying and
the way that they match up with the reality of
the way that they are prosecuting this onslaught. Let's go
ahead onto the next one. So apparently Biden is really

(01:06:03):
pinning a lot on these ceasefire talks, which don't frankly,
seem to be going all that well because Israel is
so insistent on no, we want to continue bombing your
children after the ceasefire ends. Let us put this up
on the screen. This is Barack revied. He was just
honored at the White House Corresponds dinner. By the way,
Israel Hamas deal is the only hope for Biden's Middle

(01:06:24):
East strategy. So in this report, he says, President Biden's
been personally involved in intense efforts in recent days to
reach a hostage and ceasefire deal between Israel Jimas, which
he sees as a crucial element of a much wider
strategy at home and abroad. President's senior advisers say the
deal on the table right now is the only conceivable
path to a ceasefire in Gaza, possibly ending a war

(01:06:45):
that has drawn sharp criticism of Biden among some of
his key supporters ahead of the presidential election. Even White
House spokesperson John Kirby admitted as much on Tuesday, saying
he Biden's putting all his focus on the hostage deal. Quote.
There just has to be a deal, he said when
asked about a Plan B. If negotiations aren't successful, temporary
seaesfare could also turn into a permanent one, although Bobe's

(01:07:06):
pretty clear he doesn't want that. That could allow the
Biden administration to return in negotiations for a consequential mega
deal with Saudi Arabia that the US was working on
before October seventh. I'd love to hear your thoughts on
this supposed Saudi Arabia mega deal. This has been like
the Biden Administration's fantasy from the beginning of this, and
I think it's utterly absurd. The Saudis have come out
multiple times and said there's no way we're doing this deal,

(01:07:29):
and that's there's actually for real a Palestinian state, and
yet the US keeps claiming that this is still like
somehow on the table. And the idea is that you'd
have a ceasefire, ultimately a permanent ceasefire, and then Saudi
would agree to normalization with Israel and exchange for a
pathway to two state solution. Problem is Bibi Netanyahu's whole

(01:07:51):
raison deetra is to prevent such a two state solution
number one, and the Saudis have been, like I said,
very clear that that's a non starter for them.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
The other problem with that is that, yes, it's contingent
on it two state solutions, contingent on Saudi recognition of Israel.
Whenever nobody tells you, there's also contingent on a massive
weapons transfer from the United States to Saudi Arabia.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
Like defense guarantee.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
For defense guarantee from US as well, which would put
US even further into de facto war state if Iran
were to ever attack them. That's the other thing. Do
we all need another treaty alliance with Saudi Arabia? I
don't think so, especially not you know, formalized in this manner,
So it would only be an expansion of the US
security umbrella. And even and here's the thing, I'm may

(01:08:33):
be willing to trade it if we were actually going
to get a two state solution, but I don't think
that that's on the table. So then what's the point
of this entire thing, And that most likely would lead
to the mega deal being instituted first prior to to state,
then the Israelis would just never do it, and now
we have to sell a bunch of arms in Saudi Arabia.
Israel continues to get to do what they want, we
continue to sell you know, all the weapons there.

Speaker 3 (01:08:53):
So the whole thing is ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (01:08:55):
Face, it's not hard to figure out what you would
have to do to get to force some sort of
a two state solution. Would have to completely withdraw their
support for Israel and the weapons I mean, because the
reason Israel acts with such insane like impunity and like
the bullies that they are, and like you know, going
around assassinating Iranian generals and embassies and doing whatever the
hell they want to do is because they know we

(01:09:17):
where their backstop. If we weren't there enabling all of this,
Suddenly the power balance is a little different. Suddenly their
behavior is a little constrained. Suddenly there is some incentive
to have to like, yeah, I guess we're going to
have to figure this thing out and resolve it because
we no longer have our you know, big buddies down

(01:09:38):
the block to back us up and ship us our
weapons and provide us with diplomatic cover and all of that.
Like it's so clear that's the only way that this
dynamic ultimately changes, not going to come through some like
fantasy deal that's never going to happen. With Saudi Arabia,
and it's certainly not going to happen. By asking bb Nanya,
who pretty please will you change your mind about something
you've been adamant about for literally decades at this point

(01:10:00):
not going to happen. Something that could have an impact
in terms of maybe bringing this word and at some
point in the future is Israeli domestic political opinion is
very much in favor of some sort of a ceasefire
hostage deal right now. To put this up on the screen,
this was a little surprising to me, Zagar. Over half

(01:10:21):
of even right wing voters in Israel support a hostage deal,
even at risk of having elections, which you know, understanding
is bbe and that coalition could very much be at
risk if they did have elections right now, So fifty
one percent of center right and right wing voter support
the signing of a deal to release the hostages being
held by Hamas, even at the risk of disbanding the
coalition and going to elections. Overall, sixty six percent of

(01:10:44):
the Israeli public supports signing such a hostage deal even
if it leads to elections. Additionally, fifty seven percent of
Israelis think that correctly. By the way, Mabe is the
laying efforts to reach a hostage deal, with thirty eight
percent of center right and right wing voters holding that
same view. So even a sizable minority chunk of Bebe's
own voters believe he is blocking a hostage deal. And listen,

(01:11:08):
the hostages have been used by Bibe and by his
allies throughout this conflict to say, you know, anytime there's
a call for ceasefire or whatever, it's like, why don't
you call on them to release the hostage. Well, by
the way, I haven't, many other people have as well,
but it's also very clear they don't give a shit
about the hostages. Like they've killed more hostages than they've
been able to rescue, so many of the hostages are

(01:11:30):
probably dead now, which is unbelievably tragic because they've been
in a war zone for seven months. They've been subject
to the same starvation conditions. Now Israel's threatening to bomb
the city where they claim their own hostages are likely
held in Rafa, How do you think that is going
to be for the safety and security of hostages. So
these really public which actually does care about the hostages,

(01:11:53):
is seeing very clearly through this attempt to claim that
the hostages are their number one priority when obviously obviously
they're not. The only time when there was a significant
release of hostages was when there was a ceasefire deal.
And yet we see Bebe delaying and dragging Speen and
doing everything he can to avoid such a ceasefire deal

(01:12:13):
because he is worried about his own political position of power.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
And that's very clear, right, and let's go put the
next one and please up there on the screen.

Speaker 3 (01:12:20):
That's also very important.

Speaker 1 (01:12:21):
This is incredible.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
What the Israelis are basically saying is that if there
is an ICC warrant that is issued against them, they
will then punish the Palestinian authority and basically make it inoperable,
which would lead to basically a collapse of the West
Bank and any semblance of Palestinian governing authority which is

(01:12:43):
already there and has remained shaky. And there's all this
violence that continues there. So just to show you that
they are willing to very much to flex their muscles,
you know, on their behalf. And there's a last thing
here that I wanted to get in because this is
further evidence of the biden A ministry complete subservience to
the State of Israel, where they have now confirmed and

(01:13:05):
are now discussing plans to bring refugees from Gaza to
the United States.

Speaker 3 (01:13:10):
Here's the White House talking about it as.

Speaker 14 (01:13:12):
The administration considers bringing Palestinians here to the US as refugees.
Do you know how many people that the US hopes
to reocate? And secondly, given the challenges getting in and
out of Gaza, will the US assist in physically bringing Palestinians.

Speaker 13 (01:13:33):
Here besides of course getting the hostages home, but also
creating an opportunity to get that more additional humanitarian aid
in and would lead to a ceasefire. Now, in terms
of the refugee admissions program, which is what I believe
you're asking me about, we are constantly evaluating policy proposals
to further support Palestinians who are family members of American

(01:13:54):
citizens and may want to come to the United States.
So we're evaluating it. I don't have anything to announces.

Speaker 3 (01:14:00):
Here's why this is wrong, Cristel.

Speaker 2 (01:14:02):
They just like the PEER, are assisting the Israelis in
their project. What did the Israelis say whenever we built
the Keer If any Peer, if anyone wants to leave,
they can leave too, So we are building the peer
and then they're like, oh, by the way, if they
want to leave and get the hell out of this land,
we're gonna want be the ones assisting and basically displacement from.

Speaker 3 (01:14:23):
Their land to our land. The whole thing is utterly insane.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
It only opens the door further to the Israelis being like, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:14:32):
Please take them. They've already said it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:35):
Members of the Kanesset wrote in The Wall Street Journal
November twenty twenty three, West should take all of the
people from Gaza. Whenever they say what are you going
to do the day after, they're like, we don't worry
about that. That's America's problem. Us peacekeepers are the ones
that should govern, So I think, listen to what they
are trying to and we're assisting them. That's the most
outrageous part of this. This is under active consideration. Who

(01:14:58):
knows how many thousands of these peop people going to
come here? If they do, we know you and I
know they're never going to leave. And this is one
of those where it is a clear it is a
benefit to the Israelis. It is a direct you know,
playing into their hands of what they want to happen
in this case, and that's what just drives me so
nuts about this entire thing.

Speaker 1 (01:15:16):
Yeah, I mean, this is where this Biden plan is
guaranteed to piss off everyone across the political spectrum because
on the you know, the right wing doesn't want refugees,
doesn't want more brown refugees coming to the country.

Speaker 3 (01:15:29):
Just brown any refugees. Well, so I'll say that at
least some.

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
Yeah, some, it's very specifically brown refugees. The Ukrainian ones
would be fine, but anyway, we'll go aside that debate
for another day. The right doesn't want more refugees, and
the left is like, oh, so you just are going
to help Israel with their ethnic cleansing.

Speaker 3 (01:15:45):
Ya yo, Yeah, that's what's happened.

Speaker 1 (01:15:46):
Cool, Yeah, because I mean this is the same thing
with you know, with regard to Egypt, there's always this
put well, why doesn't Egypt just take people in? And
it's like, well, okay, so first of all, they have, yeah,
their own domestic concerns and their own economic at all
that stuff, right, but also they don't want to help
Israel with their ethnic cleansing plan. Listen, I'm happy to
have Palestinians here, but that's not what Palestinians want. They
want their own home. They want to live in their

(01:16:10):
home and be free. That's what they want, Okay. So
this floating of we're gonna actually our humanitarian plan is
to do that ethnic cleansing is just it's just astonishing
that they would think that this is okay, that they
think that this is something that the American people would
be like favorable towards. Its incredible tone deafness. And then

(01:16:34):
I just have to reflect also on that ICC news briefly,
which is also insane. If you if arresta warrants are issued,
you're going to punish the Palestinian authority, which listen, I
have no love for the Palestinian authority, and Palestinians have
no love for the Palestinian authority because they're basically just
like collaborators with the occupation regime. And you know, you

(01:16:55):
can talk to Palestinis in West Bank about how they
feel about that. But how are these things connected. The
claim is that the PA is like using all of
their incredible might to pressure the ICC to issue these
arrest warrants and the other thing that you know, I mean,
it does sort of serve a Pea's interest because the
thought is that it would likely be both Israeli figures

(01:17:16):
and Hamas leaders, which I support in both directions by
the way, But you know, I've come to realize that
it's not just the threat against like bb and Yoov
Galant and whoever the other dude is that they floated
that may be facing these arrest warrants that will constrain
their international travel. I'm sure they don't like that idea,

(01:17:37):
but it also raises the prospect of if you are
an IDF soldier, anytime you travel abroad, which many Israelis hold,
you know, dual citizenship, or travel you know frequently around
the world, they may be getting asked when they're entering
a country that signs onto the ICC, hey did you
fight in Gaza. So it is hugely impactful and I

(01:17:58):
think very psychologically impactful for Israelis if these arrests, these
arrest warrants actually go through. Now I want to say,
apparently there was some previous Net and Yahoo freaking out
about potential arrest warrants I'm talking about years ago that
never never came to fruition. There are some analysts who
are saying Hey, these aren't as like imminent as it's
being portrayed. I have no idea, but it is pretty

(01:18:20):
it's a pretty stunning development, and it's also pretty wild.
The way that is, it's not wild, it's it's sensical
that the Israelis use everything they have in their toolkit
and throw their weight around in every way possible and
use whatever leverage they possibly can to get their way
in a way that the US never ever ever does.

(01:18:40):
And the reason that the PA is important in the
US is because this is our fig leaf of like
a plant a day after a plan is you know,
supposedly the PA is going to ride in and be
the leaders in Gaza, which also is you know, a
sort of preposterous notion that they would have legitimacy in
that context.

Speaker 2 (01:18:55):
No, you're absolutely right. Okay, let's move on to RFK
Junior and some of the domestic news. There's been some
major developments with Donald Trump and very clearly seeing RFK
Junior as a major threat. Let's go and put this
up there on the screen. This was leaked to Politico.
They say that RFK junior quote is all over conservative
media and Trump's camp is very concerned, increasingly his frequent

(01:19:19):
appearances are raising alarms at mar Lago quote a sign
on the rising threat that Kennedy poses to Trump. Kennedy
has become popular, they say on Fox News and Newsmax.
They're getting very upset watching him be interviewed by Ben Shapiro,
Glenn Beck, and Megan Kelly, and they especially don't want
him on quote Trump's turf. This is directly from the

(01:19:40):
campaign manager. It is concerning and beyond logic. The conservative
platforms continue to give you a voice to someone that
is called the NRA, a terrorist group who believes eliminating
gas powered engine, believes in a seventy percent tax bracket,
and generally subscribes to the same thought as a school
of thought as Carl Marx. So another big sign of

(01:20:04):
how afraid they are of RFK Junior was actually this,
This really blew my mind.

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
Let's go and put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:20:10):
Donald Trump will be speaking at the Libertarian National Convention
later this month. Thank you, by the way to Dave
Smith who flagged this for me. He put out a
statement saying that Libertarians are some of the most independent,
thoughtful thinkers in our country.

Speaker 3 (01:20:23):
I'm honored to join them. In Washington, DC later this month.

Speaker 2 (01:20:26):
We must all work together to advance freedom and liberty
for every American.

Speaker 3 (01:20:30):
We will work together and win.

Speaker 2 (01:20:32):
This was the biggest sign to me of how dangerous
they view the RFK Junior threat, because RFK Junior specifically
has got a lot of resonance amongst more libertarian minded Americans,
specifically on the issue of vaccines. Now, Libertarian Party previously
only drew a couple of percent or so away from
Republicans in twenty sixteen and in twenty twenty, but when

(01:20:53):
Junior projected to get some thirteen percent of the vote,
it's a fight to the death for every single margin.

Speaker 3 (01:20:59):
And this is it's very clearly an attempt.

Speaker 2 (01:21:01):
Another thing that really I saw flagged is that the
MAGA Warring account, which is like the account by the
Trump campaign to surface clips damaging to opponents, and started
tweeting all kinds of stuff against RFK Junior. Here's one
of their latest ones, a clip of RFK Junior from
I Think It's back in the nineteen nineties going after Republicans.

Speaker 3 (01:21:20):
Here's what they tweeted.

Speaker 15 (01:21:21):
Out, red state people are more likely to murder you
to impregnate your teenage daughter to commit a violent crime
against you, to commit a nonviolent crime against you, to
watch Desperate Housewives on TV, to buy pornography, to buy,
you know, degenerate video games like Grand Theft Atto.

Speaker 3 (01:21:41):
He's not wrong on Grand Theft Auto. On the rest
of it, it's a little complicated.

Speaker 2 (01:21:46):
But Chris, I mean, all of this just shows us
that they are freaking out right now, absolutely losing it
because they can read a poll just like we can,
where everybody thought it was gonna be bad for Biden,
but a lot of the evidence now shows it's bad
for Trump. You know what's interesting too, Junior just put
out a new video where he really is putting himself
up against Trump. He put out a challenge and he's like,
President Biden can't win. I'm challenging him to drop out,

(01:22:08):
and then I will be the one who goes up
against Trump. And you're like, wow, you're really you know,
you're bringing it to Donald Trump here on every level
on social media, the campaign is really, you know, going
after you.

Speaker 3 (01:22:19):
So it's very interesting what's happened.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
I'm just I'm very amused by it because it's such
a monster of their own making. You know, one of
the one of the things that they're specifically freaked out
about is how much he is a fixture of the
like right wing conservative podcast. He's gone on with Ben Shapierr,
is going with Megan Kelly, he's on Newsmax, he's on
Fox News. And the way this happened is very clear.

(01:22:42):
Like when he was in the Democratic primary, they love
this guy. They loved him, they built him up, he
was great. They had him on because he was a
nice cudgel against the Democrats, and now because he is
ideologically like the things he's leaned into now are very
coated right wing. And they built up his favorability among
Republicans by embracing him during that time period, and you know,

(01:23:06):
really sort of made him code with the Republicans as
opposed to the Democrats. You can see his approval rating
with Democrats is in the toilet, and his approval rating
with Republicans is sky high. So they got to do
something to bring that down. The other thing that's interesting is,
you know, his specifically his like anti vax stances are

(01:23:26):
the thing that at this point that previously would have
coded as liberal right, but now it codes very much
as Republican. And the more people learn about his views
on vaccines. The more Republicans are open to him, and
the more Democrats are, you know, pushed away from him.
We've had some pulling that the Washington Post highlighted that

(01:23:47):
was interesting to that effect where effectively So the headline
hear polls show how RFK juniors appeal to anti vaccine
right could hurt Trump. And they asked people whether they
were aware that Kennedy claims that autism is linked to
vaccines and that he's floated a theory that COVID was
targeted at certain races. About half of Republicans said they

(01:24:07):
were aware about six and ten Democrats said they were aware.
After they made people aware of that, then they asked
them again, with this knowledge, would they consider voting for him. Suddenly,
the percentage of Republicans who said they would consider Kennedy
rose by eight percentage points. The percentage of Democrats who
said they would consider Kennedy dropped by seven points. So
that's the other challenge I think that Trump is perhaps

(01:24:29):
realizing is that the more people actually focus on Kennedy,
focus on the race, learn about his views, the more
appealing he is to potential Trump voters versus potential Biden voters.
And you know, the other thing, Sager, is that on
the vaccine specifically, this is an area where Trump is
a little shaky. He's a little shaky because he's the

(01:24:49):
guy who you know, Operation Warp speed and made it happen,
and you know, he was in charge during COVID and
this was something that DeSantis tried to capitalize in his
primary run against Trump, and there wasn't enough constituency for
it during a primary run. But you're not talking about
RFK having to out and out win. You're talking about
are there a few percentage points of people who this

(01:25:11):
is their number one issue and they feel like Trump
kind of failed them there and RFK saying all the
right things on this issue. I think that's entirely a plausive.

Speaker 2 (01:25:17):
Absolutely, It's all a game of margins. That's where we're discussing.
That's why Trump is going to the Libertarian Convention. RFK
Junior is the biggest threat both to Biden and to
Trump on the ballot that we've seen since Ross Puro
and since nineteen sixty eight. So how all these individuals
handle this is going to be really really interesting. Let's
move on to the housing section. We would drop this
from our Tuesday show because we had to interview Jill Stein,

(01:25:39):
but we didn't want to skip out on it because
there's actually some good news we want to make sure
we included in our show. Let's put it up there
on the screen. Wall Street quote has spent billions buying homes.
Now a crackdown is looming, so this is really good.
It says that Democrats in the House and in the
Senate have now sponsored legislation that would specifically force large
owners of single family homes to have to sell houses

(01:26:02):
to family buyers. There's now a Republican bill also in
Ohio to drive out institutional owners through very heavy taxation.
Similar laws being considered in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota,
North Carolina. Homeowners associations right now are also trying to
crack down on investors from buying and renting out houses
in their neighborhood. And all of the legislative proposals quote

(01:26:24):
represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall
Street's appetite for single family housing. So, according to the
Wall Street Journal, from the latest data that has come out,
they have found that the highest level ever of single
family homes were purchased by investors by portfolio size in
twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three, and twenty twenty four, respectively,

(01:26:46):
and in each case you're actually seeing a huge increase
in the number of people who actually have over one
thousand homes inside of their company. From twenty twenty two
on we've seen a massive expansion of that crystal and
even people who own between one hundred and ninety nine houses.
So what's happening right now is that you'll have smaller
investor groups that dabble in this stuff, then they get

(01:27:08):
rolled up into a larger private equity group, people like Blackstone,
Blackrock and others. And the overall effect of this is
that we have a huge housing shortage right now in
the country. This is driving up the house It also
means that these people have tons of cash that they're
disposally and come in with an all cash offer. But
the danger is that when you gobble up all of
the houses there in that market, you can stabilize the
rent and increase it to wherever you want drop services.

(01:27:31):
And then more importantly, you know, a single family landlord
is somebody who at least usually lives in the same area.
Maybe you know, they can come over something if the
if the dryer is broken, you know, something like that.
But when you're dealing with the corporation, you know, good
luck getting your services better, right, you know, and they're
going to charge you double for something.

Speaker 1 (01:27:48):
Yeah, and we've covered here the way that more and
more of these companies are using algorithms to collude and
you know, extract higher rent from individuals in these markets.
So basically, this is a situation that's bad for renters.
It's bad for would be homeowners who want to buy
that first, that first home as they start a home,

(01:28:09):
but starter homes aren't really a thing or given the
average price tag is just insane, and and I think
this is why this actually has a shot at getting through.
It's also bad for existing homeowners who don't like that
their neighborhoods are being bought off and turned into rentals
because they feel like, you know, renters are less committed
to the area. And whether this is true or not,
but it is true that you're less like exactly that's

(01:28:32):
I mean. But that's the thing is Nimby's are extraordinarily powerful,
like actual homeowners are extraordinarily powerful, and so I only think.
I think the reason why this has so much traction
and actually has a shot at becoming something you have
a little bit of bipartisan interest in support, is because
you've pissed off homeowners. They don't they don't like this direction.

(01:28:53):
So it's you know, they don't like it for like
I said, you know, sort of questionable Nimmi reasons, but
it is what it is. And then it's bad for
would be home owners? Is it bad for renters? So
you put that up against you. On the other side,
you have very powerful interest in terms of these like
Wall Street firms that are buying up all this real estate,
and it becomes an actual battle where you do have

(01:29:13):
some powerful interests on both sides.

Speaker 4 (01:29:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:29:15):
Absolutely, And the reason why this matters is that right
now housing affordability again is at near record low level.

Speaker 3 (01:29:21):
So let's go put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:29:23):
I wanted everybody to see specifically at what's happening right
now with mortgage rates, where we have seen a stabilization
at seven percent, which is incredibly high historically, may have
dropped a little bit over the last couple of months,
but only by point one or two percent. So we're
now in a situation where if you have an eight
hundred credit score, the best credit score that exists, you're

(01:29:43):
still more getting a mortgage rate of some seven point
one percent. And if you are in the average credit score,
let's say under eight six eighty or something like that,
you're getting what seven point three at seven twenty or
get seven point two. I mean, these are very very
high interest rates. And just to normalize that, I mean,
if put a twenty percent down payment and you do
an average, you know, thirty year mortgage, the vast majority

(01:30:06):
of your payments for the first several years are just
gonna be interesting. You're basically just renting your house from
the bank and building up like tiny little slivers of
home equity, as opposed to if you have a two
or a three percent mortgage rate like they had in
the past. So this is the danger is that right now,
not only are you gonna need that's twenty percent or
whatever to avoid PMI if you're trying to put down

(01:30:29):
something like that, but that your mortgage payment is gonna
be so high even with a very very good credit score,
that it reduces the overall top line number of what
is even accessible to you, making those banks even more
competitive whenever they are working in this and there is
no sign of anybody coming to save you.

Speaker 3 (01:30:48):
Let's put this up there please on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:30:50):
The Federal Reserve just announced yesterday that they will be
holding interest rates steady. No sign that it will cut
soon as the quote inflation fight stalls.

Speaker 3 (01:31:00):
That's questionable in terms of what all that means.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
But the bottom line is that the expected election day
cuts that we're supposed to come between now and November, yeah,
it's not happening. Jerome Powell from basically what Fed Walkers
and all those have shown Crystal, they're not cutting until November,
until after election day. So, by the way, whoever wins
the election is going to be a lucky sob because

(01:31:23):
the economy is going to do super well.

Speaker 1 (01:31:25):
After Biden was really hoping for these.

Speaker 3 (01:31:27):
Rate cuts, hoping and praying, yeah, that's what they needed.

Speaker 1 (01:31:30):
That's why it was really important these last couple of
inflation numbers that came in hotter than expected and showed
their you know, were still issues there. And instantly a
lot of analysts had been thinking that the Fed may
well cut rates at the next session, and instantly that
was basically off the table. And even the prospect of
them raising rates came into into you know, plausible reality.

(01:31:51):
But what we see here is their holding rate study
that means no relief for mortgage interest rates, you know,
no sort of like fueling the economy and the way
that Biden would hope going in to election day, and
I do it. You know, it's obviously it's extremely important
politically because as much as the abortion is incredibly critical
and you know, very understandably emotional for a lot of

(01:32:12):
people and very motivating for a lot of people, as
much as the unconditional support for Israel is for young
voters especially, you know, significant issue and probably going to
drive a lot of voting behavior. Still overwhelming with the
issue that you know, many people say is their number
one is the economy. I mean, this is classic politics,
one on one. So the assumption that had been made
here for at least a little while so that the

(01:32:34):
economy was going to continue to improve leading up to
election day, and now that's a lot that picture is
a lot fuzzier and a lot more challenging for Biden.
So I'm sure he's not happy about this news. But
you know, the mortgage indust rates being the mortgage rates
being what they are is pretty pretty astonishing, and typically

(01:32:54):
when you have this sort of situation, you'll see prices
drop to reflect that in creased costs. But because you
have such a limited supply and you know, partly driven
by some of the Wall Street acquisitions, but also just
overall picture, it's meant that you haven't gotten that break.
So it really is sort of worst of all worlds
in terms of housing market.

Speaker 3 (01:33:12):
For it's bad, it's also it's just dry. Borrowing costs
are so high right now.

Speaker 2 (01:33:16):
You know, good luck to anybody who's trying to get
a loan or anything like that, even a car loan.
I mean, I think car loan's out there are like
thirteen fourteen percent right now, which is wild. Yeah, some
of the Texans who were paying you know, the average
car payment in Texas is like twelve hundred dollars. Yeah,
you guys need to stop buying such expensive trucks. Do
you really need the big Dot dram or whatever it's
is it the raptor? I see a life, oh thet

(01:33:38):
I was just down in Texas and I was looking around.
I'm like, why do you end up in my parents'
suburban neighborhood. I'm like what do all you people need
a truck for no offense? Like, I know that it's
fun and probably is, you know, fun to drive, But
what do we do when it's been in seventy grand
truck when you're not all in anything. If you actually
need it, that's a different story. But my point is
just that it's making fun in life right now.

Speaker 3 (01:33:58):
It's it's a little bit too telling.

Speaker 1 (01:34:00):
Most people who actually need it aren't getting like the
fancy luxury ones.

Speaker 2 (01:34:03):
I've always have the same you now, Yeah, every time
I see actual ranchers, all them, they're driving like a Toyota,
the Coma or something that is unbreakable.

Speaker 3 (01:34:10):
But one fifty one school, I think it looks cool.

Speaker 2 (01:34:13):
It certainly does, but I've only driven a truck a
couple of times.

Speaker 3 (01:34:16):
I'm not sure it's for me. Let's move on to Congress.

Speaker 2 (01:34:21):
This is the most important segment I think in terms
of what matters for Washington. As you can all see
the uniparty, it rewards those who do their bidding, and
so there has been a motion to vacate effort against
Speaker Mike Johnson by Marjorie Taylor Green and by Thomas
Massey in retaliation for passing the aid to Ukraine and

(01:34:42):
to Israel. However, Marjorie is now actually being attacked by
even pro Maga Republicans who are like, hey, hold on
a second, and she's getting an assist by the Democrats.
So here she is asked by CNN, why are you
going against Donald Trump's wishes and doing a motion to
vacate against Speaker Mike Johnson.

Speaker 3 (01:35:00):
And here's what she had to say.

Speaker 2 (01:35:01):
Former President Trump has said positive things about the speaker
and has said he doesn't favor a motion to vacate.

Speaker 1 (01:35:07):
Aren't you defying the former president's wishes?

Speaker 16 (01:35:10):
Absolutely not. I'm the biggest supporter of President Trump, and
that's why I probably wear this Maga hat. I fight
for his agenda every single day, and that's why I'm
fighting here against my own Republican conference to fight harder
against the Democrats.

Speaker 1 (01:35:24):
Mike Johnson has fully funded.

Speaker 16 (01:35:25):
The Department of Justice that wants to put President Trump
in jail.

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
So, as you guys can see right there, I mean,
Marjorie is fighting. But this really doesn't matter now because
the Democrats have basically made it a moot point, and
Mike Johnson is actually in the most powerful position that
he's been in in a long time, ever since that
Ukraine and Israeli had passed. Here he is in responding
to Marjorie Taylor Green in a recent interview, Let's take

(01:35:48):
a listen.

Speaker 3 (01:35:49):
Talk about your future. Yeah, Marjorie Taylor Green, H.

Speaker 4 (01:35:54):
No fan of yours.

Speaker 10 (01:35:55):
H that's herd.

Speaker 3 (01:35:56):
Is she a serious lawmaker? I don't think she's proving
to be.

Speaker 1 (01:36:01):
No.

Speaker 17 (01:36:01):
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about her.
I got to do my job, and we do the
right thing, and we let the follow they may. And
that's that's my philosophy. That's how we're governing. We're gonna
we're going to keep the train on the tracks and
show the American people that not just what we're against,
but what we're for. That there's a conservative agenda that
is necessary to get the country back on the right track.
And the way to what for us to do that

(01:36:22):
is to keep and grow the House majority. Descending into
chaos and closing the house down and vacating the chair
again is exactly the opposite.

Speaker 2 (01:36:30):
It's the opposite of what needs to happen, of course,
because whenever you pay the piper, thenever you get rescued.
Here is a friend of the show, Glenn Greenwald, flagged
just how much of a double face you know, person
Mike Johnson has turned out to be.

Speaker 3 (01:36:44):
Here's what he used to sound like.

Speaker 2 (01:36:45):
On the issue of PISA whenever he was interviewed by Glenn,
and then recently he just passed the Pfizer reauthorization.

Speaker 3 (01:36:52):
Here's what he sounded like. That is what keeps us
up at night, Glenn.

Speaker 17 (01:36:55):
We're worried about what has become of these agencies that
have such broad and expensive powers.

Speaker 3 (01:37:02):
Do you see what I mean.

Speaker 18 (01:37:03):
He's not just saying he's going to vote yes or no.
He's saying this issue, this concern is so pressing to
me that it keeps me up at night. The secrecy
of the FBI, the ability of the US Security State
to spy on American citizens with no limits, it keeps
him up at night. He said, just in July of
twenty twenty three.

Speaker 17 (01:37:23):
Bring legislative reforms to do our best to ensure that
these abuses cannot happen again in the future.

Speaker 3 (01:37:29):
He said.

Speaker 18 (01:37:30):
The only thing we can do is bring legislative reform
to ensure these abuses do not happen again. He becomes speaker,
there's pending legislation to do exactly that, that has bipartisan support,
to do exactly that, to reform the powers of the
US Security States so they can no longer spy on

(01:37:51):
us in a secret and abuse their spying powers and
other powers for politicized domestic ends.

Speaker 3 (01:37:58):
He said, that's the thing I'm to do. Sickening.

Speaker 2 (01:38:01):
It's sickening, Crystal, It's incredible out face. And here's the
best part. You know, it's before you weigh in. Let's
put this up there on the screen. Democrats are going
to save him. They've decided and they've announced that they will.
They will rescue Mike Johnson when he faces that ousterro vote.
Why Marjorie Taylor Green sometime next week. They got to
pay him off in in you know, in exchange for
that Ukraine Aid passage that just happened.

Speaker 1 (01:38:23):
He wanted that Israel Aid to go through. I mean,
that was his He made it really clear. He made
it really clear as soon as he got in. First
person called his baby at Niya who first thing he
passed with some resolution about anti Semitism or whatever. It's
not only the the Fies apiece, but he also you know,
his house just passed this bill codifying as hate speech

(01:38:44):
criticism of the government of Israel, and so once they
had that into him and it was like very clear
that the only way to get it through was to
package that with Ukraine Aid and all these other things.
Guess what, That's what he was going to do. So
it is astonishing to me that the Democrats are going
to save this guy. Like I I understand it from
an ideological perspective, because the minute that he passed their
Ukraine Aid they were like calling him Churchill literally Churchill.

Speaker 3 (01:39:07):
Yeah, They're like, this is his nineteen thirty eight music moment.

Speaker 2 (01:39:10):
I just can't selling weapons to Ukraine and bankrupting.

Speaker 1 (01:39:12):
America absolutely incredible, absolutely incredible. So you know, ideologically they're
very aligned. They got is. They also probably see him
as easy to manipulate, because he probably is because he's
very inexperienced. He came out of nowhere, and now they're like,
you know, can take him into some classified briefing and
scare the shit out them and get him to do
whatever the hell they want him to do. Pretty much
from that perspective, I understand it. From another tactical perspectives,

(01:39:33):
how I don't, because there were some rumors that if
you did have a successful motion of vacate and you
threw it back into this like previous chaos, there were
some rumors that there were a couple of modern Republicans
who were actually going to switch parties. Yeah, that were reported,
so and that's all it would take to flip the
House to the Democrats. So it's like, Okay, well, why
wouldn't she try? Wouldn't you try for that, just as

(01:39:53):
you know, power exercise whatever. Not to mention the fact
that these chaotic periods for the Republicans, for your average
American who's not paying too much attention that ends announced,
they just look at it and like, these people aren't serious,
they can't government, like they're fighting with themselves constantly, et cetera,
et cetera. And you know, personally, I think there should
be more tension within these call because I think there

(01:40:14):
should be more of these battles, et cetera. But I
think the way it reads the American people is just
as chaos, and so I don't know also why they
would want to rescue the Republicans from that. But hey,
the ukraineate, I guess, is so important to them that
now that they've got their guy in there who's willing
to do whatever it takes to get it through. They're
going to stick with that.

Speaker 3 (01:40:31):
Yeah, this is what it looks like.

Speaker 2 (01:40:32):
And it's just like, this is the most extraordinary thing
that's happened in modern Congress in the last thirty forty years.
I mean, you have a speaker who uses democratic votes
when the majority of his party votes against something to
pass aid. I mean, and this is you know, everybody
talks about we can't norms and we got to worship
norms and all that. They break it for one reason,
not for aid for us, nothing to do with us.

(01:40:53):
It's for aid to foreign powers, like this is the
altar of which they worship. So and they get rewarded
for it, They get awarded applied. You know, Mike Johnson
is stronger today than he has at any point in
his speakership for two reasons. This anti Semitism bs that
we started our show with. You know, he's united as caucus,
he's got the Columbia Act, Richie Torres and Gotttheimer backing him.

(01:41:16):
The Democrats got their Ukraine aid. The Republicans are backing
their speaker standing up against campus protesters.

Speaker 3 (01:41:23):
So this is what it looks like.

Speaker 2 (01:41:25):
This is what actual like majority rule looks like, and
it's not favorable. So I agree, let's go back to chaos.
I think it's a more beneficial to the country. All right,
last thing here, we put this in there at the
last minute, and we'll do our best just to tell
you the full story because this is absolutely nuts. Let's
put this up there on the screen. Another Boeing whistleblower
has died. So whistle blower Josh Dean, he was a

(01:41:47):
whistleblower from supplier Spirit Arrow Systems, died on Tuesday morning,
according to them, after struggling with a fast spreading infection.
So Josh Dean was forty five year old man. He
was in good health quote noted for healthy lifestyle. According
to them, he was admitted to the hospital two weeks
ago where he became sick with pneumonia. He was intubated

(01:42:09):
and then suffered from MRSA. Now I agree MURSA is certainly,
you know, a deadly thing and affects people in the hospital,
but the circumstances are still a little bit fishy because
literally just weeks ago he was actively involved in giving
a deposition against Spirit shareholders in a lawsuit filed in
a complaint against with the FAA alleging quote serious and

(01:42:31):
gross misconduct by quality management on seven thirty seven at
Spirit Error Systems. For people who don't know, Spirit Error
Systems is a separate company from Boeing. It was spun
off from Boeing back in I think it was the
nineties or some two thousands it was sold off, but
it's the exclusive supplier of the Boeing wide body aircraft
to Boeing. Now it's being rebought by Boeing. For all

(01:42:52):
intents and purposes, it's Boeing. So this is another whistleblower involved,
you know, with the This is the company which directly
was responsible for that door plug manufacture, and he's at
the heart of FAA complaints and whistleblowing against the company.
And then you know, just dies suddenly in just what
a two week circumstance, after reaching the probably the highest

(01:43:14):
level of prominence and Boeing whistleblowers have ever been in.
So it's very shocking and it's disturbing to see that
some of.

Speaker 3 (01:43:20):
This is happening.

Speaker 1 (01:43:21):
Yeah, and obviously comes on the heels up right. Another
consequential Boeing whistleblower killing himself. And you know, obviously that
individual had told friends like if I turn up dead,
I did not kill myself. So with regards to mister Dean,
he had told Spirit managers about miss drilled holes in

(01:43:43):
seven thirty seven fuselage components parts that were then sent
to Boeing, and he claims that those supervisors knew about
those subpart parts and allowed them those unsafe products. And
he also claims that he was directly retaliated against and
lost his job because of raising these concerns. He was
very consequential as a whistleblower, not only because of how

(01:44:06):
Spirit was, you know, at the heart of this door
plug that blew out mid air, but as Sagar just referenced,
he also was really critical to this shareholder lawsuit against Spirit,
claiming that because of these sorts of you know, just
commitment to nothing but the bottom line and not caring
about safety, that they mismanaged the company in a way

(01:44:27):
that really damaged these shareholders. So his testimony was really
critical to this massive shareholder lawsuit against the company. So
this was a very significant individual, both in terms of
the door plug issue specifically and also in terms of
potential massive you know, financial legal consequences for the company
because of the shareholders.

Speaker 2 (01:44:47):
Yeah, exactly, and now he's dead and you know, look,
it's just one of those where clearly there needs to
be an actual investigation. You know, these people's lives possibly
could be at risk, and these are very fishy circumstance
is that last whistleblower. The South Carolina Police have not
issued any new update.

Speaker 3 (01:45:05):
Don't forget.

Speaker 2 (01:45:05):
Boeing is one of the most important companies in the
state of South Carolina where all of this happened. These
people genuinely, you know, according to them, are at risk,
suffered retaliation. One of the whistleblowers testifiable for Congress, and
one of his managers said that if he had spoken
that way, they would have had him killed in a meeting.
So it's not outside the realm of possibility. There's billions

(01:45:27):
of trillions of dollars, you know, possibly at stake care.

Speaker 1 (01:45:30):
Possible well criminal liability depending on whatever the hell went down.
We don't know what may be hidden here, certainly from
the public eye. But all these Boeing whistleblowers that are
out there, they need security, they need protection, they need
people tasting their food and all the rest because for
two of them to die in a short period of
time raises a lot of eyebrows.

Speaker 4 (01:45:51):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (01:45:52):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you
very much.

Speaker 2 (01:45:54):
Make sure you subscribe Breakingpoints dot com so you can
watch the Destiny debate with Omar and counter points exclusive
and early breakoinpoints dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:46:02):
We will see you all later. H