Krystal and Emily discuss Trump pressures Zelensky to bomb Moscow, Bibi tells Trump Iran war on again, ICE tracking app developer freaks Trump admin.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We have some news from Donald Trump on tariff's related
to Russia. Donald Trump's frustration with Vladimir Putin continues to
boil over. He was in a meeting in the Oval
Office yesterday with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutta and made
some comments about get us a one hundred percent tariff
potentially on Russia.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
We can go ahead here and roll see one.
Speaker 5 (00:56):
We are very unhappy, I am with Russia, but we're
very very unhappy with him, and we're going to be
doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal
in fifty days. Tariffs said about one hundred percent. You'd
call them secondary tariffs. As you know, we've spent three
hundred and fifty billion dollars approximately on this war with
(01:19):
Russia and Ukraine and would like to see it end.
It wasn't my war, it was Biden's war, and we
want to see it end. And I'm disappointed in President
Putin because I thought we would have had a deal
two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there.
So based on that, we're going to be doing secondary
tariffs if we don't have a deal in fifty days.
Speaker 6 (01:37):
It's very simple, and they'll be at one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
So that seems to be Donald Trump acknowledging or realizing,
not acknowledging, but realizing Crystal that he is losing leverage.
What did he say to Zelenski? You done have the cards?
It seems like Trump is walking head first into what
many of his critics said earlier was just the reality
(02:02):
that Putin is so determined to continue the war that
for Donald Trump to come to the table on this
and get a deal within twenty four hours, but even
within a month, two months, three months, four months, five.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Months, six months is where we are right now.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
There will likely have to be significantly more concessions from
Ukraine than the Trump administration right now is willing to entertain.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
No, it would be a bitter pill to swallow. I mean,
there's no doubt that ending this conflict will be difficult
and would require really forcing Ukraine to accept, you know,
significant annexing of their territory by Russia. And that is
a bitter pill to swallow. There's no doubt about it.
(02:50):
It may be an unacceptable pill to swallow for you know,
I think I think a.
Speaker 7 (02:54):
Lot of Americans would object to that.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And that's part of why you have these wars go
on and on and on, because it's easier to sustain
them and kick the can down the road than it
is to actually bring them to a ugly messy which
it would be conclusion. And you know, Trump came in
incredibly arrogant, never was really pressed on how he would
bring about this magical end of the conflict. Before he
(03:17):
even was in office, in twenty four hours, he would
have this ended. And you know, I think he was
arrogant and foolish enough to believe that he had that
kind of relationship with Putin where he could just call
his buddy on the phone and be able to work
something out and do a deal the way that he
is accustomed to doing. And obviously reality has hit him
in the face right now, and so he's swinging now
in the other direction and going hard neocon. I mean,
(03:38):
in some ways now we're getting a preview of a
policy that will mean more hawkish than what the Biden
administration did. Between this, you know, the hawks like Lindsay
Graham have been pushing additional aggressive sanctions on Russia, which guys,
we already had. Russia's already the most sanctioned country on
the planet. Like the idea that additional sanctions are going
to further do anything, I mean, I think it's I think.
Speaker 7 (03:58):
It's far fetched.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
We should skip a C four then, sorry to go
out of order, control room.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
But to your point, let's put C four up on screen.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
The Russian stock market actually went up two point four percent, yeah, yesterday, which, yeah,
it goes to exactly the point that you were just making,
making like they've maybe actually what Trump could have said
at this Oval office pressure yesterday with Mark Ritta could
have even been worse. Maybe stocks went up because there
(04:28):
was an anticipation that Trump could have done something that
wasn't related to sanctions, or that was in some ways
worse than a one hundred percent. I mean like there's
they've been sanctioned to hell already. There's there's not much
you can do on that front to make things worse.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, in addition, we don't have an element for this
because we're just seeing it. But Financial Times published a
scoop that Trump asked Zelenski if Ukraine could hit Moscow.
According to people who are briefed on the call, Trump
has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on
Russian territory, even asking Zelenski whether he could strike Moscow
if the US provided long range weapons, which we know
(05:05):
now we are going to provide. Corn of people briefed
on those discussions. The conversation took place during the July
fourth call between the US and Ukrainian leaders, marks a
sharp departure from Trump's previous stance on Russia's war, and
his campaign promised to end US involvement in foreign conflicts.
Remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, but it
appears that their sort of cope is like, oh, well,
(05:27):
NATO's going to pay for it, but first worshipping the
weapons and we'll see if we get reimbursed on the
back end. I guess the discussion underscores Trump's deepening frustration
with Putin's refusal to engage in cease fire talks. So
you remember how we talked on the campaign trail, and
I think justifiably so his desire to end this conflict,
as articulated at times during his campaign, I think was
(05:48):
one of the appeals certainly with the Republican base, but
I think more broadly with the American people as well,
was part of a key to him creating this impression
that he would be an anti war president. And he
talked about how we were flirting with World War three,
that under Kamala Harris, we would get world War three
because of this conflict with another nuclear armed superpower. And
(06:11):
so now here you are, fast forward to July fifteenth,
and he's encouraging Ukraine to strike Moscow and strike Saint
Petersburg as well, with weapons provided by US. I mean, look,
I get that we've gotten this far and there hasn't
been a nuclear blow up. That's good, but that doesn't
(06:31):
mean that a catastrophic escalation isn't still something that we
have to concern ourselves with.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
That's a really good point about how he was criticizing
potential Harris administration, and when we look back on the
Biden administration, the bluster was so dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
The attack comes.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
It really really was dangerous, and Republicans capitalized on that.
And one of Donald Trump's most important arguments from his
perspective about how he approaches Latin with Putin is that
he doesn't needlessly antagonize Putin. And this is what Neo
CON's critics said all along was foolish about Trump's strategy
(07:09):
towards Putin. How many American presidents have gone in and
said they, you know, saw Putin's soul.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
I think that was George W.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Bush in his eyes, and they have trusted Putin.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
And the neo Khan said, it always happens.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
You always get the rug pulled out from under you
by by Vladimir Putin, et cetera, et cetera. Well, it
doesn't undermined, undermined Trump's point that it's better not to
be antagonistic towards Putin, but it does start to make
it look like Trump had carried with that some genuine
naivete about his relationship with Vladimir Putin to your point, Crystal,
(07:46):
that it is not panning out the way that he
thought it would, where essentially he was like, well, we
can just pick up the phone, I'll send Steve Whitcoff
and we'll make a deal. Did not go quite that way,
and we can sense his frustration. I'm gonna play this
this moment that Trump had with a reporter in that
meeting with the Native Secretary General Yester.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
This is C two.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
I want to get the war settled.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
They're not Americans that are dying in it. And you know,
I have a problem and JD has a problem. It's
a stance that he's had for a long time. They're
not Americans dying, but there are a lot of people
dying and on something that should be able to be settled.
Speaker 6 (08:23):
And we all agree with that.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
But I am very disappointed with President Putin.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I thought he was somebody.
Speaker 5 (08:31):
That meant what he said and so beautifully and then'll bomb.
Speaker 8 (08:35):
People at night. We don't like that, thank you everybody.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So, Crystal, I know that Trump, and this actually I
do understand, doesn't like to telegraph exactly how far.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
He might go.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
But now we pretty honestly have to ask ourselves a
question if it's as as far as the Biden administration
was willing to go and in ways that really were
gambling with potential nuclear Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
I mean, at this point the policy is pretty indistinguishable
from the Biden administration, and he seems prepared to push it,
continue pushing it forward, which was the effective trajectory of
the Biden administration because it was, you know, the sort
of we sort of drew lines around Okay, well we
considered these defensive weapons, and then okay, we want these
longer range things, and over time you give.
Speaker 7 (09:20):
More and more and more and more, and.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
There were always these you know, operations that were occurring.
Pretty quickly, we got to operations that were quite inflammatory
that were occurring within Russia, and we just sort of,
you know, turned a blind eye to that, even though
we had said originally that we wanted to keep the
conflict within Ukraine and not have these attacks within Russia.
And so that trajectory of continued step by step by
(09:45):
step escalation at this point appears to be followed by
the Trump administration as well. And you know, the thing
that frustrated me under the Biden administration. The thing that
frustrates me now is I just don't think anyone could
explain or really has a pl for how this is
brought to an end. Like, okay, so they and then
they strike within moskt what then, Like, there's no sign
(10:07):
that Russia is just one Moscow or Saint Petersburg strike
away from say, you know what, you're right, we we capitulate,
we want to come to the table, we want to
strike a deal that's going to be acceptable for Zelenski.
There's no sign of that, so, you know, I just
it's one of these incredibly foolish and idiotic but very
(10:28):
typical American foreign policy situations where there's just sort of
like it takes on a logic of its own, and
there's really no plan or no feasible plan for effectuating
any kind of a you know, a positive or beneficial
or least bad of all options sort of an outcome.
It's just I guess we're going to do this now
(10:49):
and see what happens.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Well, let's yeah, And that it frustrates to no end.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Obviously, people like Albert Colby, who caught all kinds of
strays in the press last week for trying to some
of these weapons, because the United States at any given moment,
whether or not you or I agree with the policy,
could find itself in a kinetic conflict over Taiwan, and.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
Trump over ruled that. So those frustrations are just.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Going to be I think stronger and stronger among the
people who were I don't know that anyone has the
ability to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I mean, this is clearly Trump is driving the show
on this.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
It doesn't matter to some extent that there were people
brought in who disagree with the hawkishness here, but that
frustration from hawks and just from regular people like that,
that's a pretty significant concern. I want to roll this
clip from Fox News. This is Lisa Booth reacting to
(11:47):
Trump's comments.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Let's go ahead and roll this as C three.
Speaker 9 (11:51):
See the business guy in President Trump. Well, I have
concerns similar to what Paul expressed about. You know, is
this war never ending with Russia and Ukraine? Will it
ever end? You know, Russia has a larger military, they
have more people to sacrifice at the altar of this war. However,
I think President Trump deserves her deference.
Speaker 7 (12:08):
He's always right.
Speaker 9 (12:09):
When has he been wrong about foreign policy, as naysayers
are the everyone said there was gonna be a World
War three three after you know, sending those bombs to
Iran and taking out some of their nuclear facilities or
at least badly damaging them. That didn't come to fruition, right,
So he's repeatedly been or you know, moving them messy
to Jerusalem. Everyone was worried about that, right, So everyone
has been wrong, He's always been right, so he could
he deserves our difference.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
Christ I was thinking about this.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
It reminds me of like if you have a friend
who's playing blackjack and like hit me, hit me, and
they make the most irrational call and they end up winning,
and then.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
They turned to you and they're like, see, you were wrong.
I'm like, no, I wasn't. You shouldn't have done that.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
I'm glad it worked out really well, but you shouldn't
have done that.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
This is this is not the right.
Speaker 7 (12:55):
Strategy right well.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
And I mean with the Iran thing, that presumes that
that's all all over and done, which we're about to
talk about Israel, it's not a good assumption whatsoever. So yeah,
but I mean, you know it speaks to this broader
conversation about MAGA disappointments with Trump, and certainly the most
up said i've seen any portion of the magabase is
over Jeffrey Epstein, although already in real time you see
(13:18):
the influencers trying to gather everybody. You know what, We're
going to trust Trump, We're going to move on. But
you know, you would think that on a matter of
Warren Peace, this really was a central promise of how
he would be different than a potential Kamala Harris administration.
And now you've got a complete one to eighty where
it's just an embrace effectively of the Biden policy. And
you know the line here, at least from this individual
(13:40):
in Fox News. But I think, you know, I don't
think we'll see much upset over this from the MAGA
influencer world or the MAGA faithful as well. He knows
what he's doing, so we'll just trust Trump. That's what
it always kind of comes back to.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Yeah, and you know, I think that sounds rather naive
to put it nicely, I suppose or charitably, I think.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
You should trust anybody like That's what I was just
gonna say. Yeah, I mean, I don't care how much
you like the guy or feel like whatever, like no,
And you know, I think there were a lot of
people on the Democratic side who fell into this trap
under the Obama administration where it was like, well, we
love this guy, so sure he's like upping the Druid
war and doing these you know, like getting a list
(14:20):
of people to assassinate and going forward with and committing
all the wait, you know it's Obama, so he must
be doing it in a responsible way, and you know
it's I think it's even more so under the trumpet
with Trump, because he has such a strong force and
culture personality that this this idea of just like, well,
he must know better, so we're just going to trust
(14:41):
him on this. We're just going to trust him on
a run. We're just going to trust him on Epstein
and whatever. That is a place where I think it
is always safe for MAGA influencers to land, you.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Know, like, I know, we're both in the same boat
on this. But however, this war, like this war is
a meat grinder. It is a tragedy every single day.
So if if Trump pulls this off, if he says
hit me and it works, then I think that would
be wonderful. But we are six months in and he's
(15:14):
even testing the patience of.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
Fox News on the Ukraine question.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
So not a time for optimism as it relates to
finally getting it into this.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
All right, well, let's talk about our great ally in
all of this, Israel. Maybe Nannahum making some pretty interesting
comments on his reflections about the very fronts of this war,
saying that actually the eighth front in his many wars
that he's started is disinformation.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (15:44):
This is the eighth front. The disinformation campaign is amongas
you know, takes a second for a lie to circulate
the world, and then you have to battle it with
the only weapon you ad, which.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Is the truth.
Speaker 10 (15:57):
And truth is slower than lies and more difficult to
ask because you have to get the facts. You have
to When you lie, you can say anything and it's instantaneous.
When you tell the truth, you have to ascertain the facts.
And until you do that in the electronic age, boy,
that like it encircle the earth, you know, a thousand times,
so it's a handicap. But we'll fight the information war two.
(16:22):
And you know, basically you have the weapon of truth.
We just have to be more efficient at disclaiming, and
I think we have to shame the media that does this.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I have to think that this is a reaction to
I mean, first of all, there's just a sense that
they've lost control of the narrative. And yeah, after now,
we're coming up not too long from now in two
years of all of us seeing like bombed and you know,
obliterated babies and bombed tents and hospitals and schools and
mosques and churches and everything else in our timelines. That
(16:53):
guess what, some of that is going to break through
despite your best efforts. It's interesting, of course that he
thinks in these explicit terms. It's interesting that this front
of the war, like all of the other fronts of
this war, this you know, assault, requires the assistance of
the United States of America, where I'm sure he would
love to see even more censorship than has already been
(17:15):
put in place on the domestic population in service of
his atrocities. So, you know, I think it's I think
it's very interesting and revealing comments. And I think of
the trays Emily, a sense that you know, of a
loss of control of the narrative, and you know, the
democratic base is basically gone I mean, there's some eighty
percent that are disgusted with what Israel has been doing
(17:36):
in our support of Israel on the democratic side, but
you had a turning for USA just on display, especially
among young Republicans, increasing discuss there as well that in
the sense that this is not in this is not
America first, it is not in America's interest to constantly
be you know, catering to this one client state. So
(17:57):
you know, it seems to me that he has some
concerns about the way that American attitudes on both sides
of the Aisle have really shifted against them.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Yeah, I mean, I imagine, and I think you're right that
we can sense this in creeping into public view. There
is something close to panic in Lahoud when they look
at American polling and when they look at on the
American right, and this gets it manifests in the grossest
(18:27):
way of just trying to weaponize anti Semitism, charges of
anti Semitism very bluntly to rather than actually, I mean,
a much more constructive way, if you're Natanyahu to deal
with all of this would would not be to accuse
people of believing false information or peddling disinformation or anti
Semitism or Natanyahu's allies like a Mike Huckabee. The constructive
(18:51):
way is to deal with the substance of people's questions
and concerns. But the I think fear and panic is
just inducing this impulse to to lump people into awful
categories and to dismiss things. Disinformation it is. It goes
without saying, of course, but it is very rich to
(19:13):
hear a lecture on disinformation from Nets and Yaku. I mean,
it's the incredible stuff. Yeah, it's just incredible stuff. And
that's part part of what has I think shifted opinion
on the right is people sort of looking around and
realizing that their beliefs about Israel were sort of a
house of cards to some extent, or their beliefs about
(19:37):
your sort of deference to Nets and Yahoo, not about
Israel itself. You know, I think broadly you would probably
still have support for the concept of Zionism on the
American right, but for American continued American support and for
Nets and Yahoo's ongoing war. No, you have like creater
(19:57):
and support, especially among young Republicans, which bodes very poorly
for their ability to keep America in Israel's corner. Decades
into the future.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the polling, basically
the one group that is still firmly in the Zionist Yes,
we support Israel no matter what camp are like Boomer Republicans,
young Republicans are pretty evenly divided. And so I think,
you know, for Bieb, he was probably because he's part
of making it a more part of like making it
more parts when he came to Washington under Obama and
(20:29):
he was advocating against the JCPOA whatever.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
I think he's.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Probably kind of okay with the Democratic Party shifting away
from Israel as long as he's still got the Republicans
and as long as he still has you know, obviously
at the elite Democratic level, they still have plenty of
influence there.
Speaker 7 (20:44):
But to see the.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Bubbling discontent on the Republican side as well, and Israel
becoming a real fault line within the Republican Party in
the same way it's a huge schism between like the
base and the elites and the Democratic Party, but it's
become a real schism in the republic Party as well.
As talking to Saga about this yesterday, because in the
same way on the Democratic side, Israel exposes a hypocrisy
of a supposed commitment to human rights on the Republican side,
(21:09):
it exposes the hypocrisy of a supposed commitment to America first.
So it really has become this sort of central dividing line.
And you know, at the same time, also you have
and this also speaks to that America forest orientation.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
Put D two up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
You had an American from Florida who's just murdered by
Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. He's visiting front,
visiting family in this village when settlers beat him unconscious
and then blocked an ambulance from reaching him for hot
wors so they beat him nearly to death, and then
(21:48):
when medics attempted to respond, they blocked those ambulances from
being able to come and provide medical assistance to this
again American citizen who was there visiting family, and he died.
In addition, Emily, I don't know, I think you probably
saw this. CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is there like Jerusalem
(22:09):
based correspondent, was traveling out with the team to try
to cover this story, and their vehicle was attacked by
violent illegal settlers as well. So you know, in what
way is it America first? I guarantee you want to
hear from any Republican But Donald Trump isn't going to
be concerned about this American who was beaten to death
(22:33):
by settlers who are enabled and supported by our great allies,
the Israelis. You want to hear about it from this
Republican administration that is supposedly quote unquote America first.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
Well, in this conflict is obviously it always has been
a swirl of disinformation. That's hard if you're on the
other side of the world to know immediately what's true
and what's false. But for Netsan Yahoo in this case,
or actually, let's just take the Jeremy Diamond post, he
says that their car was attacked by settlers. What was
(23:07):
CNN doing?
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Just getting to the disinformation claims that often come up
here and have in the case of the American who
was killed. And I don't know the truth of that,
But I can look at the case of CNN and say,
I don't think CNN was throwing rocks at the settlers.
I don't think CNN did anything to warrant this attack.
(23:30):
And so often we are told that there are not
unprovoked attacks.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
That the attack was.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Any attack that we're considering must have been provoked in
some way or another. But that's obviously not the case
with the CNN crew, who was just trying to do
their jobs. So it's just like here you go an
example right there to refute any claims that you know,
(23:58):
say that, say the CNN crew had just been Palestinians,
you know, you would you would probably hear all kinds
of things about provocations.
Speaker 7 (24:08):
And you wouldn't even hear about it.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
Only well if you did, you would. If you did,
you would hear that they were throwing rocks or something.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Yeah, no, that's their Hamas. They would be Hamas for sure,
But it hard to hard to say Jeremy Diamond is
Hamas in this instance.
Speaker 7 (24:23):
You know. The other thing I.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Think about is like, imagine it was a Jewish American
who was visiting family in Israel and was beaten to
death by Palestinians. How do you think that that would
be treated by the news media. How do you think
it would be treated by this administration? I mean, just
the absolute blatant double standard is so glaring and so
grotesque at this point that you know, to take it
(24:46):
back to be there concerned about the disinformation front in
his eight front apparently you know war that he's that
he is committing here. His ability to keep a lid
on things that are so obdos, like the fact that
you know, there's this blatant double standard when it comes
to Palestinians versus Israelis, is part of the loss of
(25:10):
his control, like he can no longer keep all these
things together in the age of social media, and just
with how brazen it all is at this point. So
you know, it doesn't surprise me that part of what
he and his allies in the US and the Trump
administration has been happy to go along with is this
intense censorship campaign against Americans and against foreign students as
(25:33):
well who have come here.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Christ I just wanted to see me such an important
point about social media and then losing their grip because
if we go back to the shirinapu Accula case, also
an American and in that case, the Israeli government put
out statements that I think they thought would hold but
because the media had access CNN I think initially did
along and thorough investigation into this. They had access to
(25:59):
all of these different social media posts or people had
taken videos with their smartphones and all of that, and
because of Google Maps and their ability to sort of
piece these things together, they were able to have audio
experts listen to different snippets that have been recorded, and
everything sort of fell apart when you were able to
kind of with free information string or put different pieces
(26:21):
of the puzzle together. And so you can't just put
out a statement and expect the American government to swallow
it whole cloth anymore, because the American media is not
always going to swallow.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Its whole cloth.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Now, American media is obviously going to be more concerned
about does of journalists than people who are visiting family.
So that's sadly true in the case of shrin Abu Bakla.
But it's much much harder to just say this is
our story, this is the story, and then get the
United States and the US media to go along with it.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Let's go and put D three up on the screen,
because this is just this picture says so much. So
this is when NETANYAHUO was in town, and you've got
a bipartisan group of senators there and members there who
are meeting with him, and that's Corey Booker try and
hide so and it's just so perfect, and I think
(27:15):
it speaks to the moment so much where it's like
Corey Booker is still all the way in with Israel,
but he's smart enough to realize it's not a great
look at this point, so he tries to have it
both ways by being at the photo op with Netnaho
but also trying to hide Gretchen Whitmer style during the picture.
It's just to me, it's a perfect encapsulation of the
(27:37):
cowardice a Democratic Party elites, the culpability of Democratic Party elites,
and of Corey Booker himself.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
I mean, that's that picture for Corey brutal is Corey
Booker is brutal? Yeah, brtal Corey Booker is brutal. And
you asked Congressman Conna about this a little bit earlier
in the show, Crystal. But the sentiments of Democratic voters
have shifted so significantly that it's very possible this is
(28:05):
a picture that follows Corey Booker throughout his, oh his
political career, and is a problem for him.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
Oh yeah, I would say so.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Last piece I definitely want to get to here because
it ties back to the Iran conversation we were having
put D four up on the screen. Phoebe has apparently
told Trump that Israel will go back to war with
Iran if the quote nuclear threat resumes, and apparently, Emily,
we are in the business of just taking Israel's word
(28:33):
for what is going on in Iran. So if net
Yahoo down the road tells Trump, hey, they restarted the
nuclear program, now they may well. In fact, what we've
done has made it much more likely that they actually
pursue a nuclear weapon. That created a logic that would
make it much more likely that they would pursue a
nuclear weapon. But you know, I think it's very likely,
(28:56):
I would say possible to likely that we come down
the road a little bit and that now who says sorry,
trying to like, look there, they restarted their nuclear program.
You can trust our intel doesn't really matter what the
US intel community says. Apparently, and we're going to be
right back in the situation that we saw unfold before.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So net Yahoo's in town last week.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
We mentioned this earlier in the show, and the New
York Times publishes a single anonymous Israeli source saying that
not all of the enriched uranium was moved, which Chris
what We talked about this on Friday show. I think
we all believe that sounds very plausible, that that may
well be true. But the reason that you put it
out that way is you're trying to plant the seeds
(29:41):
for escalation once again. And that was never I mean,
I think that was that was never out of the
question at all as soon as the twelve day wore.
And that's where you know, there's a lot of victory
laps being taken like, oh, you guys were you guys
were wrong that World War three would start.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
It's like, well, it's been a or what it's been
like ten days.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
I hope to goodness that we were wrong I don't
know that that's the case yet.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
And examples like this are.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Why well, and I don't think any of us ever
said it will leave you world War three, right. It's example,
you're playing with fire and they were and continue, Yeah,
they continue to play with fire, and BB knows what
he wants and is going to continue to plant those
seeds and push in this direction. And so you know,
one step was that article saying hey, they kept their
(30:31):
own uranium, and the next step is him informing Trump like, look,
you know, we don't want to do it, but if
they go back to if they restart the nuclear program,
we're going to have no choice.
Speaker 7 (30:42):
And it also ties into the Epstein thing because hey,
if there's there there with regard to.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Trump, then we all know he's going to go along
with whatever the Israelis ultimately want him to do.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
Right, Yeah, what choice would he have? Now?
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Obviously you always have a choice not to get Black Mount,
but it's if that's what's happening.
Speaker 4 (30:57):
But yeah, there's significant way in all likelihood.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
All right, Emily, I'm going to let you go for
the day because I know you have some other things
to tend to.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
But thank you as always. And is it you and
Ryan tomorrow?
Speaker 4 (31:11):
I think Ryan's in Ireland.
Speaker 7 (31:12):
Well that's you and me tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
So I do like when we have to do this
on air. I think it's all right.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Well, I'll message you later and we'll work it out.
Maybe I'll make Sager be in from it. We can
have all magat show again. People people may enjoy that.
All right, you later, lady, see.
Speaker 6 (31:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Really excited to be joined this morning by Joshua Aaron.
He is a tech entrepreneur and he is the developer
of an app called ice Block that allows users to
report where they've seen ice in the vicinity.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Joshua, it is great to have you.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
Thank you so much for having me Crystal.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Yeah, of course, so we can put a little bit
of a view up on the screen of what this
app looks like, so people can kind of get a
sense of it. You can see, you know, maps showing
location that has been reported of ice. Agents just talked
to us a little bit about why you decided to
develop this app and what you hope that it accomplishes.
Speaker 8 (32:11):
Sure, so you know, when I saw it was going
on with the first Trump administration and then of course
his rhetoric on the campaign trail for his second you know,
reading Project twenty twenty five and just kind.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
Of seeing the forest through the trees, I guess.
Speaker 8 (32:26):
I knew what was coming down the pike, and I
wanted to do something to help fight back. So, you know,
growing up in a Jewish household and being a member
of that community, I had the opportunity to meet Holocaust
survivors and learn all about the history of Hitler's rise
to power and Nazi Germany. And so when we see
five year olds in courtrooms without representation, when we see
(32:47):
college students being disappeared for their political beliefs, and even worse,
when we see babies being ripped from their mother's arms
with their screening for their children in the name of patriotism.
You know, we're kind of seeing history repeat itself. And
this was the best way that I could use my
talents to help fight back.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Tell people just specifically how the app works and what
it actually does.
Speaker 8 (33:09):
Sure, so it's a crowded source app, and basically what
it does is akin to something like Ways or Apple Maps,
where when you're driving down the road and you get
an alert that says, hey, there's a speed trap reported ahead,
what do you do?
Speaker 6 (33:21):
You slow down? You avoid the situation.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
Sort of the same concept with ice block, where users
can report sightings of ice that they see in public.
You know, so they see an ice rate going on,
or they see trucks pulling off, they can report that
location and all users within a five mile radius get
an alert and it comes up in the list on
their device within.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
The app, and the idea is informed, not obstruct.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
So let's have them avoid that situation, turn left, turn around,
go home, and protect themselves and their families.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
It will not come as a surprise to you that
this is very controversial. Can put E three up on
the screen. In fact, you've come under fire sort of
directly from the administration.
Speaker 7 (34:00):
Wrote an article about about.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Ice block and the response here from the ICE Acting
director Todd Lyons said, CNN's promotion of an ICE spotting
app is reckless and irresponsible. Advertising an app that basically
paints a target on law enforcement officers backs is sickening.
My officers and agents are already facing a five hundred
percent increase in assaults and going on live television to
(34:23):
announce an app that it goes on from there. But
basically you get the sense of their position here. And
what's your response to this allegation that you're painting a
target on law enforcements backs.
Speaker 8 (34:36):
Well, let me say this, first of all, Crystal, welcome
to the party, because now you're helping, you know, kind
of get the word out as well. And I do
appreciate that as far as painting a target on ICE's back,
that's that's not what this is at all. And just
you know, to my point that I just explained, this
is informed not to obstruct. No one is boxing agents,
No one is obstructing justice as far as like what
(34:58):
we're purporting to do, right, this app just simply says, hey,
this is where ICE has been seen avoid the situation.
So you know, as far as they're five hundred percent
rhetoric with assaults, it was four hundred the week before,
and now it's you know, it was five hundred then
now it's seven hundred to you.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Tomorrow to be five thouts.
Speaker 8 (35:18):
And the reality is these assaults are are ridiculous for
the most part. I mean, it's as innocuous as brushing
your arm up against an ICE agent and patting them
on the back.
Speaker 6 (35:28):
And now what we're.
Speaker 8 (35:29):
Seeing is if a US citizen gets rounded up in
these raids, they figure out their US citizen and then
they charge them with assault so that they don't look bad.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
So you know, it's just all fear mongering and hate rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I recall earlier in this administration, Congressman Akasia Korte has
was doing informational sessions just for immigrants to know their
basic rights, and she came under fire from this administration
and has been threatened with being charged or Tom Homan
went after her directly. Are you concerned of similar legal
(36:06):
jeopardy because of your development of the ice block app.
Speaker 8 (36:11):
You know, I got to be honest, I'm not really
concerned about it because this is a protected speech under
the First Amendment. It's very clear, and I had multiple
constitutional and criminal attorneys look at this before the app
was launched, and all of them agreed that this is
protected speech. So much like any authoritarian regime spreading fascism
throughout their nation, anytime anybody opposes their mission to basically
(36:36):
hurt people and take control, they're going to push back
and they're going to demonize that person. They're going to
come after what they're doing, and that's exactly what they're doing. So,
as I've said before, they can continue to come after me,
they can continue to demonize me, they can continue to
demonize the app all they want, but none of their
arguments hold any water, and all it serves to do is.
Speaker 6 (36:57):
Energize their base.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Joshua, what have you thought about the alliance between the
many of the large tech companies and this administration. Obviously
you have some major tech figures who elon Musk previously
as a major part of this government, Peter Thiel with
significant influence, Mark and Drees and David Sachson, active part
of this government. Jane Vance seems to have been handpicked
by these tech right figures.
Speaker 7 (37:19):
What do you make of this alliance?
Speaker 8 (37:24):
I think it's terrible. I mean, I guess that's it's
the best way to put it. But you know, these
are people who have their priorities mixed up. You know,
I would say, look, we understand that you have employees
to take care of. We understand that you have stockholders
to report to. But at what point do you say
enough is enough? Like when are you going to grow
backbone and start going I don't think this is the
(37:47):
right thing to do, and hurting people may not be
the best path to longevity for my corporation. You know,
people have said, well, you're released it on the Apple platform. Well,
Tim Cook it donated a million dollars in Trump's campaign,
and I've countered that by saying, you know, I think
what he did was donate that money to avoid tariffs
(38:09):
on his products, because if those tariffs went into effect,
people would be paying four thousand dollars or something for
an iPhone. I don't think Tim supports this at all.
I don't think Apple supports this. They are very much
a for lack of a better way to say the
Dei company, they support the LGBTQ plus community, they support
all walks of life, and those are the people that
(38:31):
we want to align ourselves with. And to the people
like Elon Musk, really, dude, that's all I'm gonna say.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Well, and I would also say to the Apple point like,
I don't know what's in Tim Cook's heart, but you
sort of have to exist in the world as it exists.
And so if you were going to not put the
SAP on the Apple platform, I'm not sure how people
would be able to find it and utilize it.
Speaker 7 (38:52):
Joshua, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Anything in particular you want to you know, a place
where people could find you or more information about the
app you want to put out there.
Speaker 8 (39:00):
Sure, so, the official website is iceblock dot app and
you can find me on blue Sky. I'm Joshua at
our Joshua dot stealing Heather dot com.
Speaker 6 (39:08):
And of course the official.
Speaker 8 (39:09):
Ice block account is on blue Sky and it's at
ice block dot app.
Speaker 7 (39:13):
All right, Joshua, thank you so much. Great to me too.
Speaker 6 (39:16):
Thanks Gray, We'll bye bye.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
All right, guys.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
That does it for us here today. I hope you
have a fantastic day, and we will see you back
here tomorrow
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We have some news from Donald Trump on tariff's related
to Russia. Donald Trump's frustration with Vladimir Putin continues to
boil over. He was in a meeting in the Oval
Office yesterday with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutta and made
some comments about get us a one hundred percent tariff
potentially on Russia.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
We can go ahead here and roll see one.
Speaker 5 (00:56):
We are very unhappy, I am with Russia, but we're
very very unhappy with him, and we're going to be
doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal
in fifty days. Tariffs said about one hundred percent. You'd
call them secondary tariffs. As you know, we've spent three
hundred and fifty billion dollars approximately on this war with
(01:19):
Russia and Ukraine and would like to see it end.
It wasn't my war, it was Biden's war, and we
want to see it end. And I'm disappointed in President
Putin because I thought we would have had a deal
two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there.
So based on that, we're going to be doing secondary
tariffs if we don't have a deal in fifty days.
Speaker 6 (01:37):
It's very simple, and they'll be at one hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
So that seems to be Donald Trump acknowledging or realizing,
not acknowledging, but realizing Crystal that he is losing leverage.
What did he say to Zelenski? You done have the cards?
It seems like Trump is walking head first into what
many of his critics said earlier was just the reality
(02:02):
that Putin is so determined to continue the war that
for Donald Trump to come to the table on this
and get a deal within twenty four hours, but even
within a month, two months, three months, four months, five.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Months, six months is where we are right now.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
There will likely have to be significantly more concessions from
Ukraine than the Trump administration right now is willing to entertain.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
No, it would be a bitter pill to swallow. I mean,
there's no doubt that ending this conflict will be difficult
and would require really forcing Ukraine to accept, you know,
significant annexing of their territory by Russia. And that is
a bitter pill to swallow. There's no doubt about it.
(02:50):
It may be an unacceptable pill to swallow for you know,
I think I think a.
Speaker 7 (02:54):
Lot of Americans would object to that.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And that's part of why you have these wars go
on and on and on, because it's easier to sustain
them and kick the can down the road than it
is to actually bring them to a ugly messy which
it would be conclusion. And you know, Trump came in
incredibly arrogant, never was really pressed on how he would
bring about this magical end of the conflict. Before he
(03:17):
even was in office, in twenty four hours, he would
have this ended. And you know, I think he was
arrogant and foolish enough to believe that he had that
kind of relationship with Putin where he could just call
his buddy on the phone and be able to work
something out and do a deal the way that he
is accustomed to doing. And obviously reality has hit him
in the face right now, and so he's swinging now
in the other direction and going hard neocon. I mean,
(03:38):
in some ways now we're getting a preview of a
policy that will mean more hawkish than what the Biden
administration did. Between this, you know, the hawks like Lindsay
Graham have been pushing additional aggressive sanctions on Russia, which guys,
we already had. Russia's already the most sanctioned country on
the planet. Like the idea that additional sanctions are going
to further do anything, I mean, I think it's I think.
Speaker 7 (03:58):
It's far fetched.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
We should skip a C four then, sorry to go
out of order, control room.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
But to your point, let's put C four up on screen.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
The Russian stock market actually went up two point four percent, yeah, yesterday, which, yeah,
it goes to exactly the point that you were just making,
making like they've maybe actually what Trump could have said
at this Oval office pressure yesterday with Mark Ritta could
have even been worse. Maybe stocks went up because there
(04:28):
was an anticipation that Trump could have done something that
wasn't related to sanctions, or that was in some ways
worse than a one hundred percent. I mean like there's
they've been sanctioned to hell already. There's there's not much
you can do on that front to make things worse.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, in addition, we don't have an element for this
because we're just seeing it. But Financial Times published a
scoop that Trump asked Zelenski if Ukraine could hit Moscow.
According to people who are briefed on the call, Trump
has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on
Russian territory, even asking Zelenski whether he could strike Moscow
if the US provided long range weapons, which we know
(05:05):
now we are going to provide. Corn of people briefed
on those discussions. The conversation took place during the July
fourth call between the US and Ukrainian leaders, marks a
sharp departure from Trump's previous stance on Russia's war, and
his campaign promised to end US involvement in foreign conflicts.
Remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, but it
appears that their sort of cope is like, oh, well,
(05:27):
NATO's going to pay for it, but first worshipping the
weapons and we'll see if we get reimbursed on the
back end. I guess the discussion underscores Trump's deepening frustration
with Putin's refusal to engage in cease fire talks. So
you remember how we talked on the campaign trail, and
I think justifiably so his desire to end this conflict,
as articulated at times during his campaign, I think was
(05:48):
one of the appeals certainly with the Republican base, but
I think more broadly with the American people as well,
was part of a key to him creating this impression
that he would be an anti war president. And he
talked about how we were flirting with World War three,
that under Kamala Harris, we would get world War three
because of this conflict with another nuclear armed superpower. And
(06:11):
so now here you are, fast forward to July fifteenth,
and he's encouraging Ukraine to strike Moscow and strike Saint
Petersburg as well, with weapons provided by US. I mean, look,
I get that we've gotten this far and there hasn't
been a nuclear blow up. That's good, but that doesn't
(06:31):
mean that a catastrophic escalation isn't still something that we
have to concern ourselves with.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
That's a really good point about how he was criticizing
potential Harris administration, and when we look back on the
Biden administration, the bluster was so dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
The attack comes.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
It really really was dangerous, and Republicans capitalized on that.
And one of Donald Trump's most important arguments from his
perspective about how he approaches Latin with Putin is that
he doesn't needlessly antagonize Putin. And this is what Neo
CON's critics said all along was foolish about Trump's strategy
(07:09):
towards Putin. How many American presidents have gone in and
said they, you know, saw Putin's soul.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
I think that was George W.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Bush in his eyes, and they have trusted Putin.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
And the neo Khan said, it always happens.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
You always get the rug pulled out from under you
by by Vladimir Putin, et cetera, et cetera. Well, it
doesn't undermined, undermined Trump's point that it's better not to
be antagonistic towards Putin, but it does start to make
it look like Trump had carried with that some genuine
naivete about his relationship with Vladimir Putin to your point, Crystal,
(07:46):
that it is not panning out the way that he
thought it would, where essentially he was like, well, we
can just pick up the phone, I'll send Steve Whitcoff
and we'll make a deal. Did not go quite that way,
and we can sense his frustration. I'm gonna play this
this moment that Trump had with a reporter in that
meeting with the Native Secretary General Yester.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
This is C two.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
I want to get the war settled.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
They're not Americans that are dying in it. And you know,
I have a problem and JD has a problem. It's
a stance that he's had for a long time. They're
not Americans dying, but there are a lot of people
dying and on something that should be able to be settled.
Speaker 6 (08:23):
And we all agree with that.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
But I am very disappointed with President Putin.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I thought he was somebody.
Speaker 5 (08:31):
That meant what he said and so beautifully and then'll bomb.
Speaker 8 (08:35):
People at night. We don't like that, thank you everybody.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So, Crystal, I know that Trump, and this actually I
do understand, doesn't like to telegraph exactly how far.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
He might go.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
But now we pretty honestly have to ask ourselves a
question if it's as as far as the Biden administration
was willing to go and in ways that really were
gambling with potential nuclear Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
I mean, at this point the policy is pretty indistinguishable
from the Biden administration, and he seems prepared to push it,
continue pushing it forward, which was the effective trajectory of
the Biden administration because it was, you know, the sort
of we sort of drew lines around Okay, well we
considered these defensive weapons, and then okay, we want these
longer range things, and over time you give.
Speaker 7 (09:20):
More and more and more and more, and.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
There were always these you know, operations that were occurring.
Pretty quickly, we got to operations that were quite inflammatory
that were occurring within Russia, and we just sort of,
you know, turned a blind eye to that, even though
we had said originally that we wanted to keep the
conflict within Ukraine and not have these attacks within Russia.
And so that trajectory of continued step by step by
(09:45):
step escalation at this point appears to be followed by
the Trump administration as well. And you know, the thing
that frustrated me under the Biden administration. The thing that
frustrates me now is I just don't think anyone could
explain or really has a pl for how this is
brought to an end. Like, okay, so they and then
they strike within moskt what then, Like, there's no sign
(10:07):
that Russia is just one Moscow or Saint Petersburg strike
away from say, you know what, you're right, we we capitulate,
we want to come to the table, we want to
strike a deal that's going to be acceptable for Zelenski.
There's no sign of that, so, you know, I just
it's one of these incredibly foolish and idiotic but very
(10:28):
typical American foreign policy situations where there's just sort of
like it takes on a logic of its own, and
there's really no plan or no feasible plan for effectuating
any kind of a you know, a positive or beneficial
or least bad of all options sort of an outcome.
It's just I guess we're going to do this now
(10:49):
and see what happens.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Well, let's yeah, And that it frustrates to no end.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Obviously, people like Albert Colby, who caught all kinds of
strays in the press last week for trying to some
of these weapons, because the United States at any given moment,
whether or not you or I agree with the policy,
could find itself in a kinetic conflict over Taiwan, and.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
Trump over ruled that. So those frustrations are just.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Going to be I think stronger and stronger among the
people who were I don't know that anyone has the
ability to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I mean, this is clearly Trump is driving the show
on this.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
It doesn't matter to some extent that there were people
brought in who disagree with the hawkishness here, but that
frustration from hawks and just from regular people like that,
that's a pretty significant concern. I want to roll this
clip from Fox News. This is Lisa Booth reacting to
(11:47):
Trump's comments.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Let's go ahead and roll this as C three.
Speaker 9 (11:51):
See the business guy in President Trump. Well, I have
concerns similar to what Paul expressed about. You know, is
this war never ending with Russia and Ukraine? Will it
ever end? You know, Russia has a larger military, they
have more people to sacrifice at the altar of this war. However,
I think President Trump deserves her deference.
Speaker 7 (12:08):
He's always right.
Speaker 9 (12:09):
When has he been wrong about foreign policy, as naysayers
are the everyone said there was gonna be a World
War three three after you know, sending those bombs to
Iran and taking out some of their nuclear facilities or
at least badly damaging them. That didn't come to fruition, right,
So he's repeatedly been or you know, moving them messy
to Jerusalem. Everyone was worried about that, right, So everyone
has been wrong, He's always been right, so he could
he deserves our difference.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
Christ I was thinking about this.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
It reminds me of like if you have a friend
who's playing blackjack and like hit me, hit me, and
they make the most irrational call and they end up winning,
and then.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
They turned to you and they're like, see, you were wrong.
I'm like, no, I wasn't. You shouldn't have done that.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
I'm glad it worked out really well, but you shouldn't
have done that.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
This is this is not the right.
Speaker 7 (12:55):
Strategy right well.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
And I mean with the Iran thing, that presumes that
that's all all over and done, which we're about to
talk about Israel, it's not a good assumption whatsoever. So yeah,
but I mean, you know it speaks to this broader
conversation about MAGA disappointments with Trump, and certainly the most
up said i've seen any portion of the magabase is
over Jeffrey Epstein, although already in real time you see
(13:18):
the influencers trying to gather everybody. You know what, We're
going to trust Trump, We're going to move on. But
you know, you would think that on a matter of
Warren Peace, this really was a central promise of how
he would be different than a potential Kamala Harris administration.
And now you've got a complete one to eighty where
it's just an embrace effectively of the Biden policy. And
you know the line here, at least from this individual
(13:40):
in Fox News. But I think, you know, I don't
think we'll see much upset over this from the MAGA
influencer world or the MAGA faithful as well. He knows
what he's doing, so we'll just trust Trump. That's what
it always kind of comes back to.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Yeah, and you know, I think that sounds rather naive
to put it nicely, I suppose or charitably, I think.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
You should trust anybody like That's what I was just
gonna say. Yeah, I mean, I don't care how much
you like the guy or feel like whatever, like no,
And you know, I think there were a lot of
people on the Democratic side who fell into this trap
under the Obama administration where it was like, well, we
love this guy, so sure he's like upping the Druid
war and doing these you know, like getting a list
(14:20):
of people to assassinate and going forward with and committing
all the wait, you know it's Obama, so he must
be doing it in a responsible way, and you know
it's I think it's even more so under the trumpet
with Trump, because he has such a strong force and
culture personality that this this idea of just like, well,
he must know better, so we're just going to trust
(14:41):
him on this. We're just going to trust him on
a run. We're just going to trust him on Epstein
and whatever. That is a place where I think it
is always safe for MAGA influencers to land, you.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Know, like, I know, we're both in the same boat
on this. But however, this war, like this war is
a meat grinder. It is a tragedy every single day.
So if if Trump pulls this off, if he says
hit me and it works, then I think that would
be wonderful. But we are six months in and he's
(15:14):
even testing the patience of.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
Fox News on the Ukraine question.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
So not a time for optimism as it relates to
finally getting it into this.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
All right, well, let's talk about our great ally in
all of this, Israel. Maybe Nannahum making some pretty interesting
comments on his reflections about the very fronts of this war,
saying that actually the eighth front in his many wars
that he's started is disinformation.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10 (15:44):
This is the eighth front. The disinformation campaign is amongas
you know, takes a second for a lie to circulate
the world, and then you have to battle it with
the only weapon you ad, which.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Is the truth.
Speaker 10 (15:57):
And truth is slower than lies and more difficult to
ask because you have to get the facts. You have
to When you lie, you can say anything and it's instantaneous.
When you tell the truth, you have to ascertain the facts.
And until you do that in the electronic age, boy,
that like it encircle the earth, you know, a thousand times,
so it's a handicap. But we'll fight the information war two.
(16:22):
And you know, basically you have the weapon of truth.
We just have to be more efficient at disclaiming, and
I think we have to shame the media that does this.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I have to think that this is a reaction to
I mean, first of all, there's just a sense that
they've lost control of the narrative. And yeah, after now,
we're coming up not too long from now in two
years of all of us seeing like bombed and you know,
obliterated babies and bombed tents and hospitals and schools and
mosques and churches and everything else in our timelines. That
(16:53):
guess what, some of that is going to break through
despite your best efforts. It's interesting, of course that he
thinks in these explicit terms. It's interesting that this front
of the war, like all of the other fronts of
this war, this you know, assault, requires the assistance of
the United States of America, where I'm sure he would
love to see even more censorship than has already been
(17:15):
put in place on the domestic population in service of
his atrocities. So, you know, I think it's I think
it's very interesting and revealing comments. And I think of
the trays Emily, a sense that you know, of a
loss of control of the narrative, and you know, the
democratic base is basically gone I mean, there's some eighty
percent that are disgusted with what Israel has been doing
(17:36):
in our support of Israel on the democratic side, but
you had a turning for USA just on display, especially
among young Republicans, increasing discuss there as well that in
the sense that this is not in this is not
America first, it is not in America's interest to constantly
be you know, catering to this one client state. So
(17:57):
you know, it seems to me that he has some
concerns about the way that American attitudes on both sides
of the Aisle have really shifted against them.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Yeah, I mean, I imagine, and I think you're right that
we can sense this in creeping into public view. There
is something close to panic in Lahoud when they look
at American polling and when they look at on the
American right, and this gets it manifests in the grossest
(18:27):
way of just trying to weaponize anti Semitism, charges of
anti Semitism very bluntly to rather than actually, I mean,
a much more constructive way, if you're Natanyahu to deal
with all of this would would not be to accuse
people of believing false information or peddling disinformation or anti
Semitism or Natanyahu's allies like a Mike Huckabee. The constructive
(18:51):
way is to deal with the substance of people's questions
and concerns. But the I think fear and panic is
just inducing this impulse to to lump people into awful
categories and to dismiss things. Disinformation it is. It goes
without saying, of course, but it is very rich to
(19:13):
hear a lecture on disinformation from Nets and Yaku. I mean,
it's the incredible stuff. Yeah, it's just incredible stuff. And
that's part part of what has I think shifted opinion
on the right is people sort of looking around and
realizing that their beliefs about Israel were sort of a
house of cards to some extent, or their beliefs about
(19:37):
your sort of deference to Nets and Yahoo, not about
Israel itself. You know, I think broadly you would probably
still have support for the concept of Zionism on the
American right, but for American continued American support and for
Nets and Yahoo's ongoing war. No, you have like creater
(19:57):
and support, especially among young Republicans, which bodes very poorly
for their ability to keep America in Israel's corner. Decades
into the future.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the polling, basically
the one group that is still firmly in the Zionist Yes,
we support Israel no matter what camp are like Boomer Republicans,
young Republicans are pretty evenly divided. And so I think,
you know, for Bieb, he was probably because he's part
of making it a more part of like making it
more parts when he came to Washington under Obama and
(20:29):
he was advocating against the JCPOA whatever.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
I think he's.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Probably kind of okay with the Democratic Party shifting away
from Israel as long as he's still got the Republicans
and as long as he still has you know, obviously
at the elite Democratic level, they still have plenty of
influence there.
Speaker 7 (20:44):
But to see the.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Bubbling discontent on the Republican side as well, and Israel
becoming a real fault line within the Republican Party in
the same way it's a huge schism between like the
base and the elites and the Democratic Party, but it's
become a real schism in the republic Party as well.
As talking to Saga about this yesterday, because in the
same way on the Democratic side, Israel exposes a hypocrisy
of a supposed commitment to human rights on the Republican side,
(21:09):
it exposes the hypocrisy of a supposed commitment to America first.
So it really has become this sort of central dividing line.
And you know, at the same time, also you have
and this also speaks to that America forest orientation.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
Put D two up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
You had an American from Florida who's just murdered by
Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. He's visiting front,
visiting family in this village when settlers beat him unconscious
and then blocked an ambulance from reaching him for hot
wors so they beat him nearly to death, and then
(21:48):
when medics attempted to respond, they blocked those ambulances from
being able to come and provide medical assistance to this
again American citizen who was there visiting family, and he died.
In addition, Emily, I don't know, I think you probably
saw this. CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is there like Jerusalem
(22:09):
based correspondent, was traveling out with the team to try
to cover this story, and their vehicle was attacked by
violent illegal settlers as well. So you know, in what
way is it America first? I guarantee you want to
hear from any Republican But Donald Trump isn't going to
be concerned about this American who was beaten to death
(22:33):
by settlers who are enabled and supported by our great allies,
the Israelis. You want to hear about it from this
Republican administration that is supposedly quote unquote America first.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
Well, in this conflict is obviously it always has been
a swirl of disinformation. That's hard if you're on the
other side of the world to know immediately what's true
and what's false. But for Netsan Yahoo in this case,
or actually, let's just take the Jeremy Diamond post, he
says that their car was attacked by settlers. What was
(23:07):
CNN doing?
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Just getting to the disinformation claims that often come up
here and have in the case of the American who
was killed. And I don't know the truth of that,
But I can look at the case of CNN and say,
I don't think CNN was throwing rocks at the settlers.
I don't think CNN did anything to warrant this attack.
(23:30):
And so often we are told that there are not
unprovoked attacks.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
That the attack was.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Any attack that we're considering must have been provoked in
some way or another. But that's obviously not the case
with the CNN crew, who was just trying to do
their jobs. So it's just like here you go an
example right there to refute any claims that you know,
(23:58):
say that, say the CNN crew had just been Palestinians,
you know, you would you would probably hear all kinds
of things about provocations.
Speaker 7 (24:08):
And you wouldn't even hear about it.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
Only well if you did, you would. If you did,
you would hear that they were throwing rocks or something.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Yeah, no, that's their Hamas. They would be Hamas for sure,
But it hard to hard to say Jeremy Diamond is
Hamas in this instance.
Speaker 7 (24:23):
You know. The other thing I.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Think about is like, imagine it was a Jewish American
who was visiting family in Israel and was beaten to
death by Palestinians. How do you think that that would
be treated by the news media. How do you think
it would be treated by this administration? I mean, just
the absolute blatant double standard is so glaring and so
grotesque at this point that you know, to take it
(24:46):
back to be there concerned about the disinformation front in
his eight front apparently you know war that he's that
he is committing here. His ability to keep a lid
on things that are so obdos, like the fact that
you know, there's this blatant double standard when it comes
to Palestinians versus Israelis, is part of the loss of
(25:10):
his control, like he can no longer keep all these
things together in the age of social media, and just
with how brazen it all is at this point. So
you know, it doesn't surprise me that part of what
he and his allies in the US and the Trump
administration has been happy to go along with is this
intense censorship campaign against Americans and against foreign students as
(25:33):
well who have come here.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
Christ I just wanted to see me such an important
point about social media and then losing their grip because
if we go back to the shirinapu Accula case, also
an American and in that case, the Israeli government put
out statements that I think they thought would hold but
because the media had access CNN I think initially did
along and thorough investigation into this. They had access to
(25:59):
all of these different social media posts or people had
taken videos with their smartphones and all of that, and
because of Google Maps and their ability to sort of
piece these things together, they were able to have audio
experts listen to different snippets that have been recorded, and
everything sort of fell apart when you were able to
kind of with free information string or put different pieces
(26:21):
of the puzzle together. And so you can't just put
out a statement and expect the American government to swallow
it whole cloth anymore, because the American media is not
always going to swallow.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Its whole cloth.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Now, American media is obviously going to be more concerned
about does of journalists than people who are visiting family.
So that's sadly true in the case of shrin Abu Bakla.
But it's much much harder to just say this is
our story, this is the story, and then get the
United States and the US media to go along with it.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Let's go and put D three up on the screen,
because this is just this picture says so much. So
this is when NETANYAHUO was in town, and you've got
a bipartisan group of senators there and members there who
are meeting with him, and that's Corey Booker try and
hide so and it's just so perfect, and I think
(27:15):
it speaks to the moment so much where it's like
Corey Booker is still all the way in with Israel,
but he's smart enough to realize it's not a great
look at this point, so he tries to have it
both ways by being at the photo op with Netnaho
but also trying to hide Gretchen Whitmer style during the picture.
It's just to me, it's a perfect encapsulation of the
(27:37):
cowardice a Democratic Party elites, the culpability of Democratic Party elites,
and of Corey Booker himself.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
I mean, that's that picture for Corey brutal is Corey
Booker is brutal? Yeah, brtal Corey Booker is brutal. And
you asked Congressman Conna about this a little bit earlier
in the show, Crystal. But the sentiments of Democratic voters
have shifted so significantly that it's very possible this is
(28:05):
a picture that follows Corey Booker throughout his, oh his
political career, and is a problem for him.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
Oh yeah, I would say so.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Last piece I definitely want to get to here because
it ties back to the Iran conversation we were having
put D four up on the screen. Phoebe has apparently
told Trump that Israel will go back to war with
Iran if the quote nuclear threat resumes, and apparently, Emily,
we are in the business of just taking Israel's word
(28:33):
for what is going on in Iran. So if net
Yahoo down the road tells Trump, hey, they restarted the
nuclear program, now they may well. In fact, what we've
done has made it much more likely that they actually
pursue a nuclear weapon. That created a logic that would
make it much more likely that they would pursue a
nuclear weapon. But you know, I think it's very likely,
(28:56):
I would say possible to likely that we come down
the road a little bit and that now who says sorry,
trying to like, look there, they restarted their nuclear program.
You can trust our intel doesn't really matter what the
US intel community says. Apparently, and we're going to be
right back in the situation that we saw unfold before.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So net Yahoo's in town last week.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
We mentioned this earlier in the show, and the New
York Times publishes a single anonymous Israeli source saying that
not all of the enriched uranium was moved, which Chris
what We talked about this on Friday show. I think
we all believe that sounds very plausible, that that may
well be true. But the reason that you put it
out that way is you're trying to plant the seeds
(29:41):
for escalation once again. And that was never I mean,
I think that was that was never out of the
question at all as soon as the twelve day wore.
And that's where you know, there's a lot of victory
laps being taken like, oh, you guys were you guys
were wrong that World War three would start.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
It's like, well, it's been a or what it's been
like ten days.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
I hope to goodness that we were wrong I don't
know that that's the case yet.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
And examples like this are.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Why well, and I don't think any of us ever
said it will leave you world War three, right. It's example,
you're playing with fire and they were and continue, Yeah,
they continue to play with fire, and BB knows what
he wants and is going to continue to plant those
seeds and push in this direction. And so you know,
one step was that article saying hey, they kept their
(30:31):
own uranium, and the next step is him informing Trump like, look,
you know, we don't want to do it, but if
they go back to if they restart the nuclear program,
we're going to have no choice.
Speaker 7 (30:42):
And it also ties into the Epstein thing because hey,
if there's there there with regard to.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Trump, then we all know he's going to go along
with whatever the Israelis ultimately want him to do.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
Right, Yeah, what choice would he have? Now?
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Obviously you always have a choice not to get Black Mount,
but it's if that's what's happening.
Speaker 4 (30:57):
But yeah, there's significant way in all likelihood.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
All right, Emily, I'm going to let you go for
the day because I know you have some other things
to tend to.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
But thank you as always. And is it you and
Ryan tomorrow?
Speaker 4 (31:11):
I think Ryan's in Ireland.
Speaker 7 (31:12):
Well that's you and me tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
So I do like when we have to do this
on air. I think it's all right.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Well, I'll message you later and we'll work it out.
Maybe I'll make Sager be in from it. We can
have all magat show again. People people may enjoy that.
All right, you later, lady, see.
Speaker 6 (31:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Really excited to be joined this morning by Joshua Aaron.
He is a tech entrepreneur and he is the developer
of an app called ice Block that allows users to
report where they've seen ice in the vicinity.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Joshua, it is great to have you.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
Thank you so much for having me Crystal.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Yeah, of course, so we can put a little bit
of a view up on the screen of what this
app looks like, so people can kind of get a
sense of it. You can see, you know, maps showing
location that has been reported of ice. Agents just talked
to us a little bit about why you decided to
develop this app and what you hope that it accomplishes.
Speaker 8 (32:11):
Sure, so you know, when I saw it was going
on with the first Trump administration and then of course
his rhetoric on the campaign trail for his second you know,
reading Project twenty twenty five and just kind.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
Of seeing the forest through the trees, I guess.
Speaker 8 (32:26):
I knew what was coming down the pike, and I
wanted to do something to help fight back. So, you know,
growing up in a Jewish household and being a member
of that community, I had the opportunity to meet Holocaust
survivors and learn all about the history of Hitler's rise
to power and Nazi Germany. And so when we see
five year olds in courtrooms without representation, when we see
(32:47):
college students being disappeared for their political beliefs, and even worse,
when we see babies being ripped from their mother's arms
with their screening for their children in the name of patriotism.
You know, we're kind of seeing history repeat itself. And
this was the best way that I could use my
talents to help fight back.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Tell people just specifically how the app works and what
it actually does.
Speaker 8 (33:09):
Sure, so it's a crowded source app, and basically what
it does is akin to something like Ways or Apple Maps,
where when you're driving down the road and you get
an alert that says, hey, there's a speed trap reported ahead,
what do you do?
Speaker 6 (33:21):
You slow down? You avoid the situation.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
Sort of the same concept with ice block, where users
can report sightings of ice that they see in public.
You know, so they see an ice rate going on,
or they see trucks pulling off, they can report that
location and all users within a five mile radius get
an alert and it comes up in the list on
their device within.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
The app, and the idea is informed, not obstruct.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
So let's have them avoid that situation, turn left, turn around,
go home, and protect themselves and their families.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
It will not come as a surprise to you that
this is very controversial. Can put E three up on
the screen. In fact, you've come under fire sort of
directly from the administration.
Speaker 7 (34:00):
Wrote an article about about.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Ice block and the response here from the ICE Acting
director Todd Lyons said, CNN's promotion of an ICE spotting
app is reckless and irresponsible. Advertising an app that basically
paints a target on law enforcement officers backs is sickening.
My officers and agents are already facing a five hundred
percent increase in assaults and going on live television to
(34:23):
announce an app that it goes on from there. But
basically you get the sense of their position here. And
what's your response to this allegation that you're painting a
target on law enforcements backs.
Speaker 8 (34:36):
Well, let me say this, first of all, Crystal, welcome
to the party, because now you're helping, you know, kind
of get the word out as well. And I do
appreciate that as far as painting a target on ICE's back,
that's that's not what this is at all. And just
you know, to my point that I just explained, this
is informed not to obstruct. No one is boxing agents,
No one is obstructing justice as far as like what
(34:58):
we're purporting to do, right, this app just simply says, hey,
this is where ICE has been seen avoid the situation.
So you know, as far as they're five hundred percent
rhetoric with assaults, it was four hundred the week before,
and now it's you know, it was five hundred then
now it's seven hundred to you.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Tomorrow to be five thouts.
Speaker 8 (35:18):
And the reality is these assaults are are ridiculous for
the most part. I mean, it's as innocuous as brushing
your arm up against an ICE agent and patting them
on the back.
Speaker 6 (35:28):
And now what we're.
Speaker 8 (35:29):
Seeing is if a US citizen gets rounded up in
these raids, they figure out their US citizen and then
they charge them with assault so that they don't look bad.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
So you know, it's just all fear mongering and hate rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
I recall earlier in this administration, Congressman Akasia Korte has
was doing informational sessions just for immigrants to know their
basic rights, and she came under fire from this administration
and has been threatened with being charged or Tom Homan
went after her directly. Are you concerned of similar legal
(36:06):
jeopardy because of your development of the ice block app.
Speaker 8 (36:11):
You know, I got to be honest, I'm not really
concerned about it because this is a protected speech under
the First Amendment. It's very clear, and I had multiple
constitutional and criminal attorneys look at this before the app
was launched, and all of them agreed that this is
protected speech. So much like any authoritarian regime spreading fascism
throughout their nation, anytime anybody opposes their mission to basically
(36:36):
hurt people and take control, they're going to push back
and they're going to demonize that person. They're going to
come after what they're doing, and that's exactly what they're doing. So,
as I've said before, they can continue to come after me,
they can continue to demonize me, they can continue to
demonize the app all they want, but none of their
arguments hold any water, and all it serves to do is.
Speaker 6 (36:57):
Energize their base.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Joshua, what have you thought about the alliance between the
many of the large tech companies and this administration. Obviously
you have some major tech figures who elon Musk previously
as a major part of this government, Peter Thiel with
significant influence, Mark and Drees and David Sachson, active part
of this government. Jane Vance seems to have been handpicked
by these tech right figures.
Speaker 7 (37:19):
What do you make of this alliance?
Speaker 8 (37:24):
I think it's terrible. I mean, I guess that's it's
the best way to put it. But you know, these
are people who have their priorities mixed up. You know,
I would say, look, we understand that you have employees
to take care of. We understand that you have stockholders
to report to. But at what point do you say
enough is enough? Like when are you going to grow
backbone and start going I don't think this is the
(37:47):
right thing to do, and hurting people may not be
the best path to longevity for my corporation. You know,
people have said, well, you're released it on the Apple platform. Well,
Tim Cook it donated a million dollars in Trump's campaign,
and I've countered that by saying, you know, I think
what he did was donate that money to avoid tariffs
(38:09):
on his products, because if those tariffs went into effect,
people would be paying four thousand dollars or something for
an iPhone. I don't think Tim supports this at all.
I don't think Apple supports this. They are very much
a for lack of a better way to say the
Dei company, they support the LGBTQ plus community, they support
all walks of life, and those are the people that
(38:31):
we want to align ourselves with. And to the people
like Elon Musk, really, dude, that's all I'm gonna say.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Well, and I would also say to the Apple point like,
I don't know what's in Tim Cook's heart, but you
sort of have to exist in the world as it exists.
And so if you were going to not put the
SAP on the Apple platform, I'm not sure how people
would be able to find it and utilize it.
Speaker 7 (38:52):
Joshua, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Anything in particular you want to you know, a place
where people could find you or more information about the
app you want to put out there.
Speaker 8 (39:00):
Sure, so, the official website is iceblock dot app and
you can find me on blue Sky. I'm Joshua at
our Joshua dot stealing Heather dot com.
Speaker 6 (39:08):
And of course the official.
Speaker 8 (39:09):
Ice block account is on blue Sky and it's at
ice block dot app.
Speaker 7 (39:13):
All right, Joshua, thank you so much. Great to me too.
Speaker 6 (39:16):
Thanks Gray, We'll bye bye.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
All right, guys.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
That does it for us here today. I hope you
have a fantastic day, and we will see you back
here tomorrow
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.