Krystal and Saagar discuss whistleblower reveals Israel gunning down civilians in Gaza, Candace Owens sued over Macron's wife attacks, Tulsi says Obama is guilty of treason.
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 3 (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 get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good transition to what's actually going on down there, which,
as we said, is horrific to a point which like
it's a new level of destruction.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So, as Saga was saying, there has been just object
unimaginable horror unfolding in Gaza at the hands of the Israelis,
and we now actually have a whistleblower coming forward from
that so called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. This individual is a
twenty five year US military veteran who is sounding the
alarm about the horrific ways that Palestinians are being treated there.
(01:04):
Who are you know, starving to death and desperately trying
to seek any aid they can possibly get.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
Who has been deployed to commat clouds of times, four
different wars. I have never in my entire military career
have I been a part of allowed or backstandard to
the use of force against unarmed innocent civilians.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
There is no fixing this. This needs to be putting
into it.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So this is from Israel's Channel twelve. And in addition
to what you heard there, he said that the aid
centers treated the population very badly, put them in danger.
He says, in all my years of service, I have
never seen such use of force. He described an incident
where an unarmed Palestinian was picking up food off the
(01:53):
ground on his knees and was pepper sprayed by American
guards with a full can of pepper spray. In another incident,
he talked about a stun grenade being thrown and hitting
a Palestinian woman directly. He says, quote she collapsed, fell
to the ground. That was the moment I knew I
couldn't continue. In another incident, he says that Palestinians finish
collecting the aid at the site, the American guards open fire,
(02:15):
shooting at them at their legs, at the dirt mounds
to force them to leave. He says, quote, you can't
fix this. It has to stop. In all my military service,
I have never seen such force used against unarmed civilians
and I will not be a part of it.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
So he is coming forward.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
And of course we've seen some one thousand plus Palestinians
who have been massacred while simply trying to seek aid.
It is as dystopian a situation as you could possibly imagine.
In fact, it's beyond my imagination how dystopian it is.
You are starving two million people to death. You have
now daily multiple deaths of children and infants because they
(02:54):
are being starved to death, and then you create this
deadly hunger game situation in order to get any sort
of aid. And it's not even the type of actual
nutritious aid that you would want to provide in this circumstance,
but people having to risk their lives and being fired
upon with live fire on again a near daily basis,
(03:16):
in order to secure what little bit of provisions are available.
It's absolutely unbelievable. And at the same time, we've got
one of our members of Congress here, can put C
two up on the screen. This is Randy Fine, who
is quote tweeting an ABC News article here about how
fifteen people, including four children have died have been starved
(03:38):
to death in just the last twenty four hours. And
he quote tweets that and says, release the hostages until
then starve away. Then in parentheses he says, this is
all a lie anyway.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It amazes me.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
And the media continues to regurgitate Muslim terror propaganda. Now,
where is the media freak out over this? Oh I forgot.
They're too busy writing their five thousandth piece about what
Zoron Mamdani thinks about the phrase globalized the intefada.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Where's the censure from Congress over this?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Oh I forgot, They're too busy concerned about what was
the Rashida Juliab saying, like from the river to the sea.
It's just unbelievable that you have a member of Congress
who is saying jenocide these people effectively, that's what that means,
starve away, and it just is like an accepted part
of the discourse.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well, there's a lot going on in that tweet because
it's also it's not happening. But if it were happening,
it's good that it's and so which is it, Congressman.
I mean, look, you know, we can make all the
fat jokes and all that stuff aside, but that almost
I think just what is happening is so horrific, just
the images, the conduct, the lies, and now at this
(04:55):
point the complicity. You have to ask, what possible reason
are we putting up with this? For every day, every hour,
every second is all underwritten by the United States.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Of America for what possible purpose? You know?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
RFK Junior has not put out a personal tweet in
like months on any of the subject. And he just
responded to a article that's written, I'm a war war scholar,
there's no genocide in Gaza, and he writes the genocide
charge is a blood libel major for withering. Just so
it's like, oh my god, he reared his ugly head
(05:35):
for what for what reason? To just it's look, I
don't know what it is, all right, it could be blackmail.
I think it's probably just like a deep ideological I
have no idea about this psycha.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
This psychopathy.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
It runs deep at this point, and at a certain
point we just all have to look at this and
be like, this is unconscionable, unbelievable, it's evil, and like
the way that they get away with it and then
have their defenders in our country tell us it's an
anti Semitic blood libel for mentioning it's too much, yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
I mean it has to break us forever from the
chains of all of this anti Semitism industrial complex because
they don't care about that. They're using it as a
cover to literally murder little children and women and starve
them to death, to lure them to food, and to
gun them down with impunity. And that's the other thing
(06:36):
that I think really devises this from some of the
earlier conduct of the war, because they always had at
that time the excuse is what it's all because of them.
They're using them as there's nothing about that. Right now,
right you already level the whole place, you're attacking the
last city, and you're starving these people to death by
your own admission, literally, by your own admission.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
There's no getting around this.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I don't know, man, This is dark stuff, as dark
as you can't it doesn't even give the voice like
the proper picture right to say dark is almost like,
oh it's dark when something.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Bad, It's like, no, man, like this is a whole
of it.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
It recalls the greatest horrors in history.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
I mean, you can't see those images of those skeletal,
dead babies and not think about Auschwitz. You can't look
at those images and not be reminded of the greatest
failures and horrors.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Of humanity of the past.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
And you know, I mean this is where people who
want to dismiss the Epstein story, like, sorry to tie
it back to that, but it is the reason that
we're cool with this. Is it because they have some
sort of a blackmaile on the President of the United
States or RFK Junior.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Or whoever, Like why would you allow this to persist?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
It is.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Humanity will not be the same in the wake of this.
And you know, everybody who said starve away, who justifide this,
They're going to have to answer in the history books.
But that's called comfort to Palestinians who are starving to
death literally right now today as we speak. Of course,
the Israeli government and this is going to be c
five guys, they claim that there is no famine in Gaza,
(08:15):
that this is all just lies, and that us even
talking about this is quote unquote playing into the hands
of Hummas.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this.
Speaker 7 (08:25):
This idea of famine and starvation has been thrown at
us consistently on a weekly basis for the last two
years now. It has never come to our pass. So
these are our false warnings which come from these aid organizations.
And I also would say that where there is hunger
in Gaza, it is hunger orchestrated by Hamas. This is
(08:49):
very clearly their tactic and it is working because Hammas
seeks to put international pressure which unfortunately too many international
countries are too willing to follow suit on to put
pressure on Israel to support their negotiating tactics, stopping them
initiating or agreeing to a hostage release pause. So this
(09:13):
pressure which is coming calling it talking about starvation and famine,
this is simply playing into Harmasa's hands. Where there is hunger,
it is hunger orchestrated by her Mus. It is hunger
created by the terrorist organization.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Hunger orchestrated by Hamas. Like who believes this shit? How
do people like this sleep at night?
Speaker 4 (09:35):
Truly?
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Truly, and he says, oh, we've been hearing this for
two years now. Yeah, because the Defense Minister you'll have
go on on October ninth announced I have ordered a
complete siege on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything
is closed.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.
That was on October ninth. Now at time aid has
been delivered. This is the most die right now that
it has ever been. Right now, there is truly a
complete siege and the only aid that anyone really has
access to is through this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where you
(10:15):
go and you might get a bag of flower or
you might be murdered by the IDF. I mean, it
is just unreal that anyone could claim otherwise at this point,
and that this is allowed to persist. At the same time,
you know, there it's easy to lose sight of what's
happening in the West Bank, where there's been also an
extraordinary escalation of violence and you know, annexing, stealing of land.
(10:42):
They just took a significant vote in the Knesset with
regard to annexing the West Bank.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 8 (10:51):
There are two things that you need to know about this. One,
the vote doesn't actually do anything. It's a non binding motion,
it has no legal power, and they did it is
to unite the Israeli rights around something that they agree
on because they've been fighting for a very long time
over whether to conscript the ultra Orthodox community into the army.
So it makes for nice headlines, but it doesn't actually
(11:13):
do anything on the ground. And two, the West Bank
is already to facto annexed and it has been for
a very long time. Israel has controlled the West Bank
completely for almost seventy years now, and even in Area A,
which is supposed to be under Palestinian authority, Israel practically
has all the power. They control the checkpoints, they control
(11:33):
the energy, they control the taxes, and whenever they want,
they can just invade it with the army, as they
often do. So de facto we are living in a
one apartheid state solution.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
So that is independent journalist Andre explaining, you know what
the details of this vote are and the relevant political
context here, and I think it's important to understand what
he says, which is, you know, this idea that there's
sovereigny sort of palaestinae. Sovereignty in the West Bank already
is a mythology, and now they're just moving to you know,
further codify and further in trench and also to sort
(12:09):
of like round up support on the right because there
are these various contentious issues that have sort of divided
the Lukud majority governing party coalition, and so this is
a way to bring everyone together, to really unify everyone
around the idea of just outright stealing all of the
West Bank.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
What's also really funny, too, is that we forgot to
mention this C three police that even the American Jewish
Committee condemned Randy Fine. They said, the serious humanitarian situation
must not be taken lightly implying that starvation is a
legitimate tactic is unacceptable. All those should be need of
humanitarian agent receive it promptly and safely.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Our leaders must focus less on scoring political points and
more on doing their jobs. Of course, they would you
deny that, they would deny that this is actually even happening,
and that they would probably put the blame like that
on Hamas.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
But you know, the point still stands around all of this.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
It's not.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
This is the thing about the belligerents and the actions
in Gaza, which are unforgivable, insane, backstop by the US government.
It's also part of this broader Greater Israel project, which
I look, conspiracy theorists have been talking about there for years.
It's real now, Yeah, Gaza, Lebanon, Darius.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Syria, this shit is real. Guys.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
They're bombing Damascus, They're claiming an indefinite presence, They're annexing
the West Bank, like it's happening right now. You know,
just this morning is really ulternationalist minister quote, all of
Gaza will be Jewish. The government is pushing for Gaza
being wiped out. Thank god, we are wiping out this evil.
(13:45):
We are pushing the population educated on my listen to
this shit. We are wiping out the population.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
It will be Jewish. They say this shit out loud.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
This is my always problem with America, Like we're all
focused on it's like listen, all right, we can all
hit the Google Translate button.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
This all takes to actually see the stuff that they're
saying on cable television in Israel and here as well.
And it's just like, oh my god, like you're genuinely
watching this almost like neo colonialist project backstopped entirely by
the American Empire.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
For what possible purpose?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
You have the humanitarian and then the security situation, it
would be different. I think if this were I don't know,
if this were two countries that were fighting of their
own accord, you know, that had their independent ability to
inflict this type of horrificness on each other. That's one thing, right,
and that calls for a tool set, but it's really
another when you're selling people the technology, the bombs, giving
(14:44):
them money to continue it, and then also using the
full force of the empire to make sure that they
bear no consequences for it. Yeah, like the United States
withdrawing from UNESCO or whatever from the UN body, accusing
them of anti sentence. If we're talking about the humanitarian situation, right,
I mean that stuff really does.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Matter, and cracking down on the domestic population fear that's
over what we can say and do and who's allowed
to get a college degree if you dared speak out
against these absolute atrocities, and then I can't let this go,
you know. I was looking at the New York Times
front page. And on the one hand, okay, they're covering
the fact that people are starving to death, but there
is still no culpability assigned. I mean, the first of all,
(15:24):
this is barely this is not getting remotely enough coverage
throughout the process. And as I said before, they're way
more fixated on like how hard Zoron will condemn this
or that particular phrase, or what some rally chant was
or whatever. Here's their headline, Gossins are dying of starvation.
Severe hunger has gripped the war torn Palestinian enclave, where
(15:46):
growing numbers of people are starving and the doctors treating
them are working on empty stomachs. Guess what's not mentioned there?
The fact that it's Israel who is starving them. And
as you read through this, it takes to paragraph one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
(16:07):
It takes to like the tenth paragraph before the word
Israel is even mentioned. I mean, it's a parody at
this point. And I know you guys have seen probably
the way that you know the headlines are like barely
English to have these passive, weird phrase constructions to avoid
assigning blame. Imagine it was Russia that was starving Ukraine.
(16:30):
Do you think that The New York Times would have
a hard time figuring out how to phrase that headline,
how to cover that story, how to talk about it
in the clear moral and factual terms that are justified.
Of course not, of course it would not be any
sort of an issue there. And so look, you know,
the situation is dire enough that they feel that they
have to cover it. It is, you know, the top
(16:53):
of their website right now. But even so severe hunger grips,
Gaza grips, as if that just happened down of nowhere,
as if it's some sort of natural disaster, unavoidable calamity.
It's just unbelievable at this point, it's just unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, it's sick. I don't think there's really another word
for it.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
We put C six up there on the screen. I mean, look,
you know warning images. It's just hard to see.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
We faced hunger before, but never like this, Skeletal children,
feel hospital a wards as starvation grips Gaza.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Ryan made a great point whenever him and.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
I did the show, is that the timeline laid out
by these food organizations and almost exactly correct about sixty.
It takes about sixty to seventy days to starve to death.
Sixty seventy days ago, they were like, hey, people are
gonna starve to death if there's no change in the
status quo.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Yeah, here we are. I don't know at this point.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
I know there's some potential movement or whatever on a ceasefire,
but considering what's happened in the previous sease fires, like,
they're not dying of bullets at this point, right, You're
dying of severe malnutrition. Even in those previous ceasefires. It's
not like there was a ton of humanitarian aid you
know that got into Gaza, So there's no And also,
you know, once you get to the severe malnutrition, you're
(18:05):
your rife for disease type you know whatever. A mere
cold can take you out.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Yeah, and when you're that to a certain point too,
where it's not just like Okay, there's food of it,
you need specialize treatment.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
And you know, the.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Ones who are dying the most rapidly, it's it's these infants.
It's these babies. The mothers are too weak to breastfeed.
They're dependent on formula. There's no formula. I mean, you
have a baby at holl like, yeah, I know, you
can't you.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
My kid is sick and my wife is sick.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
So I literally like, and we're living in the most
developed country in the world, with access to food and
all of them. This ship's still hard. So you put
yourself in message.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
I mean, I genuinely can't even really fully go there
because I cannot even imagine that level of horror.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
And that's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
All right, Let's make a hard turn this friggin lawsuit
against Candae Owens.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So the first family of France is suing Candie Owans
over her allegations corps, among them that the first Lady
of France, Brigitte Macron, is actually was actually born a
man and is transgender and at the age of thirty
transition to being a woman and is hiding this from
(19:20):
the world. Let me go ahead and read this a
little bit of this New York Times article. So they
say the French president Emanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte
mcrol filed a defamation suit on Wednesday against an American
right wing podcaster who falsely claim Miss Macron is a man.
The lawsuit filed in Delaware against the podcaster Candie Owens,
argues that miss Owens use false claims about the Macrons
(19:41):
to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.
In a filing running more than two hundred pages, the
Macrons are suing for twenty two counts of defamation and
related claims and are seeking actual and punitive damages. The
amount was not specified, as well as legal costs. The
battle began in March twenty twenty four, when, according to
the lawsuit, miss Owens co quote told the world she
would stake her entire professional reputation on the accusation that
(20:05):
miss mcrol is in fact a man. Miss Owens made
the claim on her podcast, then carried by The Daily
Wire and repeated it in a post on X and
this series that Candace did called Becoming Brigitte it got
it was a sensation. I mean, it got millions of views.
I think we have the first page of the lawsuit
(20:27):
here that you can see. This was what was filed
in court and details a little bit of you know
what the allegations are. I mean, listen, I dug into that. Well,
let me first play a little bit of Candace here.
So you can hear you know, her response, and then
I can tell you what I learned in digging into
(20:48):
some of these claims and whether there was any veracity.
You know, spoiler alert, there's not. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to Candace responding on her show yesterday.
Speaker 9 (20:55):
If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macrone is
definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
The idea that you would.
Speaker 9 (21:03):
File this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (21:09):
I have been in communication with their lawyers or via
our lawyers, like their lawyers and my lawyers have been
speaking phone calls, emails since January. She's now named her
law firm. I protected that, but now we can tell
you it's Claire Lock. Okay. Claire Lock is representing Brigitte
and emmanuelma Cron. Has been in communication with us for months,
(21:31):
and yet they did not send us a copy of
a lawsuit. They did not give my lawyer a heads
up that they were following a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
But they did instead.
Speaker 9 (21:40):
Opt to give this lawsuit ahead of time to the
Financial Times, The New York Times, CBS News. What does
that tell you? It's a pr strategy. They don't care
if they win. This is about running it through the
press and how much pr are we talking here? Yeah,
Claire Lock, Tom Lock or Tom Claire or whatever his
(22:00):
name is. They actually uploaded the lawsuit to their website
and then they gave CBS News a link to the
uploaded lawsuit before I had been served, before my lawyer
was even informed about it. I found out with all
of you.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I found out with the World.
Speaker 9 (22:14):
I found out from the Financial Times, But they were
unwilling for some reason to allow us to fly to
France to interview Brigitte, which we offered to do before
we started the series. They were also unwilling to simply
answer our yes or no questions that we emailed to
them so that we could ascertain facts. We did all
(22:37):
of this before we aired the first episode.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
So the core claim here, Sager, as I said, is
that Brigitte Macron was born a man. There are other
allegations made as well, that Emmanuel Macron was installed as
president through some sort of aciamk Ltra style mind control.
Maybe he does, and there are all kinds of I
don't know what other claims are made, some like sketchy
associations to this or that, but the one about her
(23:03):
being a man. Where this comes from is there were
some French bloggers and a quote unquote clairvoyant who based
this allegation effectively off the fact that Brigitte Macron has
a brother, and there's a picture of her brother when
he's a child that looks a lot like Brigitte lo
and behold, it turns out sometimes siblings kind of resemble
(23:26):
each other because they have the same parents. In reality,
Brigitte Macron, they've released her birth certificate, pictures of her
as a child, she has three children, etcetera, etcetera. But
you know this has now because this series was such
a sensation in some right wing circles, has become almost
like an article of faith. And so that's where this
(23:47):
lawsuit ultimately comes from. And you know, on the legal
piece piece, Goo, who we've had on before, he told
me he was like digging into the legal aspect, I'm
curious what he'll his take will be because he's he's
pretty good at parsing these things, calling balls and strike
as he sees them.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
The standard is very high.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
You have to either demonstrate like a reckless disregard for
the truth, which I think is a standard they might
be able to meet or to prove, or that she
knew and you know intentionally lie.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
I can read from it, go ahead what section three
of the no of the lawsuits. These claims are demonstrably false,
and Owens knew they were false when she published them,
yet she published them anyway.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
The reason is clear. It's not pursuit of truth, the
pursuit of fame.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Quote after being fired from The Daily War, she used
these demonstrably false claims to promote her independent podcasts. And
then they note the number of the number of followers
that she gained after following. Now, the reason they framed
that specifically is because that is the legal standard.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Now, from what I.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Have read, she did, by the way, she got a
lot of pangs this she made. She made a lot
of money and got a lot of notarize.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I will say, I mean, I don't think, I think
that's definitely true, But like I wouldn't say that.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
It's like the totality of.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
What she's more recently known for, which is like Israel.
Oh sure, a lot of her popularity. She's also big,
I agree, but this is part of where the financial
things come.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
She's filthy rich already.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
All right, she's married to like a billionaire, so you
know it's like, is it really monetary perhaps as they
say it is fame.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
The legal standard is very tough.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
The one thing going against Candace actually is people need
to remember she's a Delaware LLC. And this is some
of the talk that I've seen online is that this
is going to be litigated in Delaware state court, specifically
around like in terms of the way that it was
filed against her.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And that the standard there.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
A lot of people are pointing to remember that Elon
situation in terms of the way that the state courts
there can rule or not as pro business as they
originally were, and the way that this all works out.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
And this is part of why I'm not a lawyer.
I'm only relying.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
On two I've looked at actually two separate conservative lawyers
people who looked at this. That guy Will Chamberlain who
had on the show. He says he thinks the canvas
is going down and is going to be owing a
large fony.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
He does hate her though, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, I'm framing it as he said that. Mike Sternovich,
also is a lawyer, looked at it and he was like,
you know, actually the legal standard here is a little
bit different. The only reason she may go down is
because she did in Delaware State court. If this was
in California or elsewhere, you know, the legal standard is
such that it would be very difficult. The thing is, though,
is that the damages that they're claiming here are also
(26:23):
really tough for somebody who's a first lady, because they
say that she's been inflicted. Let me, let me find it.
These lives have caused tremendous damage to the Macrones defendants,
subjected them to a campaign of global humiliation, turning their
lives into fodder for for profit driven lies. Always has
dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and
their personal history, twisting in a grotesque narrative to inflame
(26:43):
into degrade. The result is relentless bullying on a worldwide scale.
I just think that's a very high bar. You know,
in terms of when we talk about public figure, there
is nobody more public than the president and the first
lady of another country.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
I mean, look we can say here about Donald Trump
or and everybody can. I think that's the way that
it should be. So the ability to prove damages here,
I think would be incredibly difficult, you know, which for
the lawyers to be able to target.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Again I'm not a lawyer, but having looked, you know, read.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
A couple and I've specifically tried to seek out like
two kind of conservatives or whatever who we're talking about this,
I think it's iffy in terms of the way that
comes out, in terms of the evidence. Like you said, yeah,
it seems to rely on this blog. By the way,
I have not watched Becoming Brigitte. I don't particularly want to.
It's not it's not what I appreciate Candice for which
is are Israel commentary, But broadly, I mean, I don't know,
(27:35):
I don't know what you think of this. I think
it was a streisand effect personally from Bridget from Brigitte Macron.
You're the fucking first lady of France, like you got
bigger problems, you know, Is this really something that strikes
at the heart of of like your personal you know,
narrative and all of that.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
I mean, I can't, I just I can't believe if
I had to gas skin lady. But if I have
to gas, remember there was that whole thing that went
viral of like her like slapping on whatever. And I
think that brought back up because when it becoming Brigitte
that was posted.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
I don't know, urgo whatever.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
It's been a while back, but I think that brought
all of this back up. And so they probably decided
because I'm sure they, you know, are aware of the
strides in effect and how this will draw more attention
I want to extra interactions or whatever. They probably got
to the point where they're like, Okay, well, you know
this has gone beyond. This has become like a widespread
(28:32):
accepted phenomena, and what other recourse do we have than
to like fight back and prove this in court. Now,
she had sued to these two individuals in France originally
surfaced these claims, and originally they sided the courts in
France sided with her on her defamation suit in France,
(28:52):
and then it was overturned on appeal basically because they
found that like, oh, you know, we believe that this
was done in good faith and they didn't really know
that they were like lying and making it.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
They have a different standards too, about you. In France,
they have a very very different libel.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Definitely, yeah, And I'm not not an expert on that
standard either. But that's what This isn't the first lawsuit
that she's launched surrounding these claims. I will also just say, like,
there's this whole phenomenon like putting in Candice in Brigitte
and how you feel about them and this whole particular situation, right,
there's this whole like transvestigation phenomenon that I found disgusting.
(29:27):
And I find it discussing as a woman because it's
just basically all about like policing.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Whether or not as you look womanly.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Enough, like you fit the societal exploited x, you know,
expectations of what a woman is supposed to look like
and vice versa for you know, for the men of
like are you manly enough, is your jawlines strong enough?
What do you look like over the years? Let me
like do this whole thing. And so I find it
very damaging. I find it very damaging to men. I
find it very damaging to women, And you know, I
(29:55):
think it's a truly disgusting thing to ultimately engage in
because like, let's say that Brigite macron Is was born
a man and is is transgend Like I don't give
a fuck, I don't care. How is this relevant to
my life, to Candas's life, to your life? Like, I
don't care. So that's the the other thing that I
would say. It's totally fair that I would say I.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Haven't thought about that.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
I mean, honestly, I can't really relate to it or whatever.
But it makes sense. I wouldn't want to necessarily be dissected.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Yeah, I was santing to pick you apart. Oh you're
not this, You're not that, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
I mean, it's a it's a disgusting thing to do
and to engage in.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
I guess what part of me is Do you think
what really gets her is all of this A like
the circumstances of you guys getting together is sketchy Because
I was thinking about that too. That may be one
of the more personal aspects where by the way, I
think Candas is correct in terms of their original relationship
where your school teacher and all of that. By the way,
(30:50):
when I went to I went to the town where
Macron is run in Amien, and it's the talk of
the town. Let's just say that in terms of the
way that they that they all joke about it. They're like, oh,
Macron this is where he met his wife and all
of this, so like it's a joke in France, just
so people know. I don't know, I mean, perhaps like
that's the gossip. Apparently there was a report that Donald
(31:10):
Trump called Candace and he was like, you need to
drop this whole bridge Macron. Yeah, she said that. He's like,
if you drop this, what did he say? He's like,
then I'll give you an interview. And he's like, I've
met her, darling, She's a woman. I promise you one hundred.
So I'm assuming then that maybe the mac Crohnes asked
Trump to intervene on their behalf.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
That was her, that was her belief. Yea, they was
going to call her for no reason. Yeah, and then
the last piece we could put up here D four
on the screen is her original like, I will stake
my whole reputation.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Well she's done it now, so you know.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Yeah, you did it, girl, you put it out there.
This episode is blowing up, she says. So I just
want to say, after looking into this, I would stake
my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron
is in fact a man. Any journalist or publication that
is trying to dismiss this plausibility is immediately identifiable as establishment.
I've never seen anything like this in my life. The
(32:06):
implications here are terrifying. I do not intend to let
up on this story. I'm calling on other journalists to
look into this explosive story and report accordingly.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
So all right, well, Kansas's point. I guess we'll find
out in discovery. But that's part of why it's humiliating.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
First, she may, I mean she may end up settling.
She may, but I think that'll be given how hard
she's gone, it would be embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
For you and how filthy rich she is, right, Like
you can burn money in a pile. Like the main
reason people settle is because they don't want to spend
any money. But if you're that rich, Like, what incentive
do you have?
Speaker 1 (32:36):
I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean for if you're This kind of gets to
the point about Trump. It's like, Bridgie Macrone, you really
want to settle this by taking a fucking blood test
and submitting it to Delaware Superior Court. Like that's humiliating
to me.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Like as the for refresh, I think she already feels humiliated.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Maybe I don't know you know, I mean, what other
records does she have at this time. At a certain point,
you get here like okay, you have to like, you know,
you can like ignore it for so long and then
it's like, all right, I guess I have to fight back.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
I have no choice.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
I'm I'm wondering how the story's playing in France. I
actually wonder what they think over there.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Joining us now is Isaac Sahal.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
He is the executive editor over at Tangle News, and
for our purposes, he has done all of the reading
into the new Obama Gate scandal, and so what's there?
What's there there? There's been a lot of claims from
the Trump administration. Yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, Telsey Gabbard,
took to the White House podium and told our own
(33:31):
Emily Jashinski that she would pursue or refer criminal charges
against former President Obama regarding this matter.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Let's take a listen to that, and then we will
dig into it with you.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Isaac, do you believe that any of this new information
implicates former President Obama and criminal behavior?
Speaker 10 (33:47):
We have referred and we'll continue to refer all of
these documents to the Department of Justice. And the FBI
to investigate the criminal implications of this for even the
evidence Obama correct. The evidence that we have found and
that we have released directly point to President Obama leading
the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces
(34:10):
of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.
Speaker 11 (34:14):
Head, go ahead, Jerk or Galwick.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (34:16):
So, just.
Speaker 11 (34:19):
Two questions to begin on that the president. Yesterday you've
inferred that the former president help lead to coup. Based
on what you now see, do you believe President Obama
is guilty of treason?
Speaker 10 (34:31):
I'm leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice.
I am not an attorney, but as I've said previously,
when you look at the intent behind creating a fake,
manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were
created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what
(34:53):
followed afterward can only be described as a year's long
coup and a treason. His conspiracy against the the American
people are republic and an attempt to undermine President Trump's administration.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
All right, Isaac, So let's go and put this graphic
up on the screen.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
It was released here by Tulsea Gabbard and the Trump administration,
and this is what they've put together. Now, given all
the reading, start from the beginning, tell us what's going
on here, what's the core allegation?
Speaker 12 (35:18):
Yeah, so, I mean the core allegation is basically that
there was this House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report
which was done, you know, twenty seventeen and edited up
until twenty twenty that kind of analyzed an intelligence community
assessment that was released by the Obama administration in January
of twenty seventeen, and we did not have access to
(35:40):
the HPSCI for a long time.
Speaker 6 (35:43):
It kind of got buried.
Speaker 12 (35:44):
And what Tulsa Gabber the D and I released this
week yesterday was basically the goods on that report, what
it found. And to be clear, I think a lot
of what was in the report was previously known information.
It is things like the Obama administration, you know, CIA
officials relied on pretty shoddy intelligence that was you know, manufactured,
(36:10):
I think is a pretty strong word, but at least
was ginned up to make it look like Trump was
very much in the pocket of Russia. The way the
intelligence was released and leaked to news organizations sort of
created this circular ecosystem where news reports were feeding the
intelligence community. The intelligence community was feeding the news reports.
They were applying for FISA Warrens using news reports, and
(36:34):
you know, they used all this to surveil a person
who ended up becoming the United States President. This is
a really big deal. I don't want to downplay the
fact that what happened in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen was
not a big deal.
Speaker 6 (36:47):
I think it was.
Speaker 12 (36:48):
That being said the same report that Tulsa Gabbard's citing here.
I mean literally, if you go read the report that
she released yesterday, on the very first page of the report,
it says things like most of the judgments on Russia's
activities in the US election employed proper analytic tradecraft and
were consistent with observed Russian behavior. It says that the
(37:09):
key judgments found to be credible include that Putin ordered
conventional and cyber influence operations. I mean, I'm reading directly
from the report, notably by leaking politically sensitive emails obtained
from computer intrusions, which was the DNC hack. So you know,
Putin's principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith
in the US democratic process and to weaken what the
Russians considered to be an inevitable Clinton presidency. So it
(37:32):
requires people holding two things in their mind at once,
which I think is one, that the investigation into the
Trump campaign was basically built upon really shoddy intelligence, and
that what the intelligence community was telling us and telling
the Obama officials and what Obama was sort of projecting
to the world in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen was
(37:53):
kind of overwrought based on what they had at the time.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
It was an exaggeration.
Speaker 12 (37:58):
This report specifically, the most damage thing in this report
is that the idea that Putin had a clear preference
for Trump, according to the HPSCI report, was based on scant, unclear,
and unverifiable fragment of one sentence from a human source
that five CIA authors read five different ways and was
initially left out, but Brannan asked them to put it
(38:20):
back in this ICA, this initial report which blew the
top off the whole thing and generated all the news coverage.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
People I covered it at the time, that the Ode
and I Report, etc. But that's the core revelation here,
is that what you're saying.
Speaker 12 (38:34):
I would say that is to me the biggest thing
that pops off the page.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
Is that this idea.
Speaker 12 (38:39):
That they knew then in January of twenty seventeen that
Putin had a clear preference for Trump was based on
really really really shoddy intelligence. And the reports kind of
lists the four or five different sources, which include things
like this sort of this sentence that they heard that
everybody interpreted differently. The Steele dossier was included in it.
There was sort of like reports from twenty fourteen, well
(39:01):
before the campaign even started, diplomatic and media reports is
what was quoted. So it seems like that is to
me the biggest thing that sort of damning evidence that
that initial ICA was built on really insufficient intelligence. What
happened later was that many investigations that that ICA launched
did kind of verify that Putin preferred Trump and that
(39:25):
they did hack the DNC. You know, if you believe
the Wikileak's Russia story, which I think our government and
intelligence community does, you know, so they used sort of
shoddy intelligence to get the investigation going. The investigation sort
of concluded some of the priors that the Obama administration had.
It's a weird you have to hold some complicated things
(39:46):
at the same.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Time, yeah, and what about the direct connect to Obama here?
Like what I mean, I don't think any of us
believes that criminal charges are going to be filed against Obama.
Even if they were. The Supreme Court has said basically,
a hey, you can do whatever you want when and
presidence not really anything anyone can do about it. So
what are they using to try to even make the
case that they're criminal charges against Obama?
Speaker 12 (40:10):
So earlier in the week, a couple of days before this,
a different report and a different trove of files was
released by Gabbard, And in that report there was, you know,
the sort of bombshell if there was one, There was
that there was a Presidential Daily Briefing which was about
to be published that was assessing that Russia did not
have the capability or the intention to hack our election infrastructure.
(40:33):
And the FBI pulled that report, pulled the Presidential Daily
Briefing right before it was about to be published, and
then Obama sort of ordered all his intelligence officials together,
and then you know, weeks later they produced this ica,
this this assessment that I was just talking about, and
that the sort of fundamentals of what that assessment would
(40:56):
end up being leaked to the press immediately before it
was published. For it was released, and the core allegation
is basically that Obama brought together these intelligence officials hell
bent on, you know, advancing a specific narrative that he
didn't really have the goods for the problem with that
is that, you know, Obama and the Obama administration weeks
(41:19):
before any of this had happened, they had already applied
for the FISA warrant for Carter Page, and in applying
for that visa warrant, they had stated their case to
the court, which was that they thought Russia hacked the
DNC and they believed they were going to strategically release
those emails to damage Clinton. So the Obama theory was
not like invented after the Presidential Daily Briefing was squashed.
(41:42):
You know, they had already believed this for weeks. We
know that because they went to the FISA court and
made their case to the FISA court. So yeah, I
don't think Obama's going to be tried for treason. I mean,
this is the frustrating part is that Gabbard gets out
over a skis and has to kind of say this
ridiculous stuff and it's going to jail him trying.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
To They're trying to distract from Epstein and Tilsey's trying
to get back in his good graces after the whole
like you know Iran situation and her coming out and
being like, oh, Iran is not actually pursuing anular weapon.
So I mean that is what hangs over all of
this and why this quote unquote disclosure is happening now.
Speaker 3 (42:15):
And Isaac, I mean, I know that the DOJ has
announced a quote strikeforce around this, but you know, my
friend Christian Daytalk, who was in the briefing room, asked
a great question. He said, you know, the statute of
limitations for conspiracy is five years, so you've only got
one charge at this point that you're looking at. I mean,
even with you know, Rico conspiracy fraud, I mean wire fraud,
(42:39):
which is apparently all the things that they usually look
at these so called strikeforce teams. They have a very limited,
you know, number of crimes that they can go into,
and as you noted, treason basically is the only one
that could even be pursued here against the former president.
So like go into what that would actually mean at
a practical level for trying to charge that in a
(43:01):
criminal court of law.
Speaker 6 (43:03):
Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 12 (43:05):
Look again, I don't think that there is I mean,
is it's a fantasy. I think it's you know, the
Andrew McCarthy who wrote an entire book making the case
that Trump's presidency, his first term, was basically destroyed by
a ginned up conspiracy that you know, he colluded with Russia.
Speaker 6 (43:23):
I mean, a very sort of pro Trump narrative.
Speaker 12 (43:26):
He's been covering these latest releases and I think doing
a really admirable job at National Review, writing honest pieces
like none of this information is new. John Durham did
the most thorough investigation of the Muller probe and the
investigation into Trump, and he didn't charge anybody even close
to Obama's orbit after that time period. I mean, there
were some you know, there's the FBI official who kind
(43:48):
of edited the email, and there are real crimes there
that got charged. But the idea that Obama I mean,
you know, as McCarthy put it, it's not a crime, unfortunately,
to kind of to gin up a political smear using
vaguely worded you know, intelligence assessments. There is no crime
there that they can actually charge. The more it's certainly
not treason, and as you just pointed out, the maybe
(44:13):
more reasonable idea that they would go after a former
president for like conspiracy is something that has passed the
Statute of Limitations, which is something that Andrew McCarthy mentioned
to it and is reporting. So I honestly don't have
the imagination to tell you what a treason charge against
Obama would.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Actually this is what is important here.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Look, there are three people here, I think, Isaac, I
can't speak for you, who did a lot of stuff
on Russiagate and about how it was bs and about
the way that it was used, how politically disaster it was.
By the way I think it has major foreign policy
implications and all of that, etc. We are still here
eight years later now at this point, which is part
of why there's almost a deja.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Vu aspect of which Tulsi was asked was.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Like, hey, listen, wasn't the time to do all of
this in the first Trump administration, right? And she was like, oh, well,
there are people working for him, you know at the time.
But like that's part of where you know, when we
bring the politics into this, it just seems a little
bit convenient to be having this full scale rollout at
a time of all his uproar and concern over the
Epstein files. When look the information released, the historical record
(45:16):
is now clear it was BS from day one. Okay,
that's you know, great, and I guess it is a scandal,
you know, et cetera. But the context in which it
all is happening just seems like it undermines the you know,
maximal extent.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
For what they're trying to go for. Is that is
that your read of it?
Speaker 12 (45:32):
Yeah, I mean, I what I would add, and this
is something that I've said a lot in my writing,
is just the Trump administration and the Trump campaign didn't
help themselves at the time. You know, they were Trump
was asking WikiLeaks to drop more emails, RuSHA out there,
if you're listening. Donald Trump Junior was taking the meetings
with the lawyer, promising dirt on Clinton. I mean, there
was stuff there that I think justified skepticism and concern
(45:54):
about them.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (45:56):
But we have had We've turned over basically every rock,
and the collusion theory has obviously crumbled, and it is
very clear that the Obama administration and intelligence officials from
that time period we're feeding the media stories to make
it look as bad as possible, and they were preventing
us from hearing things that probably would have come the
(46:16):
air a little bit that would have calmed tensions a
little bit. So I get the anger and the fury
from the Trump camp. I just think what's happening now,
as you guys have pointed out, is very obviously designed
to be a distraction. I mean, the self interest from
Tulsea Gabbert is obvious given where it seems like she
stands in the administration, and the Epsteine file stuff is
(46:36):
consuming the base and dividing Trump's most loyal supporters.
Speaker 6 (46:39):
So sort of.
Speaker 12 (46:40):
Trotting out this eight year old story that puts the
focus on Obama and Obama officials, I mean, it's smart.
We're sitting here talking about it. It's working, and they're
getting a lot of attention for it, and I think
it's an effective thing to do. I think we as
journalists have to look at it honestly and explain exactly
what's going on. But yeah, that's basically my best read
the situation, I think.
Speaker 4 (47:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
I mean I also think Hillary Clinton sort of escaped
scrutiny in some ways in this too, because yes, Obama
administration they were in place in their officials and like
you know, the official actions are being taken there. The
reason this took off so much with the liberal base
is because Hillary Clinton want an excuse for why she
lost to this guy. And that's where you know this
was intentionally like planned after she lost of okay, how
(47:24):
are we going to escape culpability? And that's you know,
that was very successful. And so for me, Isaac, it's
very ironic to see the way Russia Gate are usually
originally used by Democrats to cover for their failures and
now being used by this Republican administration to basically cover
for Trump's failures. So it truly is the story that
(47:46):
never dies.
Speaker 6 (47:47):
Yeah, it's a good observation.
Speaker 12 (47:48):
I mean, if you go back and watch the Clinton
campaign and look back at their old tweets from this
time and even what Hillary was doing on the campaign
and you know on the debate stage, I mean, he's
a putent.
Speaker 6 (48:00):
It all their tweets, all.
Speaker 12 (48:01):
Their social media was about tying Trump, and we know
now we have contemporaneous documents in their internal communications where
we know the Clinton campaign was strategically trying to tie
Trump to Putin.
Speaker 6 (48:12):
I mean, they were involved in this and.
Speaker 12 (48:14):
Like to believe that the Clinton campaign didn't have contact
with Obama officials or people in the intelligence community. I mean,
of course they did, so we know that that was
part of their strategy to win the election that obviously backfired.
And yeah, it's a good point. I mean we we
sort of memory hold that part of it too.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Actually, that's my last question here.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
I know there was so she talked a lot about
Hillary and some of this info that they sat on
with Hillary. This just goes to my old coverage at
the time. Is there what was she talking about about?
They were sitting on information that she was on tranquilizers
and then her health was compromised.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Can you go into any of that?
Speaker 12 (48:49):
Yeah, I mean this was I would you know this
wouldn't be like the main headline. Like I said, I
think the biggest story from this drop was that the
assessment that Putin favored Trump was based on really bad intelligence,
but they did. One of the allegations that is made
in this report is that the Russians had much more
damning information on Hillary Clinton that she was going through
(49:11):
these like violent mood swings and she was taking tranquilizers
and she was basically in some like Mani state and
was not emotionally, you know, prepared to sit in the
White House basically. And part of what they found, or
what they're saying they found, is that Russia had this
information and they sat on it. They didn't release it
to the public, and that sort of raises questions about,
(49:35):
you know, what their real preference was.
Speaker 6 (49:37):
And the idea was basically that Russia thought.
Speaker 12 (49:40):
It was a foregone conclusion Hillary Clinton was going to
win and they wanted to push some stuff out to
sort of weaken her presidency, but they also didn't want
to go too far that maybe they blew up the
entire relationship and then you know, Trump won and shocked
the world and that changed everything.
Speaker 6 (49:54):
But yeah, it is.
Speaker 12 (49:56):
I mean, there's some juicy stuff in there, certainly if
you're into the kind of sleation. But again, I don't
really know. It's hard to know how legitimate any of
that information is either, and you know what kind of
stuff like that is just sort of the classic Russian
co or whatever.
Speaker 1 (50:11):
Yeah, exactly, nobody knows if it's real.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
I say tape, We'll say I will never forget that
day when she collapsed on nine to eleven. That was
like the craziest thing for those of us who are
involved in right wing media. But Isaac, thank you for
joining us man. He did such a great job of
breaking all this down tangle.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
We will put a link.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
Down in the description and we recommend people go ahead
and subscribe. So thanks for joining us man. We appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (50:36):
Thanks so much for having me, guys, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (50:38):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
We didn't, unfortunately have the time to get to the
home segment. We want to get the show somewhat on
time out, so maybe we'll kick it to the Friday
show discuss then, But thank you all so much for watching.
Speaker 1 (50:50):
We appreciate you, and we'll see you later.
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 3 (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 get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good transition to what's actually going on down there, which,
as we said, is horrific to a point which like
it's a new level of destruction.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So, as Saga was saying, there has been just object
unimaginable horror unfolding in Gaza at the hands of the Israelis,
and we now actually have a whistleblower coming forward from
that so called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. This individual is a
twenty five year US military veteran who is sounding the
alarm about the horrific ways that Palestinians are being treated there.
(01:04):
Who are you know, starving to death and desperately trying
to seek any aid they can possibly get.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
Who has been deployed to commat clouds of times, four
different wars. I have never in my entire military career
have I been a part of allowed or backstandard to
the use of force against unarmed innocent civilians.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
There is no fixing this. This needs to be putting
into it.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So this is from Israel's Channel twelve. And in addition
to what you heard there, he said that the aid
centers treated the population very badly, put them in danger.
He says, in all my years of service, I have
never seen such use of force. He described an incident
where an unarmed Palestinian was picking up food off the
(01:53):
ground on his knees and was pepper sprayed by American
guards with a full can of pepper spray. In another incident,
he talked about a stun grenade being thrown and hitting
a Palestinian woman directly. He says, quote she collapsed, fell
to the ground. That was the moment I knew I
couldn't continue. In another incident, he says that Palestinians finish
collecting the aid at the site, the American guards open fire,
(02:15):
shooting at them at their legs, at the dirt mounds
to force them to leave. He says, quote, you can't
fix this. It has to stop. In all my military service,
I have never seen such force used against unarmed civilians
and I will not be a part of it.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
So he is coming forward.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
And of course we've seen some one thousand plus Palestinians
who have been massacred while simply trying to seek aid.
It is as dystopian a situation as you could possibly imagine.
In fact, it's beyond my imagination how dystopian it is.
You are starving two million people to death. You have
now daily multiple deaths of children and infants because they
(02:54):
are being starved to death, and then you create this
deadly hunger game situation in order to get any sort
of aid. And it's not even the type of actual
nutritious aid that you would want to provide in this circumstance,
but people having to risk their lives and being fired
upon with live fire on again a near daily basis,
(03:16):
in order to secure what little bit of provisions are available.
It's absolutely unbelievable. And at the same time, we've got
one of our members of Congress here, can put C
two up on the screen. This is Randy Fine, who
is quote tweeting an ABC News article here about how
fifteen people, including four children have died have been starved
(03:38):
to death in just the last twenty four hours. And
he quote tweets that and says, release the hostages until
then starve away. Then in parentheses he says, this is
all a lie anyway.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It amazes me.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
And the media continues to regurgitate Muslim terror propaganda. Now,
where is the media freak out over this? Oh I forgot.
They're too busy writing their five thousandth piece about what
Zoron Mamdani thinks about the phrase globalized the intefada.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Where's the censure from Congress over this?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Oh I forgot, They're too busy concerned about what was
the Rashida Juliab saying, like from the river to the sea.
It's just unbelievable that you have a member of Congress
who is saying jenocide these people effectively, that's what that means,
starve away, and it just is like an accepted part
of the discourse.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well, there's a lot going on in that tweet because
it's also it's not happening. But if it were happening,
it's good that it's and so which is it, Congressman.
I mean, look, you know, we can make all the
fat jokes and all that stuff aside, but that almost
I think just what is happening is so horrific, just
the images, the conduct, the lies, and now at this
(04:55):
point the complicity. You have to ask, what possible reason
are we putting up with this? For every day, every hour,
every second is all underwritten by the United States.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Of America for what possible purpose? You know?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
RFK Junior has not put out a personal tweet in
like months on any of the subject. And he just
responded to a article that's written, I'm a war war scholar,
there's no genocide in Gaza, and he writes the genocide
charge is a blood libel major for withering. Just so
it's like, oh my god, he reared his ugly head
(05:35):
for what for what reason? To just it's look, I
don't know what it is, all right, it could be blackmail.
I think it's probably just like a deep ideological I
have no idea about this psycha.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
This psychopathy.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
It runs deep at this point, and at a certain
point we just all have to look at this and
be like, this is unconscionable, unbelievable, it's evil, and like
the way that they get away with it and then
have their defenders in our country tell us it's an
anti Semitic blood libel for mentioning it's too much, yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
I mean it has to break us forever from the
chains of all of this anti Semitism industrial complex because
they don't care about that. They're using it as a
cover to literally murder little children and women and starve
them to death, to lure them to food, and to
gun them down with impunity. And that's the other thing
(06:36):
that I think really devises this from some of the
earlier conduct of the war, because they always had at
that time the excuse is what it's all because of them.
They're using them as there's nothing about that. Right now,
right you already level the whole place, you're attacking the
last city, and you're starving these people to death by
your own admission, literally, by your own admission.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
There's no getting around this.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I don't know, man, This is dark stuff, as dark
as you can't it doesn't even give the voice like
the proper picture right to say dark is almost like,
oh it's dark when something.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Bad, It's like, no, man, like this is a whole
of it.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
It recalls the greatest horrors in history.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
I mean, you can't see those images of those skeletal,
dead babies and not think about Auschwitz. You can't look
at those images and not be reminded of the greatest
failures and horrors.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Of humanity of the past.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
And you know, I mean this is where people who
want to dismiss the Epstein story, like, sorry to tie
it back to that, but it is the reason that
we're cool with this. Is it because they have some
sort of a blackmaile on the President of the United
States or RFK Junior.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Or whoever, Like why would you allow this to persist?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
It is.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Humanity will not be the same in the wake of this.
And you know, everybody who said starve away, who justifide this,
They're going to have to answer in the history books.
But that's called comfort to Palestinians who are starving to
death literally right now today as we speak. Of course,
the Israeli government and this is going to be c
five guys, they claim that there is no famine in Gaza,
(08:15):
that this is all just lies, and that us even
talking about this is quote unquote playing into the hands
of Hummas.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this.
Speaker 7 (08:25):
This idea of famine and starvation has been thrown at
us consistently on a weekly basis for the last two
years now. It has never come to our pass. So
these are our false warnings which come from these aid organizations.
And I also would say that where there is hunger
in Gaza, it is hunger orchestrated by Hamas. This is
(08:49):
very clearly their tactic and it is working because Hammas
seeks to put international pressure which unfortunately too many international
countries are too willing to follow suit on to put
pressure on Israel to support their negotiating tactics, stopping them
initiating or agreeing to a hostage release pause. So this
(09:13):
pressure which is coming calling it talking about starvation and famine,
this is simply playing into Harmasa's hands. Where there is hunger,
it is hunger orchestrated by her Mus. It is hunger
created by the terrorist organization.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Hunger orchestrated by Hamas. Like who believes this shit? How
do people like this sleep at night?
Speaker 4 (09:35):
Truly?
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Truly, and he says, oh, we've been hearing this for
two years now. Yeah, because the Defense Minister you'll have
go on on October ninth announced I have ordered a
complete siege on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything
is closed.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.
That was on October ninth. Now at time aid has
been delivered. This is the most die right now that
it has ever been. Right now, there is truly a
complete siege and the only aid that anyone really has
access to is through this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where you
(10:15):
go and you might get a bag of flower or
you might be murdered by the IDF. I mean, it
is just unreal that anyone could claim otherwise at this point,
and that this is allowed to persist. At the same time,
you know, there it's easy to lose sight of what's
happening in the West Bank, where there's been also an
extraordinary escalation of violence and you know, annexing, stealing of land.
(10:42):
They just took a significant vote in the Knesset with
regard to annexing the West Bank.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 8 (10:51):
There are two things that you need to know about this. One,
the vote doesn't actually do anything. It's a non binding motion,
it has no legal power, and they did it is
to unite the Israeli rights around something that they agree
on because they've been fighting for a very long time
over whether to conscript the ultra Orthodox community into the army.
So it makes for nice headlines, but it doesn't actually
(11:13):
do anything on the ground. And two, the West Bank
is already to facto annexed and it has been for
a very long time. Israel has controlled the West Bank
completely for almost seventy years now, and even in Area A,
which is supposed to be under Palestinian authority, Israel practically
has all the power. They control the checkpoints, they control
(11:33):
the energy, they control the taxes, and whenever they want,
they can just invade it with the army, as they
often do. So de facto we are living in a
one apartheid state solution.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
So that is independent journalist Andre explaining, you know what
the details of this vote are and the relevant political
context here, and I think it's important to understand what
he says, which is, you know, this idea that there's
sovereigny sort of palaestinae. Sovereignty in the West Bank already
is a mythology, and now they're just moving to you know,
further codify and further in trench and also to sort
(12:09):
of like round up support on the right because there
are these various contentious issues that have sort of divided
the Lukud majority governing party coalition, and so this is
a way to bring everyone together, to really unify everyone
around the idea of just outright stealing all of the
West Bank.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
What's also really funny, too, is that we forgot to
mention this C three police that even the American Jewish
Committee condemned Randy Fine. They said, the serious humanitarian situation
must not be taken lightly implying that starvation is a
legitimate tactic is unacceptable. All those should be need of
humanitarian agent receive it promptly and safely.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Our leaders must focus less on scoring political points and
more on doing their jobs. Of course, they would you
deny that, they would deny that this is actually even happening,
and that they would probably put the blame like that
on Hamas.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
But you know, the point still stands around all of this.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
It's not.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
This is the thing about the belligerents and the actions
in Gaza, which are unforgivable, insane, backstop by the US government.
It's also part of this broader Greater Israel project, which
I look, conspiracy theorists have been talking about there for years.
It's real now, Yeah, Gaza, Lebanon, Darius.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Syria, this shit is real. Guys.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
They're bombing Damascus, They're claiming an indefinite presence, They're annexing
the West Bank, like it's happening right now. You know,
just this morning is really ulternationalist minister quote, all of
Gaza will be Jewish. The government is pushing for Gaza
being wiped out. Thank god, we are wiping out this evil.
(13:45):
We are pushing the population educated on my listen to
this shit. We are wiping out the population.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
It will be Jewish. They say this shit out loud.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
This is my always problem with America, Like we're all
focused on it's like listen, all right, we can all
hit the Google Translate button.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
This all takes to actually see the stuff that they're
saying on cable television in Israel and here as well.
And it's just like, oh my god, like you're genuinely
watching this almost like neo colonialist project backstopped entirely by
the American Empire.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
For what possible purpose?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
You have the humanitarian and then the security situation, it
would be different. I think if this were I don't know,
if this were two countries that were fighting of their
own accord, you know, that had their independent ability to
inflict this type of horrificness on each other. That's one thing, right,
and that calls for a tool set, but it's really
another when you're selling people the technology, the bombs, giving
(14:44):
them money to continue it, and then also using the
full force of the empire to make sure that they
bear no consequences for it. Yeah, like the United States
withdrawing from UNESCO or whatever from the UN body, accusing
them of anti sentence. If we're talking about the humanitarian situation, right,
I mean that stuff really does.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Matter, and cracking down on the domestic population fear that's
over what we can say and do and who's allowed
to get a college degree if you dared speak out
against these absolute atrocities, and then I can't let this go,
you know. I was looking at the New York Times
front page. And on the one hand, okay, they're covering
the fact that people are starving to death, but there
is still no culpability assigned. I mean, the first of all,
(15:24):
this is barely this is not getting remotely enough coverage
throughout the process. And as I said before, they're way
more fixated on like how hard Zoron will condemn this
or that particular phrase, or what some rally chant was
or whatever. Here's their headline, Gossins are dying of starvation.
Severe hunger has gripped the war torn Palestinian enclave, where
(15:46):
growing numbers of people are starving and the doctors treating
them are working on empty stomachs. Guess what's not mentioned there?
The fact that it's Israel who is starving them. And
as you read through this, it takes to paragraph one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
(16:07):
It takes to like the tenth paragraph before the word
Israel is even mentioned. I mean, it's a parody at
this point. And I know you guys have seen probably
the way that you know the headlines are like barely
English to have these passive, weird phrase constructions to avoid
assigning blame. Imagine it was Russia that was starving Ukraine.
(16:30):
Do you think that The New York Times would have
a hard time figuring out how to phrase that headline,
how to cover that story, how to talk about it
in the clear moral and factual terms that are justified.
Of course not, of course it would not be any
sort of an issue there. And so look, you know,
the situation is dire enough that they feel that they
have to cover it. It is, you know, the top
(16:53):
of their website right now. But even so severe hunger grips,
Gaza grips, as if that just happened down of nowhere,
as if it's some sort of natural disaster, unavoidable calamity.
It's just unbelievable at this point, it's just unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, it's sick. I don't think there's really another word
for it.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
We put C six up there on the screen. I mean, look,
you know warning images. It's just hard to see.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
We faced hunger before, but never like this, Skeletal children,
feel hospital a wards as starvation grips Gaza.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Ryan made a great point whenever him and.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
I did the show, is that the timeline laid out
by these food organizations and almost exactly correct about sixty.
It takes about sixty to seventy days to starve to death.
Sixty seventy days ago, they were like, hey, people are
gonna starve to death if there's no change in the
status quo.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Yeah, here we are. I don't know at this point.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
I know there's some potential movement or whatever on a ceasefire,
but considering what's happened in the previous sease fires, like,
they're not dying of bullets at this point, right, You're
dying of severe malnutrition. Even in those previous ceasefires. It's
not like there was a ton of humanitarian aid you
know that got into Gaza, So there's no And also,
you know, once you get to the severe malnutrition, you're
(18:05):
your rife for disease type you know whatever. A mere
cold can take you out.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Yeah, and when you're that to a certain point too,
where it's not just like Okay, there's food of it,
you need specialize treatment.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
And you know, the.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Ones who are dying the most rapidly, it's it's these infants.
It's these babies. The mothers are too weak to breastfeed.
They're dependent on formula. There's no formula. I mean, you
have a baby at holl like, yeah, I know, you
can't you.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
My kid is sick and my wife is sick.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
So I literally like, and we're living in the most
developed country in the world, with access to food and
all of them. This ship's still hard. So you put
yourself in message.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
I mean, I genuinely can't even really fully go there
because I cannot even imagine that level of horror.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
And that's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
All right, Let's make a hard turn this friggin lawsuit
against Candae Owens.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So the first family of France is suing Candie Owans
over her allegations corps, among them that the first Lady
of France, Brigitte Macron, is actually was actually born a
man and is transgender and at the age of thirty
transition to being a woman and is hiding this from
(19:20):
the world. Let me go ahead and read this a
little bit of this New York Times article. So they
say the French president Emanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte
mcrol filed a defamation suit on Wednesday against an American
right wing podcaster who falsely claim Miss Macron is a man.
The lawsuit filed in Delaware against the podcaster Candie Owens,
argues that miss Owens use false claims about the Macrons
(19:41):
to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.
In a filing running more than two hundred pages, the
Macrons are suing for twenty two counts of defamation and
related claims and are seeking actual and punitive damages. The
amount was not specified, as well as legal costs. The
battle began in March twenty twenty four, when, according to
the lawsuit, miss Owens co quote told the world she
would stake her entire professional reputation on the accusation that
(20:05):
miss mcrol is in fact a man. Miss Owens made
the claim on her podcast, then carried by The Daily
Wire and repeated it in a post on X and
this series that Candace did called Becoming Brigitte it got
it was a sensation. I mean, it got millions of views.
I think we have the first page of the lawsuit
(20:27):
here that you can see. This was what was filed
in court and details a little bit of you know
what the allegations are. I mean, listen, I dug into that. Well,
let me first play a little bit of Candace here.
So you can hear you know, her response, and then
I can tell you what I learned in digging into
(20:48):
some of these claims and whether there was any veracity.
You know, spoiler alert, there's not. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to Candace responding on her show yesterday.
Speaker 9 (20:55):
If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macrone is
definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
The idea that you would.
Speaker 9 (21:03):
File this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (21:09):
I have been in communication with their lawyers or via
our lawyers, like their lawyers and my lawyers have been
speaking phone calls, emails since January. She's now named her
law firm. I protected that, but now we can tell
you it's Claire Lock. Okay. Claire Lock is representing Brigitte
and emmanuelma Cron. Has been in communication with us for months,
(21:31):
and yet they did not send us a copy of
a lawsuit. They did not give my lawyer a heads
up that they were following a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
But they did instead.
Speaker 9 (21:40):
Opt to give this lawsuit ahead of time to the
Financial Times, The New York Times, CBS News. What does
that tell you? It's a pr strategy. They don't care
if they win. This is about running it through the
press and how much pr are we talking here? Yeah,
Claire Lock, Tom Lock or Tom Claire or whatever his
(22:00):
name is. They actually uploaded the lawsuit to their website
and then they gave CBS News a link to the
uploaded lawsuit before I had been served, before my lawyer
was even informed about it. I found out with all
of you.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I found out with the World.
Speaker 9 (22:14):
I found out from the Financial Times, But they were
unwilling for some reason to allow us to fly to
France to interview Brigitte, which we offered to do before
we started the series. They were also unwilling to simply
answer our yes or no questions that we emailed to
them so that we could ascertain facts. We did all
(22:37):
of this before we aired the first episode.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
So the core claim here, Sager, as I said, is
that Brigitte Macron was born a man. There are other
allegations made as well, that Emmanuel Macron was installed as
president through some sort of aciamk Ltra style mind control.
Maybe he does, and there are all kinds of I
don't know what other claims are made, some like sketchy
associations to this or that, but the one about her
(23:03):
being a man. Where this comes from is there were
some French bloggers and a quote unquote clairvoyant who based
this allegation effectively off the fact that Brigitte Macron has
a brother, and there's a picture of her brother when
he's a child that looks a lot like Brigitte lo
and behold, it turns out sometimes siblings kind of resemble
(23:26):
each other because they have the same parents. In reality,
Brigitte Macron, they've released her birth certificate, pictures of her
as a child, she has three children, etcetera, etcetera. But
you know this has now because this series was such
a sensation in some right wing circles, has become almost
like an article of faith. And so that's where this
(23:47):
lawsuit ultimately comes from. And you know, on the legal
piece piece, Goo, who we've had on before, he told
me he was like digging into the legal aspect, I'm
curious what he'll his take will be because he's he's
pretty good at parsing these things, calling balls and strike
as he sees them.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
The standard is very high.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
You have to either demonstrate like a reckless disregard for
the truth, which I think is a standard they might
be able to meet or to prove, or that she
knew and you know intentionally lie.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
I can read from it, go ahead what section three
of the no of the lawsuits. These claims are demonstrably false,
and Owens knew they were false when she published them,
yet she published them anyway.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
The reason is clear. It's not pursuit of truth, the
pursuit of fame.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Quote after being fired from The Daily War, she used
these demonstrably false claims to promote her independent podcasts. And
then they note the number of the number of followers
that she gained after following. Now, the reason they framed
that specifically is because that is the legal standard.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Now, from what I.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Have read, she did, by the way, she got a
lot of pangs this she made. She made a lot
of money and got a lot of notarize.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I will say, I mean, I don't think, I think
that's definitely true, But like I wouldn't say that.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
It's like the totality of.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
What she's more recently known for, which is like Israel.
Oh sure, a lot of her popularity. She's also big,
I agree, but this is part of where the financial
things come.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
She's filthy rich already.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
All right, she's married to like a billionaire, so you
know it's like, is it really monetary perhaps as they
say it is fame.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
The legal standard is very tough.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
The one thing going against Candace actually is people need
to remember she's a Delaware LLC. And this is some
of the talk that I've seen online is that this
is going to be litigated in Delaware state court, specifically
around like in terms of the way that it was
filed against her.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And that the standard there.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
A lot of people are pointing to remember that Elon
situation in terms of the way that the state courts
there can rule or not as pro business as they
originally were, and the way that this all works out.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
And this is part of why I'm not a lawyer.
I'm only relying.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
On two I've looked at actually two separate conservative lawyers
people who looked at this. That guy Will Chamberlain who
had on the show. He says he thinks the canvas
is going down and is going to be owing a
large fony.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
He does hate her though, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, I'm framing it as he said that. Mike Sternovich,
also is a lawyer, looked at it and he was like,
you know, actually the legal standard here is a little
bit different. The only reason she may go down is
because she did in Delaware State court. If this was
in California or elsewhere, you know, the legal standard is
such that it would be very difficult. The thing is, though,
is that the damages that they're claiming here are also
(26:23):
really tough for somebody who's a first lady, because they
say that she's been inflicted. Let me, let me find it.
These lives have caused tremendous damage to the Macrones defendants,
subjected them to a campaign of global humiliation, turning their
lives into fodder for for profit driven lies. Always has
dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and
their personal history, twisting in a grotesque narrative to inflame
(26:43):
into degrade. The result is relentless bullying on a worldwide scale.
I just think that's a very high bar. You know,
in terms of when we talk about public figure, there
is nobody more public than the president and the first
lady of another country.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
I mean, look we can say here about Donald Trump
or and everybody can. I think that's the way that
it should be. So the ability to prove damages here,
I think would be incredibly difficult, you know, which for
the lawyers to be able to target.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Again I'm not a lawyer, but having looked, you know, read.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
A couple and I've specifically tried to seek out like
two kind of conservatives or whatever who we're talking about this,
I think it's iffy in terms of the way that
comes out, in terms of the evidence. Like you said, yeah,
it seems to rely on this blog. By the way,
I have not watched Becoming Brigitte. I don't particularly want to.
It's not it's not what I appreciate Candice for which
is are Israel commentary, But broadly, I mean, I don't know,
(27:35):
I don't know what you think of this. I think
it was a streisand effect personally from Bridget from Brigitte Macron.
You're the fucking first lady of France, like you got
bigger problems, you know, Is this really something that strikes
at the heart of of like your personal you know,
narrative and all of that.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
I mean, I can't, I just I can't believe if
I had to gas skin lady. But if I have
to gas, remember there was that whole thing that went
viral of like her like slapping on whatever. And I
think that brought back up because when it becoming Brigitte
that was posted.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
I don't know, urgo whatever.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
It's been a while back, but I think that brought
all of this back up. And so they probably decided
because I'm sure they, you know, are aware of the
strides in effect and how this will draw more attention
I want to extra interactions or whatever. They probably got
to the point where they're like, Okay, well, you know
this has gone beyond. This has become like a widespread
(28:32):
accepted phenomena, and what other recourse do we have than
to like fight back and prove this in court. Now,
she had sued to these two individuals in France originally
surfaced these claims, and originally they sided the courts in
France sided with her on her defamation suit in France,
(28:52):
and then it was overturned on appeal basically because they
found that like, oh, you know, we believe that this
was done in good faith and they didn't really know
that they were like lying and making it.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
They have a different standards too, about you. In France,
they have a very very different libel.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Definitely, yeah, And I'm not not an expert on that
standard either. But that's what This isn't the first lawsuit
that she's launched surrounding these claims. I will also just say, like,
there's this whole phenomenon like putting in Candice in Brigitte
and how you feel about them and this whole particular situation, right,
there's this whole like transvestigation phenomenon that I found disgusting.
(29:27):
And I find it discussing as a woman because it's
just basically all about like policing.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Whether or not as you look womanly.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Enough, like you fit the societal exploited x, you know,
expectations of what a woman is supposed to look like
and vice versa for you know, for the men of
like are you manly enough, is your jawlines strong enough?
What do you look like over the years? Let me
like do this whole thing. And so I find it
very damaging. I find it very damaging to men. I
find it very damaging to women, And you know, I
(29:55):
think it's a truly disgusting thing to ultimately engage in
because like, let's say that Brigite macron Is was born
a man and is is transgend Like I don't give
a fuck, I don't care. How is this relevant to
my life, to Candas's life, to your life? Like, I
don't care. So that's the the other thing that I
would say. It's totally fair that I would say I.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Haven't thought about that.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
I mean, honestly, I can't really relate to it or whatever.
But it makes sense. I wouldn't want to necessarily be dissected.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Yeah, I was santing to pick you apart. Oh you're
not this, You're not that, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
I mean, it's a it's a disgusting thing to do
and to engage in.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
I guess what part of me is Do you think
what really gets her is all of this A like
the circumstances of you guys getting together is sketchy Because
I was thinking about that too. That may be one
of the more personal aspects where by the way, I
think Candas is correct in terms of their original relationship
where your school teacher and all of that. By the way,
(30:50):
when I went to I went to the town where
Macron is run in Amien, and it's the talk of
the town. Let's just say that in terms of the
way that they that they all joke about it. They're like, oh,
Macron this is where he met his wife and all
of this, so like it's a joke in France, just
so people know. I don't know, I mean, perhaps like
that's the gossip. Apparently there was a report that Donald
(31:10):
Trump called Candace and he was like, you need to
drop this whole bridge Macron. Yeah, she said that. He's like,
if you drop this, what did he say? He's like,
then I'll give you an interview. And he's like, I've
met her, darling, She's a woman. I promise you one hundred.
So I'm assuming then that maybe the mac Crohnes asked
Trump to intervene on their behalf.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
That was her, that was her belief. Yea, they was
going to call her for no reason. Yeah, and then
the last piece we could put up here D four
on the screen is her original like, I will stake
my whole reputation.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Well she's done it now, so you know.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Yeah, you did it, girl, you put it out there.
This episode is blowing up, she says. So I just
want to say, after looking into this, I would stake
my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron
is in fact a man. Any journalist or publication that
is trying to dismiss this plausibility is immediately identifiable as establishment.
I've never seen anything like this in my life. The
(32:06):
implications here are terrifying. I do not intend to let
up on this story. I'm calling on other journalists to
look into this explosive story and report accordingly.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
So all right, well, Kansas's point. I guess we'll find
out in discovery. But that's part of why it's humiliating.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
First, she may, I mean she may end up settling.
She may, but I think that'll be given how hard
she's gone, it would be embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
For you and how filthy rich she is, right, Like
you can burn money in a pile. Like the main
reason people settle is because they don't want to spend
any money. But if you're that rich, Like, what incentive
do you have?
Speaker 1 (32:36):
I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean for if you're This kind of gets to
the point about Trump. It's like, Bridgie Macrone, you really
want to settle this by taking a fucking blood test
and submitting it to Delaware Superior Court. Like that's humiliating
to me.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Like as the for refresh, I think she already feels humiliated.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Maybe I don't know you know, I mean, what other
records does she have at this time. At a certain point,
you get here like okay, you have to like, you know,
you can like ignore it for so long and then
it's like, all right, I guess I have to fight back.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
I have no choice.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
I'm I'm wondering how the story's playing in France. I
actually wonder what they think over there.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Joining us now is Isaac Sahal.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
He is the executive editor over at Tangle News, and
for our purposes, he has done all of the reading
into the new Obama Gate scandal, and so what's there?
What's there there? There's been a lot of claims from
the Trump administration. Yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, Telsey Gabbard,
took to the White House podium and told our own
(33:31):
Emily Jashinski that she would pursue or refer criminal charges
against former President Obama regarding this matter.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Let's take a listen to that, and then we will
dig into it with you.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Isaac, do you believe that any of this new information
implicates former President Obama and criminal behavior?
Speaker 10 (33:47):
We have referred and we'll continue to refer all of
these documents to the Department of Justice. And the FBI
to investigate the criminal implications of this for even the
evidence Obama correct. The evidence that we have found and
that we have released directly point to President Obama leading
the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces
(34:10):
of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.
Speaker 11 (34:14):
Head, go ahead, Jerk or Galwick.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (34:16):
So, just.
Speaker 11 (34:19):
Two questions to begin on that the president. Yesterday you've
inferred that the former president help lead to coup. Based
on what you now see, do you believe President Obama
is guilty of treason?
Speaker 10 (34:31):
I'm leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice.
I am not an attorney, but as I've said previously,
when you look at the intent behind creating a fake,
manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were
created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what
(34:53):
followed afterward can only be described as a year's long
coup and a treason. His conspiracy against the the American
people are republic and an attempt to undermine President Trump's administration.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
All right, Isaac, So let's go and put this graphic
up on the screen.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
It was released here by Tulsea Gabbard and the Trump administration,
and this is what they've put together. Now, given all
the reading, start from the beginning, tell us what's going
on here, what's the core allegation?
Speaker 12 (35:18):
Yeah, so, I mean the core allegation is basically that
there was this House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report
which was done, you know, twenty seventeen and edited up
until twenty twenty that kind of analyzed an intelligence community
assessment that was released by the Obama administration in January
of twenty seventeen, and we did not have access to
(35:40):
the HPSCI for a long time.
Speaker 6 (35:43):
It kind of got buried.
Speaker 12 (35:44):
And what Tulsa Gabber the D and I released this
week yesterday was basically the goods on that report, what
it found. And to be clear, I think a lot
of what was in the report was previously known information.
It is things like the Obama administration, you know, CIA
officials relied on pretty shoddy intelligence that was you know, manufactured,
(36:10):
I think is a pretty strong word, but at least
was ginned up to make it look like Trump was
very much in the pocket of Russia. The way the
intelligence was released and leaked to news organizations sort of
created this circular ecosystem where news reports were feeding the
intelligence community. The intelligence community was feeding the news reports.
They were applying for FISA Warrens using news reports, and
(36:34):
you know, they used all this to surveil a person
who ended up becoming the United States President. This is
a really big deal. I don't want to downplay the
fact that what happened in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen was
not a big deal.
Speaker 6 (36:47):
I think it was.
Speaker 12 (36:48):
That being said the same report that Tulsa Gabbard's citing here.
I mean literally, if you go read the report that
she released yesterday, on the very first page of the report,
it says things like most of the judgments on Russia's
activities in the US election employed proper analytic tradecraft and
were consistent with observed Russian behavior. It says that the
(37:09):
key judgments found to be credible include that Putin ordered
conventional and cyber influence operations. I mean, I'm reading directly
from the report, notably by leaking politically sensitive emails obtained
from computer intrusions, which was the DNC hack. So you know,
Putin's principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith
in the US democratic process and to weaken what the
Russians considered to be an inevitable Clinton presidency. So it
(37:32):
requires people holding two things in their mind at once,
which I think is one, that the investigation into the
Trump campaign was basically built upon really shoddy intelligence, and
that what the intelligence community was telling us and telling
the Obama officials and what Obama was sort of projecting
to the world in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen was
(37:53):
kind of overwrought based on what they had at the time.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
It was an exaggeration.
Speaker 12 (37:58):
This report specifically, the most damage thing in this report
is that the idea that Putin had a clear preference
for Trump, according to the HPSCI report, was based on scant, unclear,
and unverifiable fragment of one sentence from a human source
that five CIA authors read five different ways and was
initially left out, but Brannan asked them to put it
(38:20):
back in this ICA, this initial report which blew the
top off the whole thing and generated all the news coverage.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
People I covered it at the time, that the Ode
and I Report, etc. But that's the core revelation here,
is that what you're saying.
Speaker 12 (38:34):
I would say that is to me the biggest thing
that pops off the page.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
Is that this idea.
Speaker 12 (38:39):
That they knew then in January of twenty seventeen that
Putin had a clear preference for Trump was based on
really really really shoddy intelligence. And the reports kind of
lists the four or five different sources, which include things
like this sort of this sentence that they heard that
everybody interpreted differently. The Steele dossier was included in it.
There was sort of like reports from twenty fourteen, well
(39:01):
before the campaign even started, diplomatic and media reports is
what was quoted. So it seems like that is to
me the biggest thing that sort of damning evidence that
that initial ICA was built on really insufficient intelligence. What
happened later was that many investigations that that ICA launched
did kind of verify that Putin preferred Trump and that
(39:25):
they did hack the DNC. You know, if you believe
the Wikileak's Russia story, which I think our government and
intelligence community does, you know, so they used sort of
shoddy intelligence to get the investigation going. The investigation sort
of concluded some of the priors that the Obama administration had.
It's a weird you have to hold some complicated things
(39:46):
at the same.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Time, yeah, and what about the direct connect to Obama here?
Like what I mean, I don't think any of us
believes that criminal charges are going to be filed against Obama.
Even if they were. The Supreme Court has said basically,
a hey, you can do whatever you want when and
presidence not really anything anyone can do about it. So
what are they using to try to even make the
case that they're criminal charges against Obama?
Speaker 12 (40:10):
So earlier in the week, a couple of days before this,
a different report and a different trove of files was
released by Gabbard, And in that report there was, you know,
the sort of bombshell if there was one, There was
that there was a Presidential Daily Briefing which was about
to be published that was assessing that Russia did not
have the capability or the intention to hack our election infrastructure.
(40:33):
And the FBI pulled that report, pulled the Presidential Daily
Briefing right before it was about to be published, and
then Obama sort of ordered all his intelligence officials together,
and then you know, weeks later they produced this ica,
this this assessment that I was just talking about, and
that the sort of fundamentals of what that assessment would
(40:56):
end up being leaked to the press immediately before it
was published. For it was released, and the core allegation
is basically that Obama brought together these intelligence officials hell
bent on, you know, advancing a specific narrative that he
didn't really have the goods for the problem with that
is that, you know, Obama and the Obama administration weeks
(41:19):
before any of this had happened, they had already applied
for the FISA warrant for Carter Page, and in applying
for that visa warrant, they had stated their case to
the court, which was that they thought Russia hacked the
DNC and they believed they were going to strategically release
those emails to damage Clinton. So the Obama theory was
not like invented after the Presidential Daily Briefing was squashed.
(41:42):
You know, they had already believed this for weeks. We
know that because they went to the FISA court and
made their case to the FISA court. So yeah, I
don't think Obama's going to be tried for treason. I mean,
this is the frustrating part is that Gabbard gets out
over a skis and has to kind of say this
ridiculous stuff and it's going to jail him trying.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
To They're trying to distract from Epstein and Tilsey's trying
to get back in his good graces after the whole
like you know Iran situation and her coming out and
being like, oh, Iran is not actually pursuing anular weapon.
So I mean that is what hangs over all of
this and why this quote unquote disclosure is happening now.
Speaker 3 (42:15):
And Isaac, I mean, I know that the DOJ has
announced a quote strikeforce around this, but you know, my
friend Christian Daytalk, who was in the briefing room, asked
a great question. He said, you know, the statute of
limitations for conspiracy is five years, so you've only got
one charge at this point that you're looking at. I mean,
even with you know, Rico conspiracy fraud, I mean wire fraud,
(42:39):
which is apparently all the things that they usually look
at these so called strikeforce teams. They have a very limited,
you know, number of crimes that they can go into,
and as you noted, treason basically is the only one
that could even be pursued here against the former president.
So like go into what that would actually mean at
a practical level for trying to charge that in a
(43:01):
criminal court of law.
Speaker 6 (43:03):
Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 12 (43:05):
Look again, I don't think that there is I mean,
is it's a fantasy. I think it's you know, the
Andrew McCarthy who wrote an entire book making the case
that Trump's presidency, his first term, was basically destroyed by
a ginned up conspiracy that you know, he colluded with Russia.
Speaker 6 (43:23):
I mean, a very sort of pro Trump narrative.
Speaker 12 (43:26):
He's been covering these latest releases and I think doing
a really admirable job at National Review, writing honest pieces
like none of this information is new. John Durham did
the most thorough investigation of the Muller probe and the
investigation into Trump, and he didn't charge anybody even close
to Obama's orbit after that time period. I mean, there
were some you know, there's the FBI official who kind
(43:48):
of edited the email, and there are real crimes there
that got charged. But the idea that Obama I mean,
you know, as McCarthy put it, it's not a crime, unfortunately,
to kind of to gin up a political smear using
vaguely worded you know, intelligence assessments. There is no crime
there that they can actually charge. The more it's certainly
not treason, and as you just pointed out, the maybe
(44:13):
more reasonable idea that they would go after a former
president for like conspiracy is something that has passed the
Statute of Limitations, which is something that Andrew McCarthy mentioned
to it and is reporting. So I honestly don't have
the imagination to tell you what a treason charge against
Obama would.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Actually this is what is important here.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Look, there are three people here, I think, Isaac, I
can't speak for you, who did a lot of stuff
on Russiagate and about how it was bs and about
the way that it was used, how politically disaster it was.
By the way I think it has major foreign policy
implications and all of that, etc. We are still here
eight years later now at this point, which is part
of why there's almost a deja.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Vu aspect of which Tulsi was asked was.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Like, hey, listen, wasn't the time to do all of
this in the first Trump administration, right? And she was like, oh, well,
there are people working for him, you know at the time.
But like that's part of where you know, when we
bring the politics into this, it just seems a little
bit convenient to be having this full scale rollout at
a time of all his uproar and concern over the
Epstein files. When look the information released, the historical record
(45:16):
is now clear it was BS from day one. Okay,
that's you know, great, and I guess it is a scandal,
you know, et cetera. But the context in which it
all is happening just seems like it undermines the you know,
maximal extent.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
For what they're trying to go for. Is that is
that your read of it?
Speaker 12 (45:32):
Yeah, I mean, I what I would add, and this
is something that I've said a lot in my writing,
is just the Trump administration and the Trump campaign didn't
help themselves at the time. You know, they were Trump
was asking WikiLeaks to drop more emails, RuSHA out there,
if you're listening. Donald Trump Junior was taking the meetings
with the lawyer, promising dirt on Clinton. I mean, there
was stuff there that I think justified skepticism and concern
(45:54):
about them.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (45:56):
But we have had We've turned over basically every rock,
and the collusion theory has obviously crumbled, and it is
very clear that the Obama administration and intelligence officials from
that time period we're feeding the media stories to make
it look as bad as possible, and they were preventing
us from hearing things that probably would have come the
(46:16):
air a little bit that would have calmed tensions a
little bit. So I get the anger and the fury
from the Trump camp. I just think what's happening now,
as you guys have pointed out, is very obviously designed
to be a distraction. I mean, the self interest from
Tulsea Gabbert is obvious given where it seems like she
stands in the administration, and the Epsteine file stuff is
(46:36):
consuming the base and dividing Trump's most loyal supporters.
Speaker 6 (46:39):
So sort of.
Speaker 12 (46:40):
Trotting out this eight year old story that puts the
focus on Obama and Obama officials, I mean, it's smart.
We're sitting here talking about it. It's working, and they're
getting a lot of attention for it, and I think
it's an effective thing to do. I think we as
journalists have to look at it honestly and explain exactly
what's going on. But yeah, that's basically my best read
the situation, I think.
Speaker 4 (47:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
I mean I also think Hillary Clinton sort of escaped
scrutiny in some ways in this too, because yes, Obama
administration they were in place in their officials and like
you know, the official actions are being taken there. The
reason this took off so much with the liberal base
is because Hillary Clinton want an excuse for why she
lost to this guy. And that's where you know this
was intentionally like planned after she lost of okay, how
(47:24):
are we going to escape culpability? And that's you know,
that was very successful. And so for me, Isaac, it's
very ironic to see the way Russia Gate are usually
originally used by Democrats to cover for their failures and
now being used by this Republican administration to basically cover
for Trump's failures. So it truly is the story that
(47:46):
never dies.
Speaker 6 (47:47):
Yeah, it's a good observation.
Speaker 12 (47:48):
I mean, if you go back and watch the Clinton
campaign and look back at their old tweets from this
time and even what Hillary was doing on the campaign
and you know on the debate stage, I mean, he's
a putent.
Speaker 6 (48:00):
It all their tweets, all.
Speaker 12 (48:01):
Their social media was about tying Trump, and we know
now we have contemporaneous documents in their internal communications where
we know the Clinton campaign was strategically trying to tie
Trump to Putin.
Speaker 6 (48:12):
I mean, they were involved in this and.
Speaker 12 (48:14):
Like to believe that the Clinton campaign didn't have contact
with Obama officials or people in the intelligence community. I mean,
of course they did, so we know that that was
part of their strategy to win the election that obviously backfired.
And yeah, it's a good point. I mean we we
sort of memory hold that part of it too.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Actually, that's my last question here.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
I know there was so she talked a lot about
Hillary and some of this info that they sat on
with Hillary. This just goes to my old coverage at
the time. Is there what was she talking about about?
They were sitting on information that she was on tranquilizers
and then her health was compromised.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Can you go into any of that?
Speaker 12 (48:49):
Yeah, I mean this was I would you know this
wouldn't be like the main headline. Like I said, I
think the biggest story from this drop was that the
assessment that Putin favored Trump was based on really bad intelligence,
but they did. One of the allegations that is made
in this report is that the Russians had much more
damning information on Hillary Clinton that she was going through
(49:11):
these like violent mood swings and she was taking tranquilizers
and she was basically in some like Mani state and
was not emotionally, you know, prepared to sit in the
White House basically. And part of what they found, or
what they're saying they found, is that Russia had this
information and they sat on it. They didn't release it
to the public, and that sort of raises questions about,
(49:35):
you know, what their real preference was.
Speaker 6 (49:37):
And the idea was basically that Russia thought.
Speaker 12 (49:40):
It was a foregone conclusion Hillary Clinton was going to
win and they wanted to push some stuff out to
sort of weaken her presidency, but they also didn't want
to go too far that maybe they blew up the
entire relationship and then you know, Trump won and shocked
the world and that changed everything.
Speaker 6 (49:54):
But yeah, it is.
Speaker 12 (49:56):
I mean, there's some juicy stuff in there, certainly if
you're into the kind of sleation. But again, I don't
really know. It's hard to know how legitimate any of
that information is either, and you know what kind of
stuff like that is just sort of the classic Russian
co or whatever.
Speaker 1 (50:11):
Yeah, exactly, nobody knows if it's real.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
I say tape, We'll say I will never forget that
day when she collapsed on nine to eleven. That was
like the craziest thing for those of us who are
involved in right wing media. But Isaac, thank you for
joining us man. He did such a great job of
breaking all this down tangle.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
We will put a link.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
Down in the description and we recommend people go ahead
and subscribe. So thanks for joining us man. We appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (50:36):
Thanks so much for having me, guys, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (50:38):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
We didn't, unfortunately have the time to get to the
home segment. We want to get the show somewhat on
time out, so maybe we'll kick it to the Friday
show discuss then, But thank you all so much for watching.
Speaker 1 (50:50):
We appreciate you, and we'll see you later.
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.