July 29, 2025 • 41 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Bill Maher says he was wrong about tariffs, Sen Slotkin grilled by Krystal and Saagar.
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. Let's get to tariffs now. There has been
a major announcement from Donald Trump while he was broad
about the European Union and a trade deal that's been
really been reached between these two blocks.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Here's what you have to say.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
We are agreeing that the tariff straight across for automobiles
and everything else will be a straight across tariff of
fifteen percent.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
We are known as a tough negotiator and deal maker
fun and what is it fun?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We are successful.
Speaker 6 (01:09):
I think it would be the biggest dealstruct so I'm
very much ever strugg.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
So that is the circumstances. There she was, he was pictured,
you know, with the EU President vander Lyon. It is
kind of an insane deal, and I'll try and get
into the broad strokes of it. So first of all,
people need to understand he is meeting there with the
European Union. Now, the European Union has the ability to
negotiate trade agreements and blocks, but doesn't have the full
(01:38):
authority to actually command its countries to do that. All right,
this sounds pretty important, by the way, this is why
the entire European Union is stupid idea.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
But that's the secondary question.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
You have France and Germany who have criticized, the two
major economic powers within the who are critical of the deal.
The deal that's been signed now by the European Union. Now,
the European Union is saying we are pledging. But the
crux of the deal is basically to set a base
tariff rate of fifteen percent. Let me just put that
up at the top. There's gonna be a fifteen percent
tariffs on goods. By the way, it actually includes pharmaceuticals,
(02:10):
which was previously exempt from a lot of This is
essentially a flat tariff across the board on all that
in exchange for lowering the tariff rate and including there's
some other stuff that's in the deal. The EU, and
this is the one touted most by Trump, is going
to spend some six hundred billion US dollars by purchasing
US natural gas supplies and others. That's part the key
(02:33):
deal that's being sold to Americans right now. I want
people to understand that there is zero enforcement on that
zero So let me go ahead and put D four
up here on the screen. And I've heard a lot
pushback from MAGA folks lately. Oh, you're such a hater,
and all the listen. I'm a hater because I'm pro protectionism,
I'm pro protecting American business investment and all of that.
(02:56):
I am not pro fake promises from people that have
no authority to actually make them. So here, the European
Union admits it cannot guarantee their six hundred billion dollar
promise to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
The extra investments pledged under the trade deal would have
to come from private companies, which Brussel concedes it has
no power to control. Let me reiterate that. Brussel says
it has no power to actually invest the touted six
hundred big billion dollars of European Union money into the
Wall Street Journal sorry, into the US over the coming years,
(03:30):
and in fact, quote the money would have to come
exclusively from private European companies, with public investment contributing nothing,
which means that these private companies would have to make
the Now can the government lean on the private company?
I guess, But you know, if they're going to lean
on the company, then maybe we would have to after
offer them something in return.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
This is the problem, right.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
And then secondary to all of this is pledge around
gas and actually buying.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
A lot of US natural gas supplies.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Well, everything I've read now so far, there is this
zero expectation that all of that money will actually be
will eventually end up in the hands of US gas suppliers.
Why we don't have the supply. We don't barely have
a supply currently. It also depends on the supply infrastructure
here in America, which by the way, we don't have
very much of at least her right now. And it
(04:20):
would basically require the EU to increase even more than
it currently is, which is causing consternation in their domestic markets,
their reliance on European on American energy. So those are
like the two cruxes, right, the six hundred billion of
investment and buying natural gas in exchange for the so
called fifteen percent flat tariff.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
That's the deal.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
I mean, look, it's better than what fifty sixty percent
or whatever people can say, you know previously, Yeah, fine,
but you know in terms of Trump had also been
Trump had put in previously. So that's why I'm going
crazy at all these people who are like, hey, guys,
like you know, we need to admit here that the
truth is is that Trump succeeded. Hold on a second,
(05:01):
all right, It put in maximal tariffs, went from maximal
tariffs for what how long was it two weeks something
like that, from Liberation Day onward. The markets crash after
the market and the bond market react, they pull back
and say, actually is a pause on everything, and there's
all these like little mini tariffs everywhere. We're gonna do
all of these side deals, all of the side deals
(05:22):
that get postponed for some ninety to one hundred and
eighty days as they continue to go on with China.
And now within that context, after you've moved and als fair,
there's already been some market correction or reality of accepting
some of these tariffs. Then do you declare victory after
you're the ones who back down from your original position.
So that is a good lead in to the Bill
(05:43):
Maher and so I want people to understand this stuff.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
I'm not a hater. I want more, I want better
trading relationship.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I don't see a lot of this stuff in the
European Union other than a teriff for the sake of tariff.
I don't really see how this is going to increase
overall US investment and manufacturing. I'd love to be proven wrong,
but I just don't personally see it. All I see
is the S and P five hundred to go up,
because the reason it's going up is because people in
the big business knows that it's actually not going to
affect them all that much. So that's the context through
(06:10):
which Bill Maher now says quote I got to own it,
and gives Trump saying that the terroff didn't sink the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Let's take a list.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
The truth is, I don't know what his strategy is,
but look, the stock market is at record highs. I
know not everybody lives by the stock market. But I
also drive around. I don't see a country and a
depression at all. I see people out there just living
their lives. And I would have thought, and I got
to own it, that the cut that these tariffs were
(06:40):
going to fucking sing this economy by this time, and
they didn't.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
The reason why is because those maximum tariffs on China,
which actually would have sunk the economy, are not currently
in place. Okay, and let's get into that little China
tariff deal, shall we. Let's put D five here up
on the screen, just so people know. Because the number
one reason we're supposed to be concerned about trade with
China and all that is our own personal domestic market.
And right now Trump has actually frozen export controls to
(07:10):
secure the trade deal with China. Now I would say, Ai,
you know, this is what they always say the most
important future part of our business, which runs on these
Nvidia H twenty trips chips, which previously the Trump administration
was going to freeze for our export to China. The
Trump as part of the current negotiations with China, has
actually blocked that export control, allowing Nvidia to continue exporting
(07:35):
those chips to China basically because and you'll all recall this,
Jensen Lang paid five million dollars to have dinner with
Trump down in mar A Lago. That's how this all happened. Now,
whether you support this or not, that's not really how
we should be making national security policy, is it. Check?
Can we all agree with that? And you know, people
I know who are real China protectionists are freaking out
(07:56):
about this, including Steve Bannon, who is quoted here in
this article. But it's basically giving away the store on
Ai before there's even some sort of negotiation. By the way,
let me also note this, the Trump administration today did
something which they would have beat.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
The hell out of Biden for doing.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
They blocked the Taiwani's president from transitting through New York
to Central America on a trip he was also supposed
to participate in an event in Dallas. This is a
top ten trading partner of the United States. But because
the Chinese are upset every time this dude even transits
through America, they blocked him in the midst of their
trade negotiation. You can be fine with that if you want.
(08:34):
I would call that capitulation. Whenever we're talking about a
major trading partner. That's the reality of the trade deals
that we all have right now. Yeah, Japan's going to
buy more rice. Congrats to them, are shitty rice. You know,
the Japan is not going to open its market to
US cars. Nobody there wants them. Guarantee you that. The
European Union, fine, they're paying fifteen percent tariff, and they
(08:57):
made all this fake ass promises to buy natural gas
and to invest money. It's all bullshit from what I'm
looking at right now, I guess we should say, fine,
let's not tell them that it is.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Because then we can go anymore. Maybe it's better the alternative, it's.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Better than what was promised. I mean, that's the thing.
Like Bill Maher not known for his economic attention to detail.
We'll recall the moment I had with him where he
had no idea that the stock market had crashed during COVID,
and then there were all sorts of extraordinary efforts to
make sure that that didn't happen, and again in the
bond market season. However, so he's not known for really
following the ins and the outs of these things. Let's
just say, but you know, I also I'm so frustrated
(09:33):
with the press just takes it face value. Like Trump
will say, oh, we got this deal and here's what
it is, blah blah blah, and they just like write
that up. And we've had multiple times now where after
the fact you learn like, oh, by the way, that
you know, six hundred billion dollars or whatever, we actually
aren't really in a position to compel that or promise that.
With the Japanese deal, after Trump made his big announcement,
then the Japanese came and said, that's not actually what
(09:56):
we really agreed to. So I don't know when they're
going to learn the lesson of way to beat look
into the details, find out what's real and what's not
before you give him his glowing report of Oh, President
Trump wins again. I was on with Peers Morgan yesterday
and Crystal why can't you give why can't the Democrats
give Trump credit? It's like, because there's there's nothing here
(10:17):
to give credit for. It's the difference between also what
was sold the ninety deals in ninety days and how
everyone's going to come begging and it's going to be
this incredible renaissance and whatever, and the reality of these
sort of like half assed faked deals, which, by the way,
the part of it that actually has teeth. The fifteen
percent tariff on pharmaceuticals very likely to further drive up
(10:40):
costs for medicine here in the US. And what we've
said from the beginning is there's no industrial policy on
the other side to actually help create Okay you want, yes,
I agree pharmaceuticals should be manufactured here. You don't achieve
that just by slapping a tariffop. You need to have
concerted industrial policy, of which there is none. So that's
where we are. But I do think there will be
a perception of, oh, this guy didn't fall and you
(11:01):
guys said it was, because yeah, I think there will
be a little bit of that. But on the other hand,
when you look at the polling, it's not like people
are satisfied with the economy. You've got them doing the
same thing that you know, we heard Democrats doing last
Although the stock market's doing well, so everybody must be
doing well. No, most people don't feel like that.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
It is.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, I'll just send that on. You know, how did
that work out for the Biden people? The S and
P had what two record years under Joe Biden. One
down year. Does that mean that the economy was better
in twenty twenty four because of the S and P
five hundred? Obviously not all right, and that was that
was acknowledged. So anyway, this stupid way to track things,
but nobody particularly cares about the details. For those of
us who do, that's you can have it all right. Now,
(11:41):
we've got Senator A. Lissa Slockin standing by. Let's get
to it. Joining us now is Senator ALYSSA. Slockin of
Michigan Center. Thank you very much for joining us. Weally
appreciate having me.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
We have a very limited amount of time.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
This is the Internet, so you're here, and it's important
that we ask some of the questions that are animating
some of the younger voters and others. I assume that
part of the reason now you here, the first is
about Jeffrey Epstein. It's the story that's really captured a
lot of America's interest. So you're a former CIA officer,
do you think that Jeffrey Epstein had any connections to
US or Israeli intelligence agencies?
Speaker 6 (12:13):
So, not that I've ever seen or heard, but there's
really no I haven't asked, but you know this is
like a solvable question because President Trump's CIA director John
Radcliffe can answer.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
This question right.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
There is no shortage of people in this administration who
can answer that question. I would be very surprised. I'm
gonna be honest. I know your views on it. I
would be surprised. But I'm like a Middle East analyst.
I was doing my time going after terrorist groups and
militias in Iraq, and so I just I never saw it.
I never heard anything about that. I again would be surprised.
(12:48):
But there's an easy way to.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Solve that problem. Well that's the question.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Then. So in terms of you've expressed some concern about
classified information, etc. In the past, would you be fine
then with the full release of the Trump epscene files,
even if they did reveal an intelligence connection.
Speaker 6 (13:03):
Yeah, I mean I think at this point, like it's
just it's such a distraction from in my mind, like
what I really care about, which is helping people like
live well in Michigan.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Just get it over with and get it out. And
this wasn't like my issue.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
It's still not the thing that you know, wakes me
up in the morning and I want to work on.
But I think it's it's okay to say it's a
full distraction. Now in Washington, everyone's talking about it, So
just unveil it, do whatever you need to do, answer
the questions, and move past.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Well that's the last question then.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
So there's some accusations here from the Republicans on Epstein
here just about you know, why didn't you care for
four years? I know you asked the question in twenty
twenty you said I don't care particularly about Bill Clinton,
et cetera. I mean that's somewhat understandable, but you know,
we do have like a person circumstances, let to let alone,
you know, the sex trafficking organization, others. So you know,
why don't you answer that question? Like why is this now?
(13:55):
Is the time that you do get yeah, and obviously
really care.
Speaker 6 (13:57):
It's I mean, it's horrible when you have a pile
and someone who had a literal pyramid scheme of recruiting
fourteen and fifteen year old girls for illegal sex.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
I mean, it's horrible.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
At the time, I mean I sort of saw it
as like one of these horrible stories that comes out
every five months, you know, about somebody. I think the
Weinstein thing had happened there weren't Michiganders to my knowledge
who were involved, you know, women, young girls who were involved.
So I kind of saw it as like a horrible moment,
but not particularly something that's like going to decide whether
(14:31):
someone in my state can buy a house or get
a good job. So to me, it was just like
a It wasn't like a strategic issue right for me,
And then now it just is like grown And I
think there is a difference between saying some rich guy
or a former politician was named in those things versus
(14:51):
the president of the United States. That to me is
is apples to oranges, because one of them is leading
the free.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
World and one of them's not. Sof his name is
in there as.
Speaker 6 (15:01):
It appears, it is just like deal with it and
let's get on with it. At this point, and you know,
my ten year old nephew understands that the president is
trying to dodge, trying to distract, trying to talk about
other things.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
He hates answering this question, like we get it.
Speaker 6 (15:18):
So it feels off to the average person, Right to
a ten year old, they're like.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Did he do something right?
Speaker 6 (15:26):
So just get through it, get it out, and let's
move on. To real sorry for me, like real economic issues.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
So then if piece of legislation comes forward, you would
vote for it to support the release of the file. Okay,
all right, So then let's talk about the future to
the Democratic Party, and that's something you've been interested in.
Democratic approval hit an all time low from the Wall
Street Journal. At the same time we've seen the rise
more recently anti establishment candidates, people like.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Zor On Mom Donnie.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Give us some of your thoughts there about the future
of the Democratic Party and particularly in the context of
Mam Donnie's victory.
Speaker 6 (15:55):
And yeah, well, I guess as a good Midwesterner and
miss Scander, I'm never going to say that what happens
in New York City represents all of America.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Sorry, We're a big country.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
And I would never pretend to totally understand New York
City politics. I didn't particularly understand Eric Adams, I didn't
particularly understand, like.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I genuinely right, But.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
I think the message and the hot take out of
that election is actually not terribly dissimilar from what we
heard in the November election when Trump won, right, which
is people are still focused on the cost of living
and not being able to achieve what they thought they
could achieve, right, and then number two, people are looking
for a new generation of leadership. I don't think it's
(16:36):
hard to miss those hot takes. I can have plenty
of disagreements with what I've heard mister mom Donnie propose,
and I do. But that message coming out of that election,
what do you disagree with? Just I'm like, my family
was a fourth generation hot dog business, like I am
here because we live the American dream through capitalism and
(16:57):
so like a lot of free stuff to me is
not the answer.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I don't think it's sustainable.
Speaker 6 (17:03):
I don't think that it actually fixes the underlying problem.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So, but I can have those disagreements.
Speaker 6 (17:10):
I think this is the like I would be thrilled
to have that conversation with him or anyone else about like, Hey,
let's we agree that there's an economic problem here.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
What we do to solve it.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
Let's have that debate and adults can debate and not
like want to kill each other's children.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Well, let's talk then about leadership. So you just talked
about that. We see a lot of that from our show,
some of the democratic side of our audience. Furi is
with democratic leadership. I mean, do you still support Chuck
Schumer's leadership here isn't given an interview in about a month.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 6 (17:39):
I mean for me, I mean, I've now served in
the Senate for six months in the House before that, Him,
Chuck Schumer and Kim Jeffries have hard jobs like herding cats.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's not fun.
Speaker 6 (17:52):
I've said for a very long time, long before I
got into the Senate and long before President Biden dropped out,
that we need a new generation of leaders ships, leadership.
You can feel it in and I think at this point,
I mean especially New York. Right You're looking at New York,
It's like I'd rather roll the dice with someone new
than have like the warmed over leftovers that I've already known.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
So I think we have a problem with that across
the board.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
And I think one of the things I can do
as the youngest Democratic woman in the Senate, and you
know I'm not young, I'm just young for the Senate,
to be clear, young for us, yeah, I mean, is
push on that and try to give younger leaders a
voice in this party in a very real way. And
(18:39):
to me, that's upward pressure, that pressure that you're talking
about from the people is good.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
So then shouldn't they endorse him? I mean, what kind
of a message Schumer and Jeffery shouldn't they endorse from
New York. I'm Johnny, they're vote New Yorkers, And what
kind of a message does it send if, like, I mean,
this guy won the Democratic primary. Yeah, he is the
Democratic nominee. It was overwhelming. If that and the centrist
leadership of the parties, we can't get by.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
I mean, you just asked me before we started the
exact same question about the Michigan Senate primary, and I'm like,
Michigan Democrats don't get involved in primaries. We all are friends,
so I can't speak to what they're doing. I think
I hope that they're meeting. I mean, if this person is.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
They did, and Kim Jeffrey still refused to endorse them.
I mean, think about it from this context. Like, let's
say in twenty twenty eight, a more moderate figure wins
the Democratic primary and a bunch of progressives, AOC or
whoever says we're not backing, we don't agree with you.
I feel like you would have a problem with that.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
Yeah, I mean, I think I will say this the
way that this party works is when there's a coalition
that sticks together. That's like a numbers issue, that's a
data issue, and so I'm always going to be someone
who's trying to find unity. That doesn't mean we all
agree with each other, and I think I don't. I
wasn't in the conversations where they met privately, they debated
(20:00):
what they talked about. I don't know. But to me,
we got to figure out what's common among all Democrats
right now. And that's why I focus on the economy
because that is to me, the cost of living and
people not being able to achieve what their parents achieved
is the existential issue of our time. Is the unifying
issue of like all the right wing, left wing, like Americans,
(20:23):
I don't even think it's a Democratic party thing. And
to me, that's where I spend my time because I
think eighty percent of my constituents in Michigan that's where
they live. Is like, I just want to be able
to go to Disneyland and take my kids the way
my dad took me. So that's where I focus on.
I'm happy to sit down with any leader. I can't
speak to their particular decision to endorse or not I'm
(20:45):
not endorsing in my own right.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
But just guess he won the primary, right, that's my question.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
That's what's different.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
And they have another election though, yeah, a general election,
yet he is a Democratic nominee, I.
Speaker 6 (20:57):
Say, I say, I'm sorry. This is why I'm saying.
I don't follow New York politics and the I think
the the you'd have.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
To ask them, I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (21:07):
I know that for me, whoever wins the Democratic primary
in the state of Michigan for the Senate seat that's up,
that's why I will endorse, regardless of who it is.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
That was my last question. So I'm sure it's Chris.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Yeah, So, I mean, I guess I'm actually a little curious,
and forgive me if this is in polite, like, I'm
curious why you wanted to talk to us?
Speaker 1 (21:25):
What do you mean, well, like what we.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Don't have Actually a lot of senators, especially ones who
have very different ideology than us, reach out. So I'm
curious what your goal was and why you thought to
come here.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Well, first of all, I think you have a good audience.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
I mean, right, we agree you if you spoke to
if you if you appeal to like four friends on
YouTube or whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Then I probably wouldn't be here.
Speaker 6 (21:48):
But I think, to me, part of the problem is
that people have kind of gone to their corners.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And I live this right.
Speaker 6 (21:56):
I live on my family farm in a town that
voted heavily for down Donald Trump. I've never won my town.
I've never won my precinct. I've never won my neighbors.
We get along, but it never won them and I
probably never will. So to me, I think that the
people have gone to their corners, and like people who
used to be able to talk about politics and disagree
(22:18):
don't even get in the same room together. So I
kind of like the idea of your show, Like it
was interesting to me when my team pitched me.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, we go through and like there's no hiding it.
Speaker 6 (22:28):
Lots of people are like, how do we evolve in
this new space? You know, Like that's not a you know,
it's not that that conversation isn't happening.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
It is.
Speaker 6 (22:38):
And I think that's good and to the credit of
lots of shows like yours, But I think your show
appealed to me as I was being pitched because you
guys don't agree, and I am very focused. My dad
was a lifelong Republican, my mom, a lifelong Democrat. Like
Michiganders want to get back to a place where we
can disagree on politics and not have it be so
(23:00):
like bitter.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So I hear you on the idea of like you
want to talk about the economics and the unifying and
cost of living, and I think that ignores a big
elephant in the room, especially when you're talking about even
soor on Mom Donnie. The reason Hakeeen, Jeffries, and Chuck
Schumer don't want to endorse him is because of his
position on Israel. The single most viral clip that he
had in that election actually wasn't about cost of living,
(23:24):
even though that's what he wanted to make his campaign about.
His opponent, Sandra Cuomo in particular, wanted to make it
all about accusing him of anti Semitism and attacking him
for his views on Israel and Palestine. So the most
viral moment from that entire campaign, I believe, was this
moment on the debate stage. Guys, this is E one,
(23:46):
and go ahead and play this for you, and then
I want to get your reaction, mister mom.
Speaker 7 (23:49):
Donnie, I would stay in New York City, my plans
are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and
focus on that.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Mister Mom Donnie, can I just jump in, would you
visit Israel?
Speaker 1 (24:00):
I'm mayor.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
I will be doing as the mayor. I'll be standing
up for Jewish New Yorkers and I'll be meeting them
wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in
their synagogues and temples, or at their homes or at
the subway platform, because ultimately we need to focus on
delivering on their concerns.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yes, we also know do you believe in a Jewish
state of Israel?
Speaker 7 (24:17):
I believe Israel has the right to exist as a
Jewish state, as a state with equal rights.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Now, this was considered very controversial when he said it,
and I think the results are in at this point
that he didn't win in spite of his position there.
He won in part because of it, including if you
listen to Andrew Cuomo's numbers, he won a majority of
Jewish voters inside of New York City. And so what
I'm curious for your view on is, while you know
I would love to debate you on your healthcare policy,
(24:44):
I think we need medicare for all you think public option,
you're housing policy, etc. I'm just being really real with you.
I don't really hear what you say if you are
still supporting a genocide in Gaza. And that's for me,
you know, I'm speaking for myself, but I know there
are millions of other people who feel the same that
(25:04):
you have to at least cross this sort of moral
threshold and what it indicates to people. And I think
part of why you know zor on one so many
people in New York City, young people in particular, but
Jewish New Yorkers people across the board, is because it
was a sign of Number one, Okay, you're focused on
New York City first and foremost. Number two, you're willing
(25:25):
to take the heat on an issue that is really
difficult for you, where you're being overtly smeared as an
anti semi And number three, there's no you know, entrenched
interest that's going to control You have a spine, you
have principles, you're willing to stand up for something, and
so you know, I'm curious for your reflections on that
because of your voting record and where you've stood on
(25:45):
this conflict.
Speaker 6 (25:46):
Yeah, well, I mean I one of the proudest moments
that I had in my last election where I just
won on the same ballot as Donald Trump, was that
I won a majority of Jewish voters in Michigan, we
have a large Jewish population, and I won Dearborn, Dearborn,
High and hand Tramick, the three Muslim dominated cities. Trump
won two out of the three. So I think the
(26:07):
thing that I would push back on is the voters.
They voters vote with their feet, right, we have a
moment in an election where they get to decide. And
there was no issue that was more difficult for me
in this last I would say six years, but certainly
in this last election other than this issue because it's personal.
I'm a Middle East analyst by training, and so what
(26:28):
I tried to do and why I think I managed
to win both those communities is call balls and strikes
literally up to this week on what's going on.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
So then let's talk a little bit more about that.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
But I think I think it's important, right, if you're
going to push on me, then I think like there's
one of us that's had an election and had to
appeal to my voters and win. And so it doesn't
surprise me at all that mister mom Donnie won or
actually I didn't.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
I didn't know his name. I didn't know much about
him until he one.
Speaker 6 (27:00):
But because I think this issue is motivating people in
a very visceral and personal way. Yeah, but it's not
the only issue that my voters in Michigan care about.
And the online world is extremely extremely focused on this,
but that doesn't always represent the majority. And I think
(27:20):
if I can push back, like if you, we do.
We're out on the road every day in Michigan. When
I'm there, in some communities, that issue is the number
one issue, one hundred percent, And like I mean up
till this morning, right, like people texting my phone and
talking about a plan some of the things we're working on.
But I go outside the Detroit area, it's not in
(27:42):
the top forty.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
But Senator, it's not just a political issue. It's also
a moral issue. It is when I'm trying to get
to So let's talk about those you know, calling and balls.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
And strikes, if you will.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
So, first of all, do you accept that Israel has
a policy of enforced famine and starvation in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
I think I literally put my name on a letter
yesterday or last night that says like a policy of starvation,
people are starting to starve. And in general, I mean
I served in places like Ramadi and Falluja.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
I watched in two thousand.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
And four and two thousand and five al Qaeda terrorists
drag American citizens behind a vehicle until they died, right
like horrible and then string them up like a lynching. Okay,
we still had a responsibility to get aid into Fallujah
despite the fact that we were fighting al Qaeda cells
in Fallujah, and I have been clear about that.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
So this is a this is a crime against humanity.
Sea is An's a crime against humanity.
Speaker 6 (28:42):
The occupying power has a responsibility to get aid into
the war zone, period.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
So by the law of war.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
So in addition, do you accept that the Israeli plan,
as reported by Haretz, as discussed openly by ministers like
Ben Gavern' Smotrich, as backed by the President of the
United States, is forced ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 6 (29:01):
I think we have as recently as yesterday the Prime
Minister of Israel talking about forced migration into certain areas
and then potentially out of the country. That is not legal,
that is not on the on any international standards. Since
World War Two, and I've been clear about that. So
(29:21):
I just I would ask for a little bit of
an open mind.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Well, what I would ask is, listen, I'm a YouTuber.
You know, I have my words, That's all I have.
But you're a United States senator like you have. You're
not the president, but you have power. So what are
you going to do? Because so far what we've seen,
I mean, you've you've voted for some of the aid
that's been used to massacre children and innocence. You know,
(29:49):
you have backed Israel as far as I can tell.
You know from your voting record at almost every turn
you voted for a definition of anti Semitism that would
you know, codify anti Zionism as anti Semitism. You voted
as a member of the House to sanction the ICC
for indicting Benjamin Netanyahu, who you just admitted is a
war criminal, you know by your own words. So are
(30:11):
you going to join Senator Angus King, Senator Bernie Sanders
and saying no more aid to this country that is
committing war crimes against innocent civilians.
Speaker 6 (30:21):
I think the first thing, if you're asking about what
to do with power, and I would I would offer
that right now, Democrats own nothing in Washington, so the
don't play powerless man.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Theyre not with me.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
You're a United States.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Senators can do in terms of who runs our foreign policy.
I just think it's interesting, right that there was a
ton of protests when Democrats were in charge.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
There was a protest in Manhattan yesterday.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
Okay, I think it's fair to say, just to be honest,
but back and forth, like the number of protests that
go on now.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Versus before they were part of your political coalition. Well,
that's fair obviously.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
I'm here. Yeah, I was very upset over the Biden
administration policy, and as you can tell, I'm very upset
of the Trump administration policy. So let's deal not in strawmen, but.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
In terms of what so the tools that I have,
the tools that we have in general, to me, the
most important thing is a pressurized campaign to get aid
into people who are starving. That to me is number
the number one, because that's the one is urgent and
today and that.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
But will you cut off aid to Israel so long
as they're committing crimes against you?
Speaker 6 (31:26):
Managed I there is a difference between a weapon to
protect a country from incoming missiles versus other type. Offensive
and defensive weapons are different.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
So it would just support offensive weapons, man like would
you stop any offensive aid to Israel?
Speaker 1 (31:44):
That certainly to me would be a place to look.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
But I'm not going to cut off a blanket next
Saale on a defensive weapon.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Also, now, I also reject that because for example, if
Senator Sakin, if you were asked to support defensive weapons
for Iran, defensive weapons for Russia, you.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Wouldn't back that. No, but Iran, I mean, but.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
They're defensive, They're just protecting civilians, right, Wow, is it different?
Speaker 1 (32:10):
But because Israel is being shot at I mean is Iran?
Speaker 3 (32:14):
So is Russia crane shooting at Russia right now?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
I'm sorry. This is the difference between allies, partners and ad.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
The series.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
What are they doing right now? Which makes it an ally?
Speaker 6 (32:25):
I think allied relationships just like Lithuania right now, like
an allied relationship or a partner relationship is a long
standing relationship of information sharing and diplomacy. And that is
to me, it's not a like every day we decide
(32:45):
Lithuania is our ally or not, we're allied or not,
and sometimes we have big breaks with allies right. Sometimes
we have difficult moments with allies. Sometimes it goes the
wrong way with allies, but an allied relationship is a.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Long term relationship.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
It's hard for me to understand why we should ally,
like I'm sure you believe in like our claims to
believe in liberal human rights. Why would we would ally
with a nation that is committing a genocide in livestream?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Can I ask literally like this?
Speaker 6 (33:13):
I think about this from the mirror image way because
I am not I do not support the things that
Donald Trump is doing right, But I'm an American. So
do I want other countries to look at America and
be like, we don't. We can't stand Donald Trump. So
we're going to end any long standing relationship we have
with the American people. We're going to cut off any
(33:34):
support we give them on information sharing or intelligence sharing,
like we are not just our elected leaders. And I
think that's the thing that's been lost.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Do you in action? So bets Sellem and another Israeli
human rights organization joined the Global Consensus am the international
some eight hundred scholars. There was a piece from an
Israeli scholar the New York Times in saying this is
a genocide? Do you accept even Marjorie Tailor green Assary
akme out and said as a genocide? Do you accept that?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
And if you do?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
I mean, what responsibility does the United States senator have
for this is a nation that you know we send
every year billions of dollars to a to aid that
you have, you know, voted for and supported. Like, what
responsibility does the United States senator have to prevent genocide
and to stop genocide that we see ongoing?
Speaker 6 (34:22):
We have a responsibility up till today to ensure that
food is getting in?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Is that a genicide?
Speaker 6 (34:29):
Don't starve? I don't know that I'd use that term.
What it is using it is violating the law of war.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Why don't you use the term though.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Because I think you know it's to me if it
is if do I think it's ethnic cleansing, which is
what I think of genocide? I don't know if it
meets that definition there?
Speaker 3 (34:48):
Can you say it earlier that it was ethnic cleansing?
He said that they wanted to force I mean, this
is open from the Israeli government like they're saying it
there national security. They come out and they're like we
need we don't need shells we don't need we need els,
not food, and we need to encourage migration like.
Speaker 6 (35:02):
They're saying, you're not going to get me to support
what the Israeli government is saying right now. I think
the point I was trying to make is it's not
just about like we have relationships with nations over time,
regardless of who their leaders are. We have really tough moments,
we have easier moments, but that doesn't So I'm not
willing to say that like I hate everything ever.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Sure, but so even if you accept that they're committing
a genocide, you still wouldn't cut off their aid.
Speaker 6 (35:32):
I think that defensive aid and offensive aid are different things.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
And I think at this point, so if they're.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Doing Germany single day, it's Nazi Germany said we want
defensive aid. I mean, it's just you have to see
where they're all weapons that are being shipped another.
Speaker 6 (35:47):
Using the weapons that they're using right now. I mean,
to be honest, if you look at what's happening on
the ground, the military part of this conflict is for
the most part, over what they are doing.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
What they are doing every single day around eight they
are hurting.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
The people who weren't trust trying starving people, just trying
to get eight.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
That is not how that's not high intensity bombs.
Speaker 6 (36:10):
That's not the weapons that you that we were talking
about two years ago.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
It's just not I'm sorry.
Speaker 6 (36:15):
Every single day the military reports that I read, they
are traditional like this is a military that has a
bad strategy.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
It is not the bombs that we were seeing two years.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
It's not a military that has a bad strategy. The
strategy is for starvation. That is not a head of
their strategy and their effect, and they're accomplishing it very effectively,
with the full backing of the United States government, including
sadly Democrats, and so a couple more questions than I
know you have to run. You know, I'm curious why
you condemned Rashida Talib for using the rally chan, you know,
(36:49):
from the river to the sea. Something she said for
her evokes equal rights. And you have not condemned Randy Fine,
who said that Gosen should quote starve away, who floated
that the Gaza strip should be nukes, who called Ilhan
Omar and Rashiita to leave and so on as well
called the Muslim terrorists, whereas.
Speaker 6 (37:09):
Condemning I have no problem condemning Randy Fine, who I
don't know.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
I'm sorry, I don't know who that person is. I
have no problem condemning someone who talks like that.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Center. We have to ask your last question, because your
staff is telling us, do you think APAK should register
as a foreign lobby.
Speaker 6 (37:27):
I don't know the answer to that. I think that
I know plenty of people who think they should.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
You know, I don't kind of a cop out answer
doing at that.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
I mean, I literally, I just guess I'd have to
look at the definition. I certainly, I certainly have had
my tough moments with that organization, and.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
So you stop accepting their funding. You gotta get you
got to get your facts straight. I have not been
endorsed by APAK.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
I have not. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
I was the first jew you were elected to the
Senate that was not endorsed by any Jewish group APEC J.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Street.
Speaker 2 (38:02):
You've been the recipient of their funds.
Speaker 6 (38:04):
In twenty eighteen when I first ran people who were members. Yes,
but I've not been endorsed since then. And I just
got to be honest, like, I think that this is
where facts really matter. I've had very, very difficult conversations
with my colleagues and that organization and made a choice
back in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty one, so that
(38:26):
was my the first time I was up for reelection.
So I understand that there's a sort of like again
cornered position. But to me, like I call balls and strikes,
as someone who served in the.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Middle East, I do I have one more question I
have to ask you. You know, we do the show,
I really do my best to try to uphold, like
you know, basic human rights, Palestinian humanity, oppose the killing
of innocent civilians wherever that happens, and I, as I
tell you, like, I feel really guilty that I'm not
(38:59):
doing enough. I think all the time about I'm a mom.
I think all the time about those moms who can't
feed their babies. Those babies are starving to death. And
I just want to know, like you're a United States senator,
you did vote for some of the bombs that were
dropped on refugee camps. Kids have been sniped in the head,
(39:20):
tense fire bombed, people set on fire, the entire Gaza
strip turned into rubble, and now we're seeing these emaciated
bodies of babies starving to death every day, and I
just I mean, I'm like, know what you can do?
Does it eat you up? Does it eat you up?
Do you think, like what more could I do? Do
(39:42):
you regret any of your votes?
Speaker 1 (39:43):
I regret.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
This morning a group of Jewish rabbis and Muslim community
leaders came together with a proposal that we are working on.
I'm just getting like, if we can't get other aid in,
at least get baby formula and nutritional supplements for children.
It let that be kind of a green light. Never
has a problem. No one's trying to eat baby formula
(40:06):
other than a baby, right. That is the proposal that
I've been working on all night and this morning. So
in terms of what we're trying to do, there's not
a moment that goes by that this isn't something that
I'm working on and something that my own community, not online,
but my own community has practical things that they want
to do. They're willing to raise the money, they're willing
(40:26):
to buy the formula, They're willing to do whatever we.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Need to do to get it shipped in.
Speaker 6 (40:30):
That's how I spend my time, But that is how
it is to me that to me, is the most
effective thing that I can do today.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
This is set a question.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Your staff is telling us you absolutely have to go.
So we appreciate your time. Thank you very much for
coming on.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
Okay, thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
We will see you all tomorrow. Our counterpoints. We'll see
you all tomorrow.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 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. Let's get to tariffs now. There has been
a major announcement from Donald Trump while he was broad
about the European Union and a trade deal that's been
really been reached between these two blocks.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Here's what you have to say.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
We are agreeing that the tariff straight across for automobiles
and everything else will be a straight across tariff of
fifteen percent.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
We are known as a tough negotiator and deal maker
fun and what is it fun?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We are successful.
Speaker 6 (01:09):
I think it would be the biggest dealstruct so I'm
very much ever strugg.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
So that is the circumstances. There she was, he was pictured,
you know, with the EU President vander Lyon. It is
kind of an insane deal, and I'll try and get
into the broad strokes of it. So first of all,
people need to understand he is meeting there with the
European Union. Now, the European Union has the ability to
negotiate trade agreements and blocks, but doesn't have the full
(01:38):
authority to actually command its countries to do that. All right,
this sounds pretty important, by the way, this is why
the entire European Union is stupid idea.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
But that's the secondary question.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
You have France and Germany who have criticized, the two
major economic powers within the who are critical of the deal.
The deal that's been signed now by the European Union. Now,
the European Union is saying we are pledging. But the
crux of the deal is basically to set a base
tariff rate of fifteen percent. Let me just put that
up at the top. There's gonna be a fifteen percent
tariffs on goods. By the way, it actually includes pharmaceuticals,
(02:10):
which was previously exempt from a lot of This is
essentially a flat tariff across the board on all that
in exchange for lowering the tariff rate and including there's
some other stuff that's in the deal. The EU, and
this is the one touted most by Trump, is going
to spend some six hundred billion US dollars by purchasing
US natural gas supplies and others. That's part the key
(02:33):
deal that's being sold to Americans right now. I want
people to understand that there is zero enforcement on that
zero So let me go ahead and put D four
up here on the screen. And I've heard a lot
pushback from MAGA folks lately. Oh, you're such a hater,
and all the listen. I'm a hater because I'm pro protectionism,
I'm pro protecting American business investment and all of that.
(02:56):
I am not pro fake promises from people that have
no authority to actually make them. So here, the European
Union admits it cannot guarantee their six hundred billion dollar
promise to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
The extra investments pledged under the trade deal would have
to come from private companies, which Brussel concedes it has
no power to control. Let me reiterate that. Brussel says
it has no power to actually invest the touted six
hundred big billion dollars of European Union money into the
Wall Street Journal sorry, into the US over the coming years,
(03:30):
and in fact, quote the money would have to come
exclusively from private European companies, with public investment contributing nothing,
which means that these private companies would have to make
the Now can the government lean on the private company?
I guess, But you know, if they're going to lean
on the company, then maybe we would have to after
offer them something in return.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
This is the problem, right.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
And then secondary to all of this is pledge around
gas and actually buying.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
A lot of US natural gas supplies.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Well, everything I've read now so far, there is this
zero expectation that all of that money will actually be
will eventually end up in the hands of US gas suppliers.
Why we don't have the supply. We don't barely have
a supply currently. It also depends on the supply infrastructure
here in America, which by the way, we don't have
very much of at least her right now. And it
(04:20):
would basically require the EU to increase even more than
it currently is, which is causing consternation in their domestic markets,
their reliance on European on American energy. So those are
like the two cruxes, right, the six hundred billion of
investment and buying natural gas in exchange for the so
called fifteen percent flat tariff.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
That's the deal.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
I mean, look, it's better than what fifty sixty percent
or whatever people can say, you know previously, Yeah, fine,
but you know in terms of Trump had also been
Trump had put in previously. So that's why I'm going
crazy at all these people who are like, hey, guys,
like you know, we need to admit here that the
truth is is that Trump succeeded. Hold on a second,
(05:01):
all right, It put in maximal tariffs, went from maximal
tariffs for what how long was it two weeks something
like that, from Liberation Day onward. The markets crash after
the market and the bond market react, they pull back
and say, actually is a pause on everything, and there's
all these like little mini tariffs everywhere. We're gonna do
all of these side deals, all of the side deals
(05:22):
that get postponed for some ninety to one hundred and
eighty days as they continue to go on with China.
And now within that context, after you've moved and als fair,
there's already been some market correction or reality of accepting
some of these tariffs. Then do you declare victory after
you're the ones who back down from your original position.
So that is a good lead in to the Bill
(05:43):
Maher and so I want people to understand this stuff.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
I'm not a hater. I want more, I want better
trading relationship.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I don't see a lot of this stuff in the
European Union other than a teriff for the sake of tariff.
I don't really see how this is going to increase
overall US investment and manufacturing. I'd love to be proven wrong,
but I just don't personally see it. All I see
is the S and P five hundred to go up,
because the reason it's going up is because people in
the big business knows that it's actually not going to
affect them all that much. So that's the context through
(06:10):
which Bill Maher now says quote I got to own it,
and gives Trump saying that the terroff didn't sink the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Let's take a list.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
The truth is, I don't know what his strategy is,
but look, the stock market is at record highs. I
know not everybody lives by the stock market. But I
also drive around. I don't see a country and a
depression at all. I see people out there just living
their lives. And I would have thought, and I got
to own it, that the cut that these tariffs were
(06:40):
going to fucking sing this economy by this time, and
they didn't.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
The reason why is because those maximum tariffs on China,
which actually would have sunk the economy, are not currently
in place. Okay, and let's get into that little China
tariff deal, shall we. Let's put D five here up
on the screen, just so people know. Because the number
one reason we're supposed to be concerned about trade with
China and all that is our own personal domestic market.
And right now Trump has actually frozen export controls to
(07:10):
secure the trade deal with China. Now I would say, Ai,
you know, this is what they always say the most
important future part of our business, which runs on these
Nvidia H twenty trips chips, which previously the Trump administration
was going to freeze for our export to China. The
Trump as part of the current negotiations with China, has
actually blocked that export control, allowing Nvidia to continue exporting
(07:35):
those chips to China basically because and you'll all recall this,
Jensen Lang paid five million dollars to have dinner with
Trump down in mar A Lago. That's how this all happened. Now,
whether you support this or not, that's not really how
we should be making national security policy, is it. Check?
Can we all agree with that? And you know, people
I know who are real China protectionists are freaking out
(07:56):
about this, including Steve Bannon, who is quoted here in
this article. But it's basically giving away the store on
Ai before there's even some sort of negotiation. By the way,
let me also note this, the Trump administration today did
something which they would have beat.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
The hell out of Biden for doing.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
They blocked the Taiwani's president from transitting through New York
to Central America on a trip he was also supposed
to participate in an event in Dallas. This is a
top ten trading partner of the United States. But because
the Chinese are upset every time this dude even transits
through America, they blocked him in the midst of their
trade negotiation. You can be fine with that if you want.
(08:34):
I would call that capitulation. Whenever we're talking about a
major trading partner. That's the reality of the trade deals
that we all have right now. Yeah, Japan's going to
buy more rice. Congrats to them, are shitty rice. You know,
the Japan is not going to open its market to
US cars. Nobody there wants them. Guarantee you that. The
European Union, fine, they're paying fifteen percent tariff, and they
(08:57):
made all this fake ass promises to buy natural gas
and to invest money. It's all bullshit from what I'm
looking at right now, I guess we should say, fine,
let's not tell them that it is.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Because then we can go anymore. Maybe it's better the alternative, it's.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Better than what was promised. I mean, that's the thing.
Like Bill Maher not known for his economic attention to detail.
We'll recall the moment I had with him where he
had no idea that the stock market had crashed during COVID,
and then there were all sorts of extraordinary efforts to
make sure that that didn't happen, and again in the
bond market season. However, so he's not known for really
following the ins and the outs of these things. Let's
just say, but you know, I also I'm so frustrated
(09:33):
with the press just takes it face value. Like Trump
will say, oh, we got this deal and here's what
it is, blah blah blah, and they just like write
that up. And we've had multiple times now where after
the fact you learn like, oh, by the way, that
you know, six hundred billion dollars or whatever, we actually
aren't really in a position to compel that or promise that.
With the Japanese deal, after Trump made his big announcement,
then the Japanese came and said, that's not actually what
(09:56):
we really agreed to. So I don't know when they're
going to learn the lesson of way to beat look
into the details, find out what's real and what's not
before you give him his glowing report of Oh, President
Trump wins again. I was on with Peers Morgan yesterday
and Crystal why can't you give why can't the Democrats
give Trump credit? It's like, because there's there's nothing here
(10:17):
to give credit for. It's the difference between also what
was sold the ninety deals in ninety days and how
everyone's going to come begging and it's going to be
this incredible renaissance and whatever, and the reality of these
sort of like half assed faked deals, which, by the way,
the part of it that actually has teeth. The fifteen
percent tariff on pharmaceuticals very likely to further drive up
(10:40):
costs for medicine here in the US. And what we've
said from the beginning is there's no industrial policy on
the other side to actually help create Okay you want, yes,
I agree pharmaceuticals should be manufactured here. You don't achieve
that just by slapping a tariffop. You need to have
concerted industrial policy, of which there is none. So that's
where we are. But I do think there will be
a perception of, oh, this guy didn't fall and you
(11:01):
guys said it was, because yeah, I think there will
be a little bit of that. But on the other hand,
when you look at the polling, it's not like people
are satisfied with the economy. You've got them doing the
same thing that you know, we heard Democrats doing last
Although the stock market's doing well, so everybody must be
doing well. No, most people don't feel like that.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
It is.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, I'll just send that on. You know, how did
that work out for the Biden people? The S and
P had what two record years under Joe Biden. One
down year. Does that mean that the economy was better
in twenty twenty four because of the S and P
five hundred? Obviously not all right, and that was that
was acknowledged. So anyway, this stupid way to track things,
but nobody particularly cares about the details. For those of
us who do, that's you can have it all right. Now,
(11:41):
we've got Senator A. Lissa Slockin standing by. Let's get
to it. Joining us now is Senator ALYSSA. Slockin of
Michigan Center. Thank you very much for joining us. Weally
appreciate having me.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
We have a very limited amount of time.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
This is the Internet, so you're here, and it's important
that we ask some of the questions that are animating
some of the younger voters and others. I assume that
part of the reason now you here, the first is
about Jeffrey Epstein. It's the story that's really captured a
lot of America's interest. So you're a former CIA officer,
do you think that Jeffrey Epstein had any connections to
US or Israeli intelligence agencies?
Speaker 6 (12:13):
So, not that I've ever seen or heard, but there's
really no I haven't asked, but you know this is
like a solvable question because President Trump's CIA director John
Radcliffe can answer.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
This question right.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
There is no shortage of people in this administration who
can answer that question. I would be very surprised. I'm
gonna be honest. I know your views on it. I
would be surprised. But I'm like a Middle East analyst.
I was doing my time going after terrorist groups and
militias in Iraq, and so I just I never saw it.
I never heard anything about that. I again would be surprised.
(12:48):
But there's an easy way to.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Solve that problem. Well that's the question.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Then. So in terms of you've expressed some concern about
classified information, etc. In the past, would you be fine
then with the full release of the Trump epscene files,
even if they did reveal an intelligence connection.
Speaker 6 (13:03):
Yeah, I mean I think at this point, like it's
just it's such a distraction from in my mind, like
what I really care about, which is helping people like
live well in Michigan.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Just get it over with and get it out. And
this wasn't like my issue.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
It's still not the thing that you know, wakes me
up in the morning and I want to work on.
But I think it's it's okay to say it's a
full distraction. Now in Washington, everyone's talking about it, So
just unveil it, do whatever you need to do, answer
the questions, and move past.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Well that's the last question then.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
So there's some accusations here from the Republicans on Epstein
here just about you know, why didn't you care for
four years? I know you asked the question in twenty
twenty you said I don't care particularly about Bill Clinton,
et cetera. I mean that's somewhat understandable, but you know,
we do have like a person circumstances, let to let alone,
you know, the sex trafficking organization, others. So you know,
why don't you answer that question? Like why is this now?
(13:55):
Is the time that you do get yeah, and obviously
really care.
Speaker 6 (13:57):
It's I mean, it's horrible when you have a pile
and someone who had a literal pyramid scheme of recruiting
fourteen and fifteen year old girls for illegal sex.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
I mean, it's horrible.
Speaker 6 (14:09):
At the time, I mean I sort of saw it
as like one of these horrible stories that comes out
every five months, you know, about somebody. I think the
Weinstein thing had happened there weren't Michiganders to my knowledge
who were involved, you know, women, young girls who were involved.
So I kind of saw it as like a horrible moment,
but not particularly something that's like going to decide whether
(14:31):
someone in my state can buy a house or get
a good job. So to me, it was just like
a It wasn't like a strategic issue right for me,
And then now it just is like grown And I
think there is a difference between saying some rich guy
or a former politician was named in those things versus
(14:51):
the president of the United States. That to me is
is apples to oranges, because one of them is leading
the free.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
World and one of them's not. Sof his name is
in there as.
Speaker 6 (15:01):
It appears, it is just like deal with it and
let's get on with it. At this point, and you know,
my ten year old nephew understands that the president is
trying to dodge, trying to distract, trying to talk about
other things.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
He hates answering this question, like we get it.
Speaker 6 (15:18):
So it feels off to the average person, Right to
a ten year old, they're like.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Did he do something right?
Speaker 6 (15:26):
So just get through it, get it out, and let's
move on. To real sorry for me, like real economic issues.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
So then if piece of legislation comes forward, you would
vote for it to support the release of the file. Okay,
all right, So then let's talk about the future to
the Democratic Party, and that's something you've been interested in.
Democratic approval hit an all time low from the Wall
Street Journal. At the same time we've seen the rise
more recently anti establishment candidates, people like.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Zor On Mom Donnie.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Give us some of your thoughts there about the future
of the Democratic Party and particularly in the context of
Mam Donnie's victory.
Speaker 6 (15:55):
And yeah, well, I guess as a good Midwesterner and
miss Scander, I'm never going to say that what happens
in New York City represents all of America.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Sorry, We're a big country.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
And I would never pretend to totally understand New York
City politics. I didn't particularly understand Eric Adams, I didn't
particularly understand, like.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I genuinely right, But.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
I think the message and the hot take out of
that election is actually not terribly dissimilar from what we
heard in the November election when Trump won, right, which
is people are still focused on the cost of living
and not being able to achieve what they thought they
could achieve, right, and then number two, people are looking
for a new generation of leadership. I don't think it's
(16:36):
hard to miss those hot takes. I can have plenty
of disagreements with what I've heard mister mom Donnie propose,
and I do. But that message coming out of that election,
what do you disagree with? Just I'm like, my family
was a fourth generation hot dog business, like I am
here because we live the American dream through capitalism and
(16:57):
so like a lot of free stuff to me is
not the answer.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I don't think it's sustainable.
Speaker 6 (17:03):
I don't think that it actually fixes the underlying problem.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So, but I can have those disagreements.
Speaker 6 (17:10):
I think this is the like I would be thrilled
to have that conversation with him or anyone else about like, Hey,
let's we agree that there's an economic problem here.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
What we do to solve it.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
Let's have that debate and adults can debate and not
like want to kill each other's children.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Well, let's talk then about leadership. So you just talked
about that. We see a lot of that from our show,
some of the democratic side of our audience. Furi is
with democratic leadership. I mean, do you still support Chuck
Schumer's leadership here isn't given an interview in about a month.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 6 (17:39):
I mean for me, I mean, I've now served in
the Senate for six months in the House before that, Him,
Chuck Schumer and Kim Jeffries have hard jobs like herding cats.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's not fun.
Speaker 6 (17:52):
I've said for a very long time, long before I
got into the Senate and long before President Biden dropped out,
that we need a new generation of leaders ships, leadership.
You can feel it in and I think at this point,
I mean especially New York. Right You're looking at New York,
It's like I'd rather roll the dice with someone new
than have like the warmed over leftovers that I've already known.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
So I think we have a problem with that across
the board.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
And I think one of the things I can do
as the youngest Democratic woman in the Senate, and you
know I'm not young, I'm just young for the Senate,
to be clear, young for us, yeah, I mean, is
push on that and try to give younger leaders a
voice in this party in a very real way. And
(18:39):
to me, that's upward pressure, that pressure that you're talking
about from the people is good.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
So then shouldn't they endorse him? I mean, what kind
of a message Schumer and Jeffery shouldn't they endorse from
New York. I'm Johnny, they're vote New Yorkers, And what
kind of a message does it send if, like, I mean,
this guy won the Democratic primary. Yeah, he is the
Democratic nominee. It was overwhelming. If that and the centrist
leadership of the parties, we can't get by.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
I mean, you just asked me before we started the
exact same question about the Michigan Senate primary, and I'm like,
Michigan Democrats don't get involved in primaries. We all are friends,
so I can't speak to what they're doing. I think
I hope that they're meeting. I mean, if this person is.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
They did, and Kim Jeffrey still refused to endorse them.
I mean, think about it from this context. Like, let's
say in twenty twenty eight, a more moderate figure wins
the Democratic primary and a bunch of progressives, AOC or
whoever says we're not backing, we don't agree with you.
I feel like you would have a problem with that.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
Yeah, I mean, I think I will say this the
way that this party works is when there's a coalition
that sticks together. That's like a numbers issue, that's a
data issue, and so I'm always going to be someone
who's trying to find unity. That doesn't mean we all
agree with each other, and I think I don't. I
wasn't in the conversations where they met privately, they debated
(20:00):
what they talked about. I don't know. But to me,
we got to figure out what's common among all Democrats
right now. And that's why I focus on the economy
because that is to me, the cost of living and
people not being able to achieve what their parents achieved
is the existential issue of our time. Is the unifying
issue of like all the right wing, left wing, like Americans,
(20:23):
I don't even think it's a Democratic party thing. And
to me, that's where I spend my time because I
think eighty percent of my constituents in Michigan that's where
they live. Is like, I just want to be able
to go to Disneyland and take my kids the way
my dad took me. So that's where I focus on.
I'm happy to sit down with any leader. I can't
speak to their particular decision to endorse or not I'm
(20:45):
not endorsing in my own right.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
But just guess he won the primary, right, that's my question.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
That's what's different.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
And they have another election though, yeah, a general election,
yet he is a Democratic nominee, I.
Speaker 6 (20:57):
Say, I say, I'm sorry. This is why I'm saying.
I don't follow New York politics and the I think
the the you'd have.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
To ask them, I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (21:07):
I know that for me, whoever wins the Democratic primary
in the state of Michigan for the Senate seat that's up,
that's why I will endorse, regardless of who it is.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
That was my last question. So I'm sure it's Chris.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Yeah, So, I mean, I guess I'm actually a little curious,
and forgive me if this is in polite, like, I'm
curious why you wanted to talk to us?
Speaker 1 (21:25):
What do you mean, well, like what we.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Don't have Actually a lot of senators, especially ones who
have very different ideology than us, reach out. So I'm
curious what your goal was and why you thought to
come here.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Well, first of all, I think you have a good audience.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
I mean, right, we agree you if you spoke to
if you if you appeal to like four friends on
YouTube or whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Then I probably wouldn't be here.
Speaker 6 (21:48):
But I think, to me, part of the problem is
that people have kind of gone to their corners.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And I live this right.
Speaker 6 (21:56):
I live on my family farm in a town that
voted heavily for down Donald Trump. I've never won my town.
I've never won my precinct. I've never won my neighbors.
We get along, but it never won them and I
probably never will. So to me, I think that the
people have gone to their corners, and like people who
used to be able to talk about politics and disagree
(22:18):
don't even get in the same room together. So I
kind of like the idea of your show, Like it
was interesting to me when my team pitched me.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, we go through and like there's no hiding it.
Speaker 6 (22:28):
Lots of people are like, how do we evolve in
this new space? You know, Like that's not a you know,
it's not that that conversation isn't happening.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
It is.
Speaker 6 (22:38):
And I think that's good and to the credit of
lots of shows like yours, But I think your show
appealed to me as I was being pitched because you
guys don't agree, and I am very focused. My dad
was a lifelong Republican, my mom, a lifelong Democrat. Like
Michiganders want to get back to a place where we
can disagree on politics and not have it be so
(23:00):
like bitter.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So I hear you on the idea of like you
want to talk about the economics and the unifying and
cost of living, and I think that ignores a big
elephant in the room, especially when you're talking about even
soor on Mom Donnie. The reason Hakeeen, Jeffries, and Chuck
Schumer don't want to endorse him is because of his
position on Israel. The single most viral clip that he
had in that election actually wasn't about cost of living,
(23:24):
even though that's what he wanted to make his campaign about.
His opponent, Sandra Cuomo in particular, wanted to make it
all about accusing him of anti Semitism and attacking him
for his views on Israel and Palestine. So the most
viral moment from that entire campaign, I believe, was this
moment on the debate stage. Guys, this is E one,
(23:46):
and go ahead and play this for you, and then
I want to get your reaction, mister mom.
Speaker 7 (23:49):
Donnie, I would stay in New York City, my plans
are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and
focus on that.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Mister Mom Donnie, can I just jump in, would you
visit Israel?
Speaker 1 (24:00):
I'm mayor.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
I will be doing as the mayor. I'll be standing
up for Jewish New Yorkers and I'll be meeting them
wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in
their synagogues and temples, or at their homes or at
the subway platform, because ultimately we need to focus on
delivering on their concerns.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yes, we also know do you believe in a Jewish
state of Israel?
Speaker 7 (24:17):
I believe Israel has the right to exist as a
Jewish state, as a state with equal rights.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Now, this was considered very controversial when he said it,
and I think the results are in at this point
that he didn't win in spite of his position there.
He won in part because of it, including if you
listen to Andrew Cuomo's numbers, he won a majority of
Jewish voters inside of New York City. And so what
I'm curious for your view on is, while you know
I would love to debate you on your healthcare policy,
(24:44):
I think we need medicare for all you think public option,
you're housing policy, etc. I'm just being really real with you.
I don't really hear what you say if you are
still supporting a genocide in Gaza. And that's for me,
you know, I'm speaking for myself, but I know there
are millions of other people who feel the same that
(25:04):
you have to at least cross this sort of moral
threshold and what it indicates to people. And I think
part of why you know zor on one so many
people in New York City, young people in particular, but
Jewish New Yorkers people across the board, is because it
was a sign of Number one, Okay, you're focused on
New York City first and foremost. Number two, you're willing
(25:25):
to take the heat on an issue that is really
difficult for you, where you're being overtly smeared as an
anti semi And number three, there's no you know, entrenched
interest that's going to control You have a spine, you
have principles, you're willing to stand up for something, and
so you know, I'm curious for your reflections on that
because of your voting record and where you've stood on
(25:45):
this conflict.
Speaker 6 (25:46):
Yeah, well, I mean I one of the proudest moments
that I had in my last election where I just
won on the same ballot as Donald Trump, was that
I won a majority of Jewish voters in Michigan, we
have a large Jewish population, and I won Dearborn, Dearborn,
High and hand Tramick, the three Muslim dominated cities. Trump
won two out of the three. So I think the
(26:07):
thing that I would push back on is the voters.
They voters vote with their feet, right, we have a
moment in an election where they get to decide. And
there was no issue that was more difficult for me
in this last I would say six years, but certainly
in this last election other than this issue because it's personal.
I'm a Middle East analyst by training, and so what
(26:28):
I tried to do and why I think I managed
to win both those communities is call balls and strikes
literally up to this week on what's going on.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
So then let's talk a little bit more about that.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
But I think I think it's important, right, if you're
going to push on me, then I think like there's
one of us that's had an election and had to
appeal to my voters and win. And so it doesn't
surprise me at all that mister mom Donnie won or
actually I didn't.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
I didn't know his name. I didn't know much about
him until he one.
Speaker 6 (27:00):
But because I think this issue is motivating people in
a very visceral and personal way. Yeah, but it's not
the only issue that my voters in Michigan care about.
And the online world is extremely extremely focused on this,
but that doesn't always represent the majority. And I think
(27:20):
if I can push back, like if you, we do.
We're out on the road every day in Michigan. When
I'm there, in some communities, that issue is the number
one issue, one hundred percent, And like I mean up
till this morning, right, like people texting my phone and
talking about a plan some of the things we're working on.
But I go outside the Detroit area, it's not in
(27:42):
the top forty.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
But Senator, it's not just a political issue. It's also
a moral issue. It is when I'm trying to get
to So let's talk about those you know, calling and balls.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
And strikes, if you will.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
So, first of all, do you accept that Israel has
a policy of enforced famine and starvation in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
I think I literally put my name on a letter
yesterday or last night that says like a policy of starvation,
people are starting to starve. And in general, I mean
I served in places like Ramadi and Falluja.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
I watched in two thousand.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
And four and two thousand and five al Qaeda terrorists
drag American citizens behind a vehicle until they died, right
like horrible and then string them up like a lynching. Okay,
we still had a responsibility to get aid into Fallujah
despite the fact that we were fighting al Qaeda cells
in Fallujah, and I have been clear about that.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
So this is a this is a crime against humanity.
Sea is An's a crime against humanity.
Speaker 6 (28:42):
The occupying power has a responsibility to get aid into
the war zone, period.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
So by the law of war.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
So in addition, do you accept that the Israeli plan,
as reported by Haretz, as discussed openly by ministers like
Ben Gavern' Smotrich, as backed by the President of the
United States, is forced ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 6 (29:01):
I think we have as recently as yesterday the Prime
Minister of Israel talking about forced migration into certain areas
and then potentially out of the country. That is not legal,
that is not on the on any international standards. Since
World War Two, and I've been clear about that. So
(29:21):
I just I would ask for a little bit of
an open mind.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Well, what I would ask is, listen, I'm a YouTuber.
You know, I have my words, That's all I have.
But you're a United States senator like you have. You're
not the president, but you have power. So what are
you going to do? Because so far what we've seen,
I mean, you've you've voted for some of the aid
that's been used to massacre children and innocence. You know,
(29:49):
you have backed Israel as far as I can tell.
You know from your voting record at almost every turn
you voted for a definition of anti Semitism that would
you know, codify anti Zionism as anti Semitism. You voted
as a member of the House to sanction the ICC
for indicting Benjamin Netanyahu, who you just admitted is a
war criminal, you know by your own words. So are
(30:11):
you going to join Senator Angus King, Senator Bernie Sanders
and saying no more aid to this country that is
committing war crimes against innocent civilians.
Speaker 6 (30:21):
I think the first thing, if you're asking about what
to do with power, and I would I would offer
that right now, Democrats own nothing in Washington, so the
don't play powerless man.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Theyre not with me.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
You're a United States.
Speaker 6 (30:34):
Senators can do in terms of who runs our foreign policy.
I just think it's interesting, right that there was a
ton of protests when Democrats were in charge.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
There was a protest in Manhattan yesterday.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
Okay, I think it's fair to say, just to be honest,
but back and forth, like the number of protests that
go on now.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Versus before they were part of your political coalition. Well,
that's fair obviously.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
I'm here. Yeah, I was very upset over the Biden
administration policy, and as you can tell, I'm very upset
of the Trump administration policy. So let's deal not in strawmen, but.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
In terms of what so the tools that I have,
the tools that we have in general, to me, the
most important thing is a pressurized campaign to get aid
into people who are starving. That to me is number
the number one, because that's the one is urgent and
today and that.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
But will you cut off aid to Israel so long
as they're committing crimes against you?
Speaker 6 (31:26):
Managed I there is a difference between a weapon to
protect a country from incoming missiles versus other type. Offensive
and defensive weapons are different.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
So it would just support offensive weapons, man like would
you stop any offensive aid to Israel?
Speaker 1 (31:44):
That certainly to me would be a place to look.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
But I'm not going to cut off a blanket next
Saale on a defensive weapon.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Also, now, I also reject that because for example, if
Senator Sakin, if you were asked to support defensive weapons
for Iran, defensive weapons for Russia, you.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
Wouldn't back that. No, but Iran, I mean, but.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
They're defensive, They're just protecting civilians, right, Wow, is it different?
Speaker 1 (32:10):
But because Israel is being shot at I mean is Iran?
Speaker 3 (32:14):
So is Russia crane shooting at Russia right now?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
I'm sorry. This is the difference between allies, partners and ad.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
The series.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
What are they doing right now? Which makes it an ally?
Speaker 6 (32:25):
I think allied relationships just like Lithuania right now, like
an allied relationship or a partner relationship is a long
standing relationship of information sharing and diplomacy. And that is
to me, it's not a like every day we decide
(32:45):
Lithuania is our ally or not, we're allied or not,
and sometimes we have big breaks with allies right. Sometimes
we have difficult moments with allies. Sometimes it goes the
wrong way with allies, but an allied relationship is a.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Long term relationship.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
It's hard for me to understand why we should ally,
like I'm sure you believe in like our claims to
believe in liberal human rights. Why would we would ally
with a nation that is committing a genocide in livestream?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Can I ask literally like this?
Speaker 6 (33:13):
I think about this from the mirror image way because
I am not I do not support the things that
Donald Trump is doing right, But I'm an American. So
do I want other countries to look at America and
be like, we don't. We can't stand Donald Trump. So
we're going to end any long standing relationship we have
with the American people. We're going to cut off any
(33:34):
support we give them on information sharing or intelligence sharing,
like we are not just our elected leaders. And I
think that's the thing that's been lost.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Do you in action? So bets Sellem and another Israeli
human rights organization joined the Global Consensus am the international
some eight hundred scholars. There was a piece from an
Israeli scholar the New York Times in saying this is
a genocide? Do you accept even Marjorie Tailor green Assary
akme out and said as a genocide? Do you accept that?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
And if you do?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
I mean, what responsibility does the United States senator have
for this is a nation that you know we send
every year billions of dollars to a to aid that
you have, you know, voted for and supported. Like, what
responsibility does the United States senator have to prevent genocide
and to stop genocide that we see ongoing?
Speaker 6 (34:22):
We have a responsibility up till today to ensure that
food is getting in?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Is that a genicide?
Speaker 6 (34:29):
Don't starve? I don't know that I'd use that term.
What it is using it is violating the law of war.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Why don't you use the term though.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Because I think you know it's to me if it
is if do I think it's ethnic cleansing, which is
what I think of genocide? I don't know if it
meets that definition there?
Speaker 3 (34:48):
Can you say it earlier that it was ethnic cleansing?
He said that they wanted to force I mean, this
is open from the Israeli government like they're saying it
there national security. They come out and they're like we
need we don't need shells we don't need we need els,
not food, and we need to encourage migration like.
Speaker 6 (35:02):
They're saying, you're not going to get me to support
what the Israeli government is saying right now. I think
the point I was trying to make is it's not
just about like we have relationships with nations over time,
regardless of who their leaders are. We have really tough moments,
we have easier moments, but that doesn't So I'm not
willing to say that like I hate everything ever.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Sure, but so even if you accept that they're committing
a genocide, you still wouldn't cut off their aid.
Speaker 6 (35:32):
I think that defensive aid and offensive aid are different things.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
And I think at this point, so if they're.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Doing Germany single day, it's Nazi Germany said we want
defensive aid. I mean, it's just you have to see
where they're all weapons that are being shipped another.
Speaker 6 (35:47):
Using the weapons that they're using right now. I mean,
to be honest, if you look at what's happening on
the ground, the military part of this conflict is for
the most part, over what they are doing.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
What they are doing every single day around eight they
are hurting.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
The people who weren't trust trying starving people, just trying
to get eight.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
That is not how that's not high intensity bombs.
Speaker 6 (36:10):
That's not the weapons that you that we were talking
about two years ago.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
It's just not I'm sorry.
Speaker 6 (36:15):
Every single day the military reports that I read, they
are traditional like this is a military that has a
bad strategy.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
It is not the bombs that we were seeing two years.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
It's not a military that has a bad strategy. The
strategy is for starvation. That is not a head of
their strategy and their effect, and they're accomplishing it very effectively,
with the full backing of the United States government, including
sadly Democrats, and so a couple more questions than I
know you have to run. You know, I'm curious why
you condemned Rashida Talib for using the rally chan, you know,
(36:49):
from the river to the sea. Something she said for
her evokes equal rights. And you have not condemned Randy Fine,
who said that Gosen should quote starve away, who floated
that the Gaza strip should be nukes, who called Ilhan
Omar and Rashiita to leave and so on as well
called the Muslim terrorists, whereas.
Speaker 6 (37:09):
Condemning I have no problem condemning Randy Fine, who I
don't know.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
I'm sorry, I don't know who that person is. I
have no problem condemning someone who talks like that.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Center. We have to ask your last question, because your
staff is telling us, do you think APAK should register
as a foreign lobby.
Speaker 6 (37:27):
I don't know the answer to that. I think that
I know plenty of people who think they should.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
You know, I don't kind of a cop out answer
doing at that.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
I mean, I literally, I just guess I'd have to
look at the definition. I certainly, I certainly have had
my tough moments with that organization, and.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
So you stop accepting their funding. You gotta get you
got to get your facts straight. I have not been
endorsed by APAK.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
I have not. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
I was the first jew you were elected to the
Senate that was not endorsed by any Jewish group APEC J.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Street.
Speaker 2 (38:02):
You've been the recipient of their funds.
Speaker 6 (38:04):
In twenty eighteen when I first ran people who were members. Yes,
but I've not been endorsed since then. And I just
got to be honest, like, I think that this is
where facts really matter. I've had very, very difficult conversations
with my colleagues and that organization and made a choice
back in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty one, so that
(38:26):
was my the first time I was up for reelection.
So I understand that there's a sort of like again
cornered position. But to me, like I call balls and strikes,
as someone who served in the.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Middle East, I do I have one more question I
have to ask you. You know, we do the show,
I really do my best to try to uphold, like
you know, basic human rights, Palestinian humanity, oppose the killing
of innocent civilians wherever that happens, and I, as I
tell you, like, I feel really guilty that I'm not
(38:59):
doing enough. I think all the time about I'm a mom.
I think all the time about those moms who can't
feed their babies. Those babies are starving to death. And
I just want to know, like you're a United States senator,
you did vote for some of the bombs that were
dropped on refugee camps. Kids have been sniped in the head,
(39:20):
tense fire bombed, people set on fire, the entire Gaza
strip turned into rubble, and now we're seeing these emaciated
bodies of babies starving to death every day, and I
just I mean, I'm like, know what you can do?
Does it eat you up? Does it eat you up?
Do you think, like what more could I do? Do
(39:42):
you regret any of your votes?
Speaker 1 (39:43):
I regret.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
This morning a group of Jewish rabbis and Muslim community
leaders came together with a proposal that we are working on.
I'm just getting like, if we can't get other aid in,
at least get baby formula and nutritional supplements for children.
It let that be kind of a green light. Never
has a problem. No one's trying to eat baby formula
(40:06):
other than a baby, right. That is the proposal that
I've been working on all night and this morning. So
in terms of what we're trying to do, there's not
a moment that goes by that this isn't something that
I'm working on and something that my own community, not online,
but my own community has practical things that they want
to do. They're willing to raise the money, they're willing
(40:26):
to buy the formula, They're willing to do whatever we.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Need to do to get it shipped in.
Speaker 6 (40:30):
That's how I spend my time, But that is how
it is to me that to me, is the most
effective thing that I can do today.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
This is set a question.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Your staff is telling us you absolutely have to go.
So we appreciate your time. Thank you very much for
coming on.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
Okay, thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
We will see you all tomorrow. Our counterpoints. We'll see
you all tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.