7/29/25: Trump Denies Epstein Island Visit, Epstein 'Wonderful Secret' With Trump Revealed, Israel Bans Gaza Destruction Filming

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump saying he didn't have privilege of going to Epstein's island, Epstein author reveals 'wonderful secret' with Trump, Israel bans filming Gaza destruction, Charlie Kirk says no starvation in Gaza.

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.

Episode Transcript

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.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing show for
everybody today.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
What do we have Crystal, It'd be an interesting one.
So we've got a bunch of Trump comments. He now
says that there are Epstein files, but some of them
are made up, so we'll break down the very latest there.
He's also admitting that there is starvation in Gaza. This
comes as new reporting indicates that he and the administration
are backing a full scale ethnic cleansing plan that the

(00:57):
Israelis are effectuating in the Gaza strips. So over all
down for you. Meanwhile, Charlie Kirk with a big propaganda
piece denying that any kids are actually starving to death
in the Gaza stripper and to take a look at that.
And also he recently hosted a focus group of young
conservatives and their views on Israel and Palestine, which was
pretty interesting, so I want to take a look at

(01:17):
that as well. We've got a new tariff deal announced
with the EU. We're going to take a look at
that and what it means and what it doesn't mean.
So sort through some of the fact from fiction. Kind
of a situation. And Senator Alissa Slotkin reached out to
us and wanted to come on the show, so we're
going to have her on today for a wide ranging conversation.
Should be an interesting one. I certainly have some questions

(01:38):
for her about Gaza, and you've got some questions about Epstein.
We've got a lot we want to get to that.

Speaker 3 (01:43):
Former CIA officers. Yeah, you know, we could certainly ask
her a lot. By the way, that is a reminder,
thank you all so much for our premium subscribers. You
guys enable our show to be able to do stuff
like that. There's a lot of logistics and other things
involved whenever you want to interview like a budding politician
here in Washington, just arranging everything's and all of that
really is thanks to the platform you guys enable, so
breakingpoints dot com if you're able to help us out.

(02:03):
We got monthly and yearly subscriptions. Obviously there's a lot
of benefits as well. But before we get to art. Now,
with all of that said, let's get to Jeffrey Epstein
and some new Trump comments. It's just not going away.
His new latest excuse is that he never went to
the island. He actually says, I never quote had the
privilege of going to the That's what he said, said,

(02:23):
I never had the privilege of going to the island.
And then actually some of the files themselves, some are real,
but the parts that show him are actually fake.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 4 (02:32):
I never went to the island, and Bill Clinton went
there supposedly twenty eight times. I never went to the island.
But Larry Summers, I hear went there. He was the
head of Harvard and many other people that are very
big people. Nobody ever talks about them. I never had
the privilege of going to his island, and I did

(02:52):
turn it down, but a lot of people in Palm
Beach were invited to his island. The whole thing was
a fake.

Speaker 5 (02:58):
They can put things in the a fake, But those
files were run by bad, sick people. If they had anything,
why didn't they use it when I was killing Joe
and then he gave out because he was twenty five
points down.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
Files were run by bad and sick people. They were
controlled by the Biden administration. That is the new line
you will remember though, I mean, this is part of
the thing where look, even from the FBI, they don't
concede that the quote Epstein files were ever in a
consolidated place. They've only were consolidated after Trump came into
office and the review was ordered, and they compiled these

(03:34):
one hundred thousand and so of documents, again according to
their own narrative, that were screened reviewed by the Trump administration,
it was only at that time that they started flagging
Trump's name. In fact, it may never have been an
effort previously to flag Trump's name or anybody's name, as
obvious from the Gallaine Maxwell stuff where the DJ never
had an interview with her and asked her about third
party connections. So the first actual effort by the US

(03:56):
government to assemble everything in one place and actually look
for anything or very least flag some stuff was under
the first Trumpet or second Trump administration today more recently,
where he had hundreds of FBI agents, again by the
FBI's own admission, actually compile a lot of these files.
And now presumably many of the leaks that are coming
out against Donald Trump are by people who were there and.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
Helped compile those documents. Very likely they never even looked at.

Speaker 3 (04:19):
Them in the past until very recently, and so now
apparently that's you know, the con job. But listen, I mean,
it continues to remain mystifying, and as he can see,
it's not going away. It's been weeks now of the
Epstein scan. He's sitting there in the UK, in Scotland,
still answering all of these different questions where you know,
they try this whole Glene Maxwell thing. We'll see pardon

(04:40):
you know, increasingly looks more likely unfortunate, which is insane.
But beyond that, you know, you're also watching how the
current effort, all of the obfuscation is still not quelling
a lot of the public interest. And so this is
he just keeps walking into these things of I never
had the privilege of going to the island.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
It's crazy. It's just crazy the way that he's talking about.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, I mean, it's hard to keep track of all
the different positions he's taken on these files at this point.
I mean, first it was we're going to release the files,
and then they were releasing the files the whole you know,
Binder Epstein, Binder Phase one or whatever it said, with
their influencers and their photo shoot. Then you had the
Epstein client list is on my desk from Pan Bondi

(05:21):
and we're reviewing hundreds of thousands of hours of footage
and that's why it's taking so long. Then you get
the memo, oh he killed himself, nothing to see here,
case clothes, We're moving on in a two page memo
and there is no incriminating client list. Then you get
there is a client list, but I'm not on it.
Then you get there is a client list. I may
be on it, but it's because it was fake. I mean,

(05:41):
it's just incredible, but it's also amazing because the general
public interest will continue. The as we covered yesterday, the
sort of More Independent or bro Comedy podcast fear, I
think continues to be skeptical and feel betrayed over all
of this. But I think that magabase is largely going
to be satisfied with the idea that like, oh, it's

(06:03):
a hoax, this is fake, it's a witch hunt. You know,
it's a setup by Crooked Hillary or Comy or Brunner
or whatever. Like the MAGA influencers have now gone along
with this, and I think they're basically buying it. So
the idea early on when he started saying these things
about like Obama wrote the files and we're like this
is insane, Like, who's gonna buy this? Well, now they've

(06:24):
bought it.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
That's where they are bought it.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
Okay, Yeah, you know there's seventy some percent of the
rest of the country there's like no, yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
I actually saw a pull from you Gov that a
majority of Americans believe that he's not releasing the files
because he's in the files, which is like, I mean,
very obvious and very logical.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
And now at this point act by the way, this
is my personal favorite video about Trump and Fstein. So
for years, the line from Trump and Epstein, according to
the White House, is that Trump ended his relationship with
Epstein because he was a creep. Trump now says the
reason that he ended his relationship with Epstein had nothing
to do with that, and it was because Jeffrey Epstein
had hired away somebody who had previously worked for Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
Take a lesson.

Speaker 4 (07:03):
For years, I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't
talk because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help,
and I said, don't ever do that again. He stole
people that work for me. I said, don't ever do
that again. He did it again, and I threw him
out of the place. Person and on grata. I threw
him out and that was.

Speaker 3 (07:25):
It, person and on grata for the daring to hire
away some of the h What.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
Was inappropriate about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
I used to take the.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
Man's word for it, right, Like that's how he recalls
in terms of his relationship. What's also again, like, let's
return literally on the record statements from Stephen Chung, who
is the White House. I think he's a communications director,
the strategic comrecation director, one of those things. And he
was like, look, he ended his relationship with Epstein because
there was a creep. This was the line for years
is that after he was convicted, or actually even before
he was convicted in two thousand and five, that's when

(07:54):
they say, right around them, that's when his relationship with
Epstein ended. By the way, our own Emily Dashinsky notes that,
you know, Virginia Gufray, one of the Epstein victims, was what.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
Was lured away from mar A Lago, Like, is that
what he's referencing? And she was, yeah, that's right. She
was a lower level employee.

Speaker 3 (08:13):
I don't even know if Trump was necessarily aware of it,
but just saying, I mean, you can see there is
a track record, I guess, but it's like.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
Is that what made you upset about this?

Speaker 3 (08:22):
Like?

Speaker 1 (08:22):
What's going on here?

Speaker 2 (08:23):
The other thing that Michael Wolf claims is that the
real falling out was over a real estate transaction, and
his claim is actually that it was Epstein that broke
off the relationship with Trump because this, I think this
is how the story goes. There was some piece of
property that in Palm Beach that Jeffrey Epstein was interested in.

(08:45):
He had Trump wanted Trump to come and take a
look at it as he's considering bidding on it. Trump
comes and takes a look and then he aunt bids,
goes around Jeffrey's back, ount bids him gets that property.
It ends up being remember that there's a controversy about
then he sold it for like a wildly inflated value
some Russian oligarch whatever we got like tied up in

(09:06):
the Russia Russia Gates stuff. It was that piece of
property and that was what caused the rift in their relationship,
is according at least to you know, Michael Wolfe, who
spent a lot of time with Jeffrey Epstein because he
was contemplating writing a biography of Epstein. So it was
in the context of all of those conversations. And I
believe I've heard that the Trump people also reference I mean,

(09:27):
their go to was to talk to try to make
it like, oh, he was hitting on the underage, you know,
daughters of club members basically, and that's why we broke
it off. But they've also referenced this real estate transaction,
so that seems to be part and parcel here as well.
But again, if you believe Michael wolf he says that
actually with Jeffrey Epstein that ended this relationship because he
was disgusted with the way that Trump behaved in the

(09:49):
context of this real estate deal.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
I mean, who knows, you know, but it's like regardless,
I think we can pretty much say what is that
it's not to do at least, you know, according to
Donald Trump. Now in this particular case, with the original
explanation that was offered by the White House. By the way,
we have some major movement on the Gallainne Maxwell front.
Can we put that up there please on the screen.

Speaker 1 (10:08):
I'm going to read this. There's a new Glaine.

Speaker 3 (10:10):
Maxwell replied brief that was just filed with the US
Supreme Court. They say, quote, no one is above the law,
not even the Southern District of New York. Our government
made a deal and it must honor it. The United
States cannot promise immunity with one hand in Florida and
prosecute with the other in New York. President Trump built
his legacy in part on the power of a deal,
and surely he would agree when the United States gives

(10:32):
it word, it must stand by it. We are appealing
not only to the Supreme Court but to the President
himself to recognize how profoundly unjusted is to scapegoat Gallainne
Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised that
she would not be prosecuted. So this is what I've
been trying to explain to people. This all comes back
to Ghlaine Maxwell's legal defense. She's not claiming innocence per se,

(10:53):
at least at the appellate level. What she's saying is,
in two thousand and seven, you guys made the sweetheart
corrupt deal with Alga Costa in Florida to Jeffrey Epstein
and all of his co conspirators. Gallaine Maxwell is listed
under those unindicted co conspirators. As a result, she cannot

(11:13):
then be prosecuted in the future. Now, let's explain, though,
what happened with that whole non prosecution agreement. It was
signed in two thousand and seven. Well, in twenty and eighteen,
after the Epstein victims fight for justice in the court,
they're able to get a US district judge to throw
out the non prosecution agreement. Why because the non prosecution
agreement violated the federal rights of victims, I forget. I

(11:38):
think it's like the Crime Victims Act, which was passed
by Congress, requires the FEDS to inform the victims who
are named in the indictment of the eventual prosecution agreement.

Speaker 1 (11:48):
Let's remember this.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
They don't even need approval, like if you're a victim,
you can't say I approve or disapprovement. They just need
to be notified right of the deal, which they were.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
Not, which they were not.

Speaker 3 (11:58):
The Feds, like gun like absolutely dead to rights, violated
their rights under that federal piece of legislation that leads
to the eventual reopening of the investigation and indictment of
Epstein in two thousand and nineteen. But remember that is
a very different indictment than the original indictment that was

(12:19):
prepared against Epstein and Maxwell and all of his unindicted
co conspirators from two thousand I think is two thousand
and six. That indictment, by the way, has never seen
the light of day. Nobody even really knows what's in
there now. According to many of the people who'd worked
on it, they had him dead to rights on multiple
like sex trafficking, crossing state line charges, be able to
spend the rest of his life in prison. That is

(12:40):
where the big question mark of why why did this
allow it to happen?

Speaker 1 (12:44):
Now?

Speaker 3 (12:44):
You know, let's give the innocent explanation Tracy's been on here,
He's offered it before. I don't think it holds weight,
but I'll still give it. That explanation is that Epstein
is filthy rich and hires Dirschwitz, ken Starr, all these
other people they make federalism arguments. Is during the Bush administration.
So Kenneth Starr, for people who are too young to remember,
was the whatever independent counsel or whatever who prosecute when

(13:08):
after Bill Clinton compiled the Lewinsky reports. So he was
a household name in the nineteen nineties. Well, he then
obviously has a lot of cachet in Republican politics. He
is hired by Jeffrey Epstein as long as Alut dirst
wwhich he just came out oj verdict. They fly down
the Florida, they negotiate this agreement, and it basically comes
down to his wealth and his influences to why he's
able to get this. There's a lot of things that
don't add up about it, not just him being rich,

(13:30):
the fact that they didn't inform the victims. We have,
of course, the intelligence question, and from Acosta in the
disputed quote now of quote, I was told he belonged
to intelligence. But broadly it makes sense, as I have
laid out in multiple cases. Now, why when somebody is
of great use to the US government, that especially in
an intelligence way or perhaps other intelligence agencies, many intelligence

(13:51):
agencies across the world, including I believe the Israeli government, Well,
then that the government comes in and protects that person
to make sure that they either stay quiet or continue
their operations for all of the different things that they know.
I think this is an incredibly reasonable case and take
away for that two thousand and seven prosecution agreement. But
what the Gallain Maxwell people are saying is that not

(14:12):
only is their current conviction corrupt because it violates that
two thousand and seven agreement, basically saying that still should
remain in good standing, the one that violated the federal
rights of the actual Epstein victims. But second, now is
bargaining for a pardon under Donald Trump. And this is
where the question of corrupt deals and all of that
really comes into play, because how can anybody have confidence

(14:34):
that Maxwell is not going to tell Trump exactly what
he wants he wants to hear when he is the
only person in the United States government who has the
authority and the ability to give her a full pardon
and release her. And remember he refuses to rule all
of it out. He continues to say, I am allowed
to do it, and it's not like protecting an executive
purview or whatever. He emphasizes that for a point of

(14:56):
a potential deal, there's an easy way out of this.
It's called a special per prosecutor or somebody who doesn't
have who's independently non controlled by the judi by the executive.
They should have the ability to actually ask Maxwell questions,
not the deputy Attorney general, but sit down for you know,
an actual investigate whatever, like an interview without any sort

(15:18):
of potential quid pro quo.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
But the current quid pro quo.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Is so obvious in the way that we're all looking
at it right now, and I think that is the danger.
So I know this is kind of complicated, but it
is really important to like look at the background of
how we got here, how it fits with Trump and
his relationship, and why there are one hundred thousand files
currently sitting unreleased by the Department of Justice.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
Yeah, yeah, that's right, And I mean, I think what's
going on with Glene Maxwell. I mean, first of all,
it's Worth, noting her lawyer was, you know, the type
who would like go on cable news and defend Trump
during his many legal troubles. So you know, she's got
a guy who has made appeals to him by a
cable news before and is sort of like seen as
being on the right the you know, conservative, not the correct,

(16:02):
but the right side of the spectrum. But I mean,
I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. I
actually suspect that the leakstill Wall Street Journal may have
come directly from Galen in her camp as like a
warning shot at Trump. That's when I mean it's the
timeline makes sense, right, you get the birthday letter comes down,
and then you get, okay, oh my god, we got
to meet with this lady, right, Todd, blanche takes the

(16:22):
meeting we showed you yesterday, the images of her leaving
that meeting, re entering prison with whatever box of files.
And I think that there were two things that she
was proffering there in her I think, don't they call
it like Queen for a day where you don't have
to where she's given this limited immunity where nothing she
can be said in that context can be used in
a prosecution against her. But in any case, I think

(16:44):
there were two things that were happening there. Number One,
she was saying, Okay, I have all this evidence about
these people that you hate, you know, Democrats, Bill Gates,
whoever it is you mentioned. I think Larry Summers Trump
did this morning or yesterday in the clip we showed
this morning. And so there's that and then the other pieces.
And here's what I got on your guy. Because they're
making a calculation because they know if they pardon her,
they're going to get a lot of backlash for that.

(17:05):
It's going to handle My god, you're pardoning this like monster,
sex traffick or criminal, which she is. She's a absolute
disgusting human being who deserves rot in prison for the
rest of her life. No one should be in any
doubt about that whatsoever. She is not a victim. Yes,
there are other people who should be in prison alongside
of her. She is not a victim. Don't let Newsmax
confuse you about what's going on here. But she's showing them, Okay, well,

(17:26):
this is what I've got on your guy, and they're deciding, okay,
is this damaging enough to take the hit for pardoning her?
And make sure that none of this ultimately comes down.
I suspect that's what's really going on here with these
meanings and the consideration of whether or not to pardon her.
They're weighing what is like the lesser evil here for
them for their political context. Is it worse to have

(17:49):
whatever she's got come out about Trump? And what kind
of documentation does she have, you know, ken Weiga, Is
it just her word versus his word, which she probably
feels pretty good about being just able to assert his
dominance and denied denied to or does she have something
that is more credible that she could release that would
be incredibly damaging for him? And is it worse? Is
that worse whatever she's got than the political hit of

(18:11):
offering her the pardon? Or you know, another potential option here,
since they're appealing to the Supreme Court, is the Trump
DOJ could just back off of their position and not
fight her at the Supreme Court and basically allow her
appeal of her conviction to go through and say, oh,
you know, it turns out this deal that was cut
in Florida does apply to her and does apply to

(18:31):
this situation, and she gets off scott free.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
It's absolutely crazy.

Speaker 3 (18:35):
It's one of those where you know, the developments on
this are so vital, so important, and yes, you are
correct in the beginning about Mago, but that's not everybody, okay,
and there's a.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Lot of people.

Speaker 3 (18:47):
Again, the White House rode the vibe of the internet
to great success, I think in two thousand and twenty four,
and now you know, they've retreated to the bastions of
safety where just giving interview used to friendly journalists or
really you know, Newsmax, whatever, Fox News and all the
others basically acting like they did in the original first

(19:08):
term because they're buckling down and they refuse to actually
be challenged on this issue. And as you can see
from Trump's own statements himself, there's a lot of contradicting,
you know, stuff that is out there, which leads us
here to Michael Wolfe.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
I guess before we'll play this, let's give.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
The caveat of Michael Wolfe. Okay, he's uh, how would
you describe him? A fabulous I think that's probably the
best way I'll steal that. Michael Tracy, he is somebody
who simultaneously is incredibly connected, knows the entire New York
elite written books about Rupert Murdoch worked at Vanity Fair,
one of the most Honestly, he kind of reminds me

(19:45):
of Epstein, Like he's one of those people who's just
everywhere at all times, seems to know everybody, had this
incredible access to the first Trump administration.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
Wrote like four different books about Trump.

Speaker 3 (19:58):
Yeah, he wrote, I mean, the most famous book, his
Fire and Fury, where you know, he came under a
lot of journalistic scrutiny because he did basically admit to
like making up a lot of quotes and everything was
like deep background. It's very Bob Woodward esque in terms
of describing a scene based upon reassembling others but stating
in his fact. So I have a lot of quibble

(20:18):
about that, and I you know, he shouldn't one hundred
percent take anything that the guy says to the bank.
But I will also say he does know a lot, right,
He knows a lot of these people. He knows all
of society. He spent a ton of time with Epstein,
with Bannon, with I mean the entire White House. Listen,
before he was persona on grata in the White House.
It was like a joke amongst the White House Press

(20:39):
Corps about how much access Michael wolf had.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
He was rolling in and.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Around it like the whole Just be understand, that's crazy.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
That never happens. I was there. I literally watched a
lot of this happen.

Speaker 3 (20:50):
It was open, you know, in terms of the amount
of access that Michael wolf had, it was unprecedented. It
was part of the original chaos. And he eventually writes
the Fire and Fury book makes millions of dollars and
it's a massive bestseller. But the point is is that, yes,
I understand he's a sketchy figure, so always take some
of that with a grain of salt. But of course
he does have his sources, and at least on this topic,
you know, he spent a lot of time with these people.

(21:12):
Here is what Michael Wolfe says. Is the real falling
out between or is the real quote wonderful secret between
Trump and Epstein laid out here.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (21:23):
The birthday letter that Donald Trump apparently wrote for Jeffrey
Epstein's fiftieth birthday, and this idea that they shared a
wonderful secret. What do you think he's referring to.

Speaker 7 (21:35):
I think that he is referring to the to the
girlfriend that they shared at that point in time ninety
two ninety three. So there was a woman and as
far as I know, she's not underage, but who they
literally shared, who literally went back and forth between between

(22:00):
these two guys, and she went back.

Speaker 6 (22:02):
And forth in the same bed with the two of them.
It was a threesome or she was dating them separately.

Speaker 7 (22:09):
I don't I don't know the mechanics. I know that
during the same period, and they openly this wasn't hidden
from either one. They openly shared this particular woman that
she was went out with both of them at the

(22:31):
same time.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
Okay, so that is Wolf's expe name.

Speaker 3 (22:34):
I mean, honestly, it kind of makes sense because this
is documented that they did have the same girlfriend, you know,
basically around the same time, right before he had before
he started dating Malania Trump.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
It's literally right in that same time frame.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, it also does sort of it does sort of
fit with like the almost like romantic nature of that life.
You know, like if they're sharing a girlfriend, you are
like sort of by proxy in this like weird romantic
trial with him. So it does kind of make sense.
And you know, he says there that this woman. As
far as we know, it was like of age, So
it's not about her.

Speaker 1 (23:06):
She's twenty right, underage. I don't know that's that's.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
What he said, young, but of age. But it also
just TEMs to like this is a close relationship between
Trump and Epstein. This isn't someone that you see occasionally
at a cocktail party, you know, you happen to be
mixing in some of the same circles occasionally. No, this
is your buddy, Like that is a as close to

(23:31):
friendship as one can possibly imagine.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
I guess we could say, yeah, I guess. I mean
I said on the show yesterday.

Speaker 3 (23:36):
I mean, you know, thirty three, you know, I've been
around with my friends and all that stuff. If somebody
ever asked me to write them a birthday like, that's
not what's going into birthday left. And that's that's the
part where I find really creepy.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
So creepy. Okay, this is a side note, but I
feel like once you get to a certain age, like
making a big deal over your own birthday is so
narcissistic and weird. It's such a freaking red flag. It's
so weird, right, I don't know, I'm very opposed to
people over the age of like twenty one, twenty five
is really great. Yeah they were given twenty five then

(24:12):
to you go.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
A car it's over. Yeah, you're officially an adult.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
Right, It's like, okay, time past another year. We're supposed
to all celebrate you like, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
Thank you. I'm with you. I've never understood it. It's like,
you know, this weird birthday prim.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
I feel like it's a rich person thing to oh,
I'm going to have a big party for my fiftieth birthday.
It's like, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
I actually I'm not so sure about that.

Speaker 3 (24:32):
I've always thought that it's a way for people to
quote feel special in their lives, which is kind of sad.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
But this is a much.

Speaker 3 (24:39):
Deeper psychological conversation for the birthday obsession in the West
and most of the rest of the of the world.
They were like, yeah, congrat you know, happy birthday whatever.
All right, So let's get then to a video that
we also wanted to underscore here about Glenne Maxwell. One
of these women is Annie Farmer. She was interviewed by
ABC News. We just want to underscore, you know, the

(25:00):
role that Ghlaine Maxwell actually played in this entire scheme
and kind of fits more broadly, you know, with all
of this stuff around Trump and Epstein and about it
potentially if a pardon does happen, kind of what we
are all obscuring here.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 8 (25:15):
She didn't just procure girls and women for Epstein, but
she herself participated in their abuse. I think that's an
important thing for people to understand. And so and then
she also, you know, made threats. She made threats to
my sister, to our family when it was clear that
my sister had reported her.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
And so.

Speaker 8 (25:35):
I think that to be told that suddenly she's being
brought to the table as a potential source of information
when she's previously been charged with perjury by the government
is very confusing and unsettling.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
It's important, you know, to listen to her.

Speaker 3 (25:50):
By the way, I did receive a very long message
from Michael Tracy yesterday about Ghlaine Maxwell and our accusation
of risk. I you know, I'm en listened. I'll give
the guy his credit. Here's what he said. He says
Maxwell is not accused of rape in criminal trial, much
less convicted of it. Two of a former claimed sexual
activity with Epstein was not illegal, per the very not
prosecution judge instructors to the jurors, and even claimed the

(26:12):
sexual acts in which Maxwell was alleged to have participated
in no way rose to the level of anything that
could be reasonably described as rape. I guess what I
think we were trying to say is that she participated
according to the victims here and the actual scheme of
which she was eventually been convicted.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Well, and as Annie Farmer there, I mean, these two women,
Annie and her older sister Maria, just their allegations are
that Maria is a painter. She graduates from some school
in New York where Jeffrey Epstein is a big benefactor,
and in fact she at their final show there's a
you know, there's a big art shows like part of

(26:51):
the graduation, and buyers come in and her paintings sold,
and then according to her, the head of the school
comes over and it's like, you're not selling to them,
You're selling to this guy, Jeffrey Epstein, even though it
was for a lower price. And then that is her
entree to you know, this world where they begin, oh,
we're going to make your dreams come true, and we're
going to fly you here, and we're going to support
you in your work, et cetera. And then they fly

(27:14):
her out to Lex Wexner's estate in Ohio, and that's
where she alleges that both Jeffrey and Gallaine molested her.
She freaks out, She you know, basically hides, runs away, hides,
flies home, and then she is the first one to
file a report with the police and ultimately the FBI.

(27:35):
Her sister and I can't remember exactly the timeline here,
but at some point Jeffrey and Glane had said, Oh,
you have a younger sister, can we meet her? Can
you bring her to dinner as well? And that's Annie
and Annie at the time of the leave was like sixteen,
and so they they have dinner with Annie and then
they do the same thing with her. Oh, we're going
to make your dreams come true. We're going to fly
you here. We're going to send you to this incredible

(27:57):
school I believe in Spain, and you're going to get
to do all the things that you desire. And then
she also is you know, abused sexually abused? I don't
I'm not sure if she was abused both by Jeffrey
and Gallaane but you know, I know Maria Farmer claims
that she was so, and there are other victims as
well who have similar stories where the first time that

(28:19):
they are molested by Jeffrey Epstein, Glaine is there involved
also directly in the abuse. And we know of course
that you know, her whole thing was she would go
and she would find these girls, often who came from
troubled backgrounds, you know, already victims of abuse, like Virginia

(28:39):
Guffrey or you know, their family life was a mess,
they were impoverished, They had all these sorts of vulnerabilities
that she would then exploit and she created this, you know,
this conveyor belt of young underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein
to abuse and exploit and potentially traffic. So that's you know,

(29:01):
that's what has been alleged against Glayne Maxwell. And I
just think it's really important as this propaganda effort goes
forward to paint her like she was some sort of
a victim and like why she even in prison if she,
you know, if there are no other men that were
she was, that she was trafficking girls to et cetera,
Like this person deserves to be in prison, and in fact,

(29:22):
the allegations that were made against her in court. Michael
Tracy is correct that they didn't make a lot of
these allegations against her in court. They just did enough
to get a conviction and get her put away, and
they did not actually air all of the different allegations.
Not to mention, I'm sure over you know that number
of years, some of this would be, of course, she said,

(29:44):
she said, in difficult to prove, et cetera. So but
in any case, that is he is true that they
took this very narrow approach, but that is not in
close to the entirety of the allegations which have been
made against her. That and again, I think another to
keep in mind when you are considering the credibility of
these allegations. Multiple of these girls now women, have told

(30:08):
a very similar story about how they were brought in
and how they were groomed by her and the way
the abuse unfolded, which I think lends them credibility to
their claims.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
I totally agree.

Speaker 3 (30:18):
I mean, it's obvious, and yeah, I mean, as this
all gout goes forward, everyone needs to.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
Pay very, very very close attention because.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Look, it almost again behooves me to lay out who
is Gawayne Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, the known
Mosad asset, one of the richest men in the world
at that time, multi billionaire in the UK, guys under
suspicious circumstances, all of these insane connections to all of
these sketchy arms deals across the world, including having associated

(30:49):
with Epstein, with Donald Trump, with all of the world's
richest and most powerful. That's literally how they met. Guys
like she is, in my opinion, one of the major
keys to the story. And so the fact again just
to say that she was never interviewed by the Department
of Justice until today about third party individuals is patently

(31:09):
crazy and backs up everybody who said in twenty nineteen
that that entire prosecution was a sham effort to try
and actually was much more of a cover up, limited hangout,
you know, since we're all using the Watergate pollins parlance
now more today and yeah, more all anybody who questioned.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
This is more vindicated today than ever before. Yep. All right,
let's get to Israel.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
So we have a bunch of updates coming out of
Israel from this administration and directly out of the Gaza strip.
So let's start with this. There's been a big Israeli
Hsbara propaganda effort here and in Israel to deny that
there is actually any starvation in the Gaza strip. But
apparently President Trump and Jade Vance did not get that message,

(31:54):
did not get that memo. Yesterday, Trump acknowledging that there
is starvation that is unfolding. Jadvan's doing the same. Let's
take a look.

Speaker 4 (32:06):
I don't know. I mean, based on television, I would
say not particularly because those children look very hungry. So
we have to get rid of those lines. But we're
going to be getting some good, strong food. We can
save a lot of people. I mean, some of those
kids are that's real starvation stuff. I see it, and
you can't fake that.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
You've got some really really heartbreaking cases. You've got little
kids who are clearly starving to death. Israel's got to do.

Speaker 9 (32:32):
More to let that aid in.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
So he says, you can't fake that. The will be
news to Charlie Kirk and others that will show you
later on in the show. But lett do you think
that there's something heroic that's about to unfold here? Let's
go and put this next element up on the screen.
So within Israel the idea that Ntanya who is going
to let any aid in ta Gaza in order to

(32:54):
appease what is now a widespread international outcry over these
horrific images of the Israeli enforced famine leading to babies
literally starving to death. So there is a huge right
wing outcry over the idea that any aid would be
let in. So what is NETANYAHUO doing to appease people
like Ben Gaverin'smotrich who had been very loud about their

(33:15):
upset over this. We played you some of that in
the show yesterday. Well, he's going to propose to go
ahead and annex parts of Gaza in an attempt, they
say here in Haratz, an Israeli newspaper, to appease far
right minister if Hamas does not agree to a deal.
Let me read you a little bit of this because
this also comes back to the US. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netniwa is expected to propose to the Political Security Cabinet

(33:36):
a plan to annex areas in the Gaza strip in
an attempt to keep Finance Minister Bezalielsmotrich in his government.
And corner of the plan, Israel will declare that it
is giving Hamas a few days to agree to a ceasefire,
and if not, we'll begin annexing areas of the strip.
Of course, they're going to make it so that it's
not any sort of a deal. Hamas whatever agree to.
The move will be presented to Cabinet members following Netanyahu's
decision to increase humanitarian aid entering the Strip, which was

(33:59):
accepted to spite opposition from the Religious Zionism Party. According
to the plan, Netanyahu is expected to present areas in
the buffer zone will be annexed first, followed by areas
in the northern Strip. The process will continue gradually and
according to details present, let me finish that sentence. Actually,
the process will continue gradually until the entire Gaza Strip

(34:20):
is annexed, full ethnic cleansing guys and conquest.

Speaker 7 (34:24):
Here.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
According to details presented by Natyahou and talks with ministers,
the plan has received approval from the Trump administration. Now,
of course, this should not come as any surprise, since
Trump himself floated the annexation and the quote unquote cleansing
of the Gaza Strip and the repopulation by quote unquote

(34:45):
world's people. So this is very much in line with
Trump's plan for Gaza Lago that he put on the table,
and now this is what the besilosmotrich is being offered
in exchange for allowing some amount of aid into the
Gaza Strip, which, by the way, we have yet to
see really actually reach the people who are starving there
at this point. So let me go ahead and put

(35:06):
these next images up on the screenow and get Soger
to react to all of this. This is the state
of affairs. I mean, this is as eight convoys come in,
they are just absolutely swarmed. There are also reports that
the family based like there are people who have been
put in place to protect these trucks as they come in,
so you don't have these scenes of desperate people just

(35:28):
grabbing whatever they possibly can. There are reports from inside
of the Gaza Strip that the IDF have been firing
on those protection squads. So mayhem and chaos, I mean,
society is breaking down there, like people are starving to
death and they have reached a point of utter and
complete desperation, which is what you see soccer in those
sorts of cliffs.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
I mean, it's obviously horrific, and it also just gets
to the question of what we continue to try to
highlight here from inside of these really government, even the
you know, acknowledgment, or they didn't acknowlnce starvation, but at
very least they paused and allowed all of these humanitarian
aid trucks or at least some humanitarian aid trucks to
enter into the strip has now caused such consternation that

(36:08):
the only acceptable solution is to officially annex some ninety
percent of the entire place and then to facilitate migration. Again,
I'm not making this stuff up. They say it out loud.
You have Ben Gavier and others who said it yesterday.
You know, we should be sending shells, not food. They're
outraged that they used the Sabbath against him, you know,

(36:29):
to be able to circumvent this decision. And similarly, inside
of the country, the way that they're keeping their political
coalition together is to actually go in the most extreme direction.
I will say at the I don't know, you know,
it's just crumbs. But in Israel this does seem to
be some sort of political breaking point. Yayr Lapede, who

(36:49):
is the opposition leader, actually has said Netsanyahu's plan for
Gaza has completely failed and we need to have a ceasefire.
So there is some element of the political coal going.
I don't want to understate it. They still support the war,
they still broadly support annexation and all of that. They're
more upset about the fact that the hostages are not

(37:09):
being released. And the way that this is kind of
being sold is the way that they will get the
hostages is they will have full on annexation, which will
allow full occupation. It's kind of ridiculous because they already
have full occupation. They've already raised the entire place to
the ground. If they get them from military solution, then
they would have done it already.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
That's not really but this again.

Speaker 3 (37:29):
You know, look, does anybody say that they've held back
in Gaza by trying to get back?

Speaker 1 (37:34):
Come on, like you be serious? Yeah, I mean it's gone.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
Do we have the video about how journalists are not
allowed to even film the way?

Speaker 2 (37:43):
Yeah, we do. And before we play that, just to
back up your point, Ben Devere just said he called
for a complete halty, humanitarian aid, complete occupation of the strip,
total annihilation of Hamas, encouragement of immigration. That's code for
ethnic cleansing and settlement. This is not the alternative path.
This is the royal road to safely releasing the hostages
and achieving victory in the war. Mister Prime Minister, give

(38:06):
the order. These are not fringe characters. These are some
of the most influential people, frankly in Israeli society at
this point, as you can see from whose own decision making.
To Sager's point, yes, journalists, this is a report from
Sky News, I believe where they're saying, Hey, the Israelis
are telling us that as we're covering, they're dropping now
some aid from the skies was done before injuring people

(38:27):
and again setting off this mad, chaotic scramble for people
to get whatever scraps they possibly can. Journalists are being
told who are covering the A drops, you can't film
from the air, or they'll stop the ad drops because
they don't want you to know how destroyed all of
Gaza ultimately is Let's go ahead and take a listen
to that report.

Speaker 10 (38:46):
We were given quite a clear and strict brief fight
briefing that the Israelis have said we're not allowed to
film any shots of Gaza from the air, and that
if we do, these air drop flights could either be
canceled or denayed. International journalists haven't been allowed access to
Gaza since the war started, despite immense pressure and growing demands,

(39:10):
and it seems they don't want us to show you
images of Gaza from the air either.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
I mean, this is classic. They will deny that there's starvation,
they'll deny that the IDF is shooting starving Palestinians as
they're going to try to collect aid from the Gaza
Humanitarian Foundation. They deny, deny, deny, but journalists are never
actually allowed in to assess what is really going on,
and even to the extent of, you know, going so

(39:38):
far as to ban them from filming from the air
so that people cannot see the extent of devastation. Of course,
we all see it anyway, because of the brave Palestinians
on the ground who've been sharing with the world the
images of this ongoing genocide. The starvation crisis is as
dire as it could possibly be. The Hoven and Post

(39:59):
talked to an American doctor who I think just returned
from Gaza, or they may have spoken with them in Gaza.
Put this up on the screen, and what they're saying
is that for some of these children quote, they may
have already passed the point of no return where their
physiology is eroded, point where even refeeding could potentially cause
death itself. The gut lining has started to autodigest, it

(40:21):
will no longer have adequate absorptive capacity for water or
for nutrition. Death is unfortunately imminent for probably thousands of children.
So we have already reached a point where some of
these kids, even if they open the floodgates, which let's
be clear, they have not done. But even if they
open the floodgates and baby formula and food and nutrition

(40:45):
and medicine and everything they need comes in, there will
still be children who continue to die from starvation because
of how far their bodies have been pushed to this point.
And it takes a long time to get here. This
is the level of engineered deprivation that we're talking about.
And Adam Twos wrote an important piece about you know

(41:07):
that you always get this accusation like, oh, well, why
there are starving people in other places in the world,
why you only focus on the Gaza strip, Like is
it because you're anti Semitic? Is basically the allegation that
comes along with this, and he said, that's it's true.
There are horrifically many other places in the world, most
of them in Sub Saharan Africa, where you have famines,
where you have people who are starving, where you have

(41:28):
you know, horrific numbers of people. There are two things
that are different. Number one is in all of those instances,
the hunger and the famine is a result of a
poly crisis, so a war, civil war in Haiti, the
complete breakdown of society, those sorts of things. In the
Gaza strip, it is completely man made. There is plenty

(41:48):
of food and resources there, it just needs to be
allowed in. This is a one hundred percent engineered by
US and by the Israelis famine. Man made and that is,
as you guys know, crime against humanity and also is
considered an active genocide. In addition, in those other places,
if you look at the percent of people who are
experiencing some level of hunger who are on the you know,

(42:10):
they have like ratings for the level of famine that
they're at somewhere around you know, it'll be forty nine
percent or sixty percent. I mean, again, these are horrifying numbers.
I'm not downplaying this whatsoever. In Gaza it's one hundred percent.
It's one hundred percent of people within the Gaza Strip
who are suffering from some level of hunger. And there
are varying levels of severity, you know, in terms of

(42:30):
obviously the most vulnerable are going to be infants, people
with various diseases and disorders, it's going to be children,
it's going to be the elderly. But one hundred percent
of people within the Gaza Strip are suffering from some
level of hunger, some level of famine, and that does
not exist anywhere else in the world, and again speaks
to the fact that this is an engineered, completely man

(42:54):
made famine that we're dealing with, which is why it
has led to such incredible horror here and around the world,
where even some of the worst actors you can imagine,
like Barry White's feel the need to say something about
our Hillary Clinton or Barack Obamam field the need to
say something about it. At the same time, we continue
to get horrific reports of violence in the West Bank

(43:15):
and really awful violent news here. We can put this
up on the screen. So a well known activist who
was involved in No Other Land development of the No
Other Land documentary was murdered by the psycho that you
see here, this violent Israeli settler who is known who

(43:36):
is there's pictures of him hanging out with government ministers,
by the way, and here he is just wildly firing
a weapon. This is the kind of psycho this this
guy is one of the few things that the Biden
administration actually did to check any you know, of the
Israeli atrocities was to sanction a few settlers. This guy

(43:56):
was one of them who was sanctioned. Not that it
really made a difference, but at least there was some
symbolic of like some you know, symbol of like this
isn't acceptable the way this guy operates. And the Trump
administration removed those sanctions from him. And as I was
saying before, it's I don't want to give anybody the
impression that this is some rogue actor. These people are

(44:17):
encouraged and backed by the state. This is part of
official policy. And so, you know, Palestinian murdered here by
this violent settler. And it's important even though we focus
a lot on Gaza as understandably, that's where the greatest
amount of horror ultimately is. We're gonna have a guest
on soon to talk about what's going on in the
West Bank, because that's where you can really see the

(44:37):
complete picture of what they're doing here. The level of
violence that has escalated, the land seizures and theft that
have escalated as well is all part of this you know,
Greater Israel project and this ongoing like complete genocide.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
Well it's not just West Bank, because it's West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
This is the you know, I mean, look, it's a
bond two stop like call it what it is.

Speaker 3 (44:58):
You have two tier systems of justice, and it's pretty
obvious there's no way in which they have any genuine
security or system in through which they can pursue like
any basic level of law and order. It's been actually
been that way for quite some time, but it's especially
that way now in the last two years. Last part here,
which is interesting, I'm curious what you think. Let's put

(45:19):
it up there on the screen. The Israeli Information Center
for Human Rights bets Sellem, has said that there's quote
genocide in Gaza being committed by Israel. You know, this
is one where they're more what I guess i'll say,
you know, lagging because they are in Israeli organization in
terms of their declaration compared to a lot of other

(45:39):
people who have like similar sympathies. But it is nonetheless,
like demonstrates, you know, the extent to which I think
the conversation has moved where you even have this human
rights organization inside of Israel which is saying this, And
of course I'm actually very curious to see how these
really government handles this because remember they're calling that a
blood libel, and this is an Israeli organization itself. They

(46:02):
have always, let's contextualized them, they've always been, you know,
kind of on the extreme left of Israeli society obviouly.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
Yeah, yeah, I'm saying before. Yeah, they've always been that way.

Speaker 3 (46:13):
People always say they're like, oh, there's some useful idiot
or whatever. That's been the accusation I've seen thrown at
them for quite some time. But it is significant, nonetheless,
at least in their own society. And also again, the
real question is how the government's going to handle this.
They're going to pull up Yeah.

Speaker 2 (46:27):
I mean they're incredibly late to this. Obviously. It's Bet
Salem and Physicians for Human Rights, both of which are
you know, significant Israeli human rights organizations. It reminds me
of but Selim, not that long ago, finally issued or report.
This is a few years back. At this point, I
think we covered it here about saying, Okay, yes, Israel
is an apartheid society, it's accurate to say that. And

(46:50):
again they were late to that, but it was given
added significance because they are an Israeli organization. And I saw,
you know, the New York Times covering this, et cetera.
But I think it's like the consensus is clear at
this point. You have but Selim, You've got physicians for
human rights, they join Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Human
Rights Watch, over eight hundred scholars of genocide. At least

(47:13):
you had an Israeli scholar writing in the New York Times,
doctor Omer Bartov, saying, hey, yes, I'm a genocide scholar.
I know it when I see it. You just can't.
There are very few voices on the other side. There
is a basically a global consensus at this point. What's
going on? And sagain on if you saw actually Marjorie
Taylor Green, I saw for the first time this is

(47:33):
a genocide, So you know, her getting ahead of the
vast majority of Democrats, including by the way, Bernie Sanders
in calling this for what it is. But I think
it's significant. Like I said, it's hard for me to
really understand what took so long. I read through. I
read through their report yesterday, and it's quite well documented.
You know, they go through many of the same you know,

(47:56):
path and trajectory that the original ICJ filing from South
Africa went through. Of Like, here's the historic context, right,
Palestinians are a demographic threat to a quote unquote Jewish state,
and so it's not just Hummas that's their enemy, it's
every Palestinian that threatens a Jewish majority, and that creates
a logic and a context under which this genocide has unfolded.

(48:17):
Then you've got all of the many statements. I mean,
I've long ago lost track of all of the genocidal,
dehumanizing statements about Palestinians, and the media and propaganda efforts
that unfold within Israeli society to make it okay and
make it seem like, you know, Palestinians are not a people,
that they're not human, that they are you know, an

(48:37):
existential even the infant babies who are being starved to death,
there's some sort of an existential threat to Israeli society.
And then of course they also cover the acts themselves,
the starvation, the force displacement of every single Palestinian has
been displaced at this point within the Gaza Strip. The
force displacement, the mass starvation, the indiscriminate bombing, the destruction

(48:57):
of all just sort of like culture in life, you know,
any arts institutions, any universities, any schools, the farmland, the greenhouses,
et cetera. And when you look at all of that,
I think it's impossible not to conclude, if you're being
honest at this point, that this is in fact the genocide.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
All right, shuld we get to Charlie.

Speaker 2 (49:19):
Let's talk about it. So I mentioned earlier that there's
this propaganda effort you referenced it on the show yesterday
to deny that any starvation is actually happening in the
Gaza Strip, that this is all just you know, some
media propaganda. I love how they imagine that the media
is on the side of the Palestinians, is just so
like utterly really believe. Yeah, I know they do. It's insane,

(49:41):
Like the number of former IDF that work at these
outlets is like, okay, you guys are like completely out
to lunch. But in any case, Charlie Kirk went right
along with this and invited this guy on to you know,
spin this utterly false narrative about how, of course there's
no hunger in the Gaza Strip and these are all
lies that are being fed to you. Let's go ahead

(50:02):
and take a listen to a little bit of that.

Speaker 11 (50:03):
I hate being lied to and I hate being propagandized.
And this weekend there was an all out propaganda campaign
trying to make it seem as if Israel is intentionally
starving the people of Gaza.

Speaker 12 (50:19):
I'm not going to get into the weeds of the numbers,
but the quantities of food that have been brought into
the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the war, and
month over month is enough to feed the Gaza Strip
according to the World Food Programs numbers for what it
takes to feed people for longer than this war has
gone on for about twenty seven months worth of food,
and there's plenty of food getting into the Gaza Strip.

Speaker 11 (50:42):
This is pure visual warfare. Plug at three Z nine.
This is all this is. This is propaganda, emotional visual
optical warfare. Optical warfare, and so no one likes to
see what you're looking at here looks like a kid
who's starving to death. Right, So the whole story says this.
The story says young old and six starved to death

(51:03):
in Gaza.

Speaker 1 (51:04):
That is the front page of the New York Times.
And so the.

Speaker 11 (51:07):
Picture they're using is of Mohammad al Mattawak, a child
with a muscular disorder, and they're using that as the
face of famine in Gaza. So is the UN intentionally
allowing the kids of Gaza to starve?

Speaker 1 (51:22):
What is going on here?

Speaker 12 (51:25):
When you talk about the UN in Gaza, you're not
talking about the people sitting in the United Nations in
New York.

Speaker 1 (51:31):
The UN in Gaza is Hamas.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
The Yuan is Hamas, and you know he makes all
the fully debunked claims about al Jamas is stealing all
the aid, and that's why we had to use the
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which israelly military officials told in New
York Times. Is not true. There has never been any
evidence of this whatsoever. In fact, what there has been
evidence of is is really backed thugs who have been

(51:57):
stealing aid. There's evidence of that. There is no evidence
that Hamas has been consistently in any way stealing this aid,
but that's their excuse. And we also know that Israel
buried a thousand trucks. This was reported on Israeli news channel.
We covered yesterday buried a thousand trucks of aid. And
you can see. I mean, it's just like they think
you're so stupid, they think you can't hit translate from Hebrew.

(52:20):
They are out there, Ben Gaverer and Smoechester are out
there furious that any aid is getting in whatsoever. And
lo and behold when Nataniana snaps his fingers, Oh suddenly
some aid can get in. So oh, but it was
the UN that was the problem. Give me a break, like,
it's just such utter and complete bullshit. In fact, when
the UN did come in to try to deliver some aid,
they were shot at by the id HEF. So it's disgusting,

(52:43):
I mean, And we all.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Know remember Jose Andres in the World Central Kitchen, of course.

Speaker 2 (52:47):
Yeah, and we all know too that people are being
massacred when they do go and try to get aid
from these four or five distribution centers that the Gaza
Humanitarian Foundation has set up this Green Beret whistleblower. He
told the story of how he became so disgusted in
dissolution he decided to speak out. He a young child,

(53:09):
a young Palestinian child, kissed his hands because he was
so grateful for whatever food he'd been able to get
at this distribution, and then as he walked away, the
Israelis shot and killed him. That's that's what we're talking
about here. And these monsters have the gall to come
on and say, oh, well, if it's a kid who
has muscular dystrophy, he doesn't really count as starving to death,

(53:31):
as if those people don't also matter. And obviously the
people who are going to be the most vulnerable are
going to be children who have, you know, other complicating conditions.
There's no doubt about that. But we're you know, the
numbers are at least one hundred and forty seven people
have now died from starvation, and the majority of those
are children.

Speaker 3 (53:47):
Look, Charlie recently had me on I you know, he
has occasionally, I think, some decent ideas and other things.
Very least he let me express my you know, criticism
of Israel. So I appreciate that, but I do think
what everybody is watching here is kind of the dichotomy
of conservative politics, specifically when money is balved. So here
we have turning point USA. I don't think it's a secret,

(54:09):
and I'm giving anything away to say that there are
a lot of, you know, very pro Israeli people who
have donated to the organization. And Charlie himself is not
somebody like us. He's not a media figure. He can't
say what he wants. He's a political actor. He's operating
in the Republican Coalition. And these are the types of
things that are occasionally I'm not going.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
To say they were demanded.

Speaker 3 (54:29):
I don't think anybody controlled him, but they obviously felt
the need to have to have somebody on here. And let's,
you know, kind of break it down. Who is this person.
He's a columnist at the Jerusalem Post. So it's like,
do we have maybe any incentive to be saying the
types of things here and Israeli rabbi who lives in
his or who writes for the Jerusalem Post. Instead, you

(54:50):
could actually look at the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street
Journal as Trump and all been reminding us, and they
have a graphic out this morning, which shows the exact
food delivery and the fraction through which it has fallen.
Now under that's you know a lot of the data
and stuff that they're citing about amount of food and
necessary is actually before the complete blockade that happened recently,

(55:11):
which started in March, right, So this is where facts
and all of these things matter. But I actually think
a big reason why this is all happening is to
prevent the Marjorie Taylor Greens and a lot of other
younger Republicans from you know, basically coming out full on
against Israel. And this really was showed off, I think
in Charlie's focus group which he held recently in his
TPUSA conference where he was asking young tp so remember

(55:35):
this is a different breed.

Speaker 1 (55:36):
These are not just young Republicans.

Speaker 3 (55:38):
These are like young like activists in TPUSA. That's a
special type of by the way, that's a special lot
of any young person who's an activist or whatever. Right, So,
like the highest engage political person of any type of
political organization.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
Well, here he.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
Sat down with them and asked them about Israel and
also kind of the first thing you think of when
you hear the country's name.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Let's take a listen, and.

Speaker 11 (56:03):
If you seek to actually understand what gen Z thinks
about Israel, not these anonymous TikTok comments or not what
you see on X. These are real people. They're real conservatives,
many of which are real Christians, and they'll tell you
exactly what they think about the hottest issue happening. I
guess on the planet that we're talking about. So, what's
the first word that comes to mind when you hear Israel?

Speaker 9 (56:23):
Judy, is aid, aid.

Speaker 13 (56:25):
Many sexbolders, liability, sacred tax dollars, conflict, complex, controversial, scary,
sure teaching, Massad?

Speaker 11 (56:33):
So Massad, of all the different things that would come
to mind, why does their intelligence service come to mind?

Speaker 14 (56:39):
Reminds me of the CIA? You know has the CIA?
You have the CIA involved with RFK. I mean, there's
rumors going around maybe Missad is a part of the
Epstein files, If maybe Missad was a part of things
that we don't know about, and there's a They're just
like the Central Intelligence Agency. They are out there doing
things that none of us know about.

Speaker 11 (56:59):
So to say Massad first, that would basically imply your
first impression is one of doubt. Is that fair to say?

Speaker 1 (57:07):
Yes?

Speaker 11 (57:07):
Okay?

Speaker 15 (57:07):
When you hear like Epstein, Right, do you connect the
Epstein issue initially, like immediately first connection in your mind?
That's also connected to Masada in Israel? Or are they
feel separate in your mind?

Speaker 9 (57:19):
I think there's a growing consensus that there's a connection there.

Speaker 14 (57:22):
Emongen Z.

Speaker 11 (57:23):
Yeah, I think that's definitely gaining velocity.

Speaker 3 (57:25):
So keep in mind that was filmed a couple of weeks,
like a week or two ago. Right, Yeah, this was
when the Tucker things and they still what was the
number one kind of thing you heard there?

Speaker 1 (57:35):
Aid? Mosad liability? Interesting?

Speaker 2 (57:39):
Yeah, and I don't think they mean aid in a positive.

Speaker 3 (57:41):
I was going to say, right, they're not talking about
aid in a way that you may want, you know,
not in the Rabbi whatever that guy's name is. It's
in the way that we're talking about here. So clearly
this is penetrating the propaganda, the spooky propaganda is getting through.
And actually that really I think came through in this
next one.

Speaker 1 (57:59):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 11 (58:00):
Who used the word aid?

Speaker 1 (58:01):
You did?

Speaker 11 (58:02):
Why did that come to mind?

Speaker 1 (58:03):
First?

Speaker 16 (58:03):
It's very similar to our support for Ukraine. We're sending
a lot of money over there, not really getting in
my opinion, a huge return on investment. And so that's
like the first thing that comes to mind, because when
people talk about their distrust or disupport for Israel, that's
the first thing that usually comes up, is all the
money that we're sending them.

Speaker 9 (58:24):
I think we have a lot bigger issues at home.
I think we should be spending most of our tax
dollars on securing our border, keeping our home people safe.

Speaker 15 (58:32):
When you talk about return on investment, I think that's
an interesting way to frame it. The supporters of Israel
will say they're doing a lot of America's dirty work
from intelligence gathering, things like that within the Middle East.
Is that compelling to you? Are you persuaded by that argument?

Speaker 16 (58:48):
The reason why I'm not super persuaded is especially it's
mostly because of here recently, we were kind of drug
into it. We were negotiating, we were having negotiations, and
then they they killed the people we were negotiating with,
and it kind of derailed everything and sped up the
conflict a little bit.

Speaker 13 (59:06):
It was the State Department's stated goal that we were
working on negotiations with the run. You can say they
wouldn't have panned out. You can say that maybe they
were imminently about to collapse, but we were still in
active negotiation. And yet Israel launches Operation Rising Lion to
go in and strike a run while we are mid negotiation.

Speaker 11 (59:31):
How many of you guys would say you think Israel
got us into that conflict? You would say yes, you
would not say so much.

Speaker 17 (59:39):
I think we were willing to join that conflict. I
don't think we were pulled in unwantingly, as if we
were dragged by a leash, you know, in more un
certain terms. I think we have the authority and to
say of whether or not we want to be involved
in that conflict, and I think we saw the prosperity
that we would unleash if we joined the conflict.

Speaker 16 (59:54):
The amount over since nineteen forty eight, it amounts to
three hundred and nineteen billion adjusted to inflation, and I'd
say that I can think of multiple things that we
could have spent at home that would have been a
better allocation of our taxpayer dollars. And I feel like
this money could have been well spent in supporting an
economy that would support our generation being able to afford holmes,
rather than military's trice for Israel.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
So there you go and go to that dude for
knowing that number.

Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Yeah, I did. I actually didn't even know the inflation.

Speaker 15 (01:00:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
How many members of Congress do you think who are
voting for that money?

Speaker 7 (01:00:24):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
I would have had numbers.

Speaker 3 (01:00:25):
I would add to chat gpt at to get day
inflation adjusted number. That's insane. Three hundred and ninety billion
adjusted for inflation. That's outrageous. Actually, that's almost exactly what
we spent on the Afghanistan war over twenty years.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Just to put it into content.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
This is Israel's greatest nightmare. I mean, these people are
the reason why Natanyahu was like let me go on
with broken or the noteboys or doing something here, because
they see they have an issue. Because previously, if you said,
like back when I was running for Congress in twenty ten,
if you talked to a Republican about like four and aid,
they're thinking about like some you know, liberal do good
or like in you know, in Africa feeding starving children

(01:01:00):
or whatever. Now they're thinking about that, sure, but they're
thinking like why are we giving all this money of
these people? Whereas previously they sort of got a pass
of like the Charlie's assistant there, whoever that guy is
no disrespect I just generally don't know who he is.
He says. The Israeli line of like, well, they would say,
we're doing your dirty work. So this is a great
this is a great return on investment, Like you're getting

(01:01:21):
all this peace and security from the only democracy in
the Middle East on the cheap, And consensus among all
of these young conservative activists is like, no, we actually
we don't think that that value proposition works out whatsoever.

Speaker 3 (01:01:35):
And the Christian part is key as well. Only one
of them said sacred So you can see that that
boomer evangelicism evangelism that Ted Cruz.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Only one of them.

Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
There is like sacred land and we have to support
the country of Israel because the Bible commands us too.

Speaker 1 (01:01:49):
That's not what I'm hearing from the rest of these people.

Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
And that actually fits with the APAC line in particular,
which is the next part here about APAC and kind
of its special treatment.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
Let's take a listen there.

Speaker 18 (01:02:00):
The entirety of the idea of a pack is to
represent a group. But the fact that we're having we're
allowing a group that doesn't even represent American interests to
influence the people who are supposed to be representing US
I have a huge problem with.

Speaker 15 (01:02:12):
But when you hear that lots of other countries also
are lobbying, do you think I mean that you probably
don't know the names of those countries, but it's happening.
Does that upset you equally? Or is a pact just
get all the press because it's so top of mine
if those other ones are doing the same thing, of course.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
Yeah see, and that's look no offense again to that guy.
But there's a little bit of a struggle session.

Speaker 19 (01:02:36):
Element to us, right, and Charlie bow and I sympathize,
I get where they listen. The amount of I mean,
people need to understand the pressure that they're putting on
these types of people is unbelievable. Like it's not just money,
it's blowing up your phone, your whole social circle. Their

(01:02:57):
nightmare is even having this being aired. People understand like
the fact that this, you know, in my opinion, like
pretty mild criticism of Israel and military action even gets airtime,
or that Tucker gets to question dual.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
Citizenship or whatever on this date. You had to understand
the level of freakout and pressure that happened. I mean,
I'm sure you saw Laura Lumer and others, meaning like
any Jewish person who donated to Charlie needs to rescind there,
you know. I mean, this is a genuine existential threat.
It's also a view into kind of how the machine works,
and so that's what people need. That's why I think
that content that clip paired with this, this all makes

(01:03:32):
a lot of sense in terms of the level of
pressure right now that's happening. I mean, I'm sure you
also saw rostout that at the New York Times. He
wrote that piece how Israel's war became under I mean,
that's that's a free The freak out over that and
within the right is crazy even right now over at
National Review and the level of attacks that are coming

(01:03:53):
to anybody who's questioned open support for Israel against like
my friends over at the American Conservative, which are a
restreint based organization's the same thing, anti Semitism, blood libel Tucker.
The front page of National Review magazine is an entire
article where Yours truly is also quoted and named about
Tucker's dark turn against Jews and antisemit Like, just so

(01:04:16):
people understand like what this or listen, I mean, I
don't care anymore, but like that has currency in this town,
just so people understand. It will make you unemployable and
unworkable in a lot of environments, uninvitable, too many different things.
That's what's happening, and that's just leading to this, you know,
and not to mention actually really getting down.

Speaker 10 (01:04:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
Well, and that's why it's important that we understand what
actual independent media is. You know that there aren't some
random billionaires with various ideological interests that you're like existentially
dependent on in order to continue like making content or
doing your activism or whatever it is. Those things really
matter because you know, Charlie is like if you watch
through this focus group, like he is sort of tortured,

(01:04:59):
you know, go to a law like does a lot
and has his guy there to like sort of toe
the Israeli line, Like yeah, but it's a good of
return on investment and only democracy and to make sure
that it stays within a bounds that's not going to
completely nuke his enterprise. There's one last clip we can
show you from this having to do with anti Semitism.

(01:05:19):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Speaker 11 (01:05:21):
There is a rise of Jew hate, but it's not
the majority mover. I think the majority mover of gen
Z and gen Z conservatives is exhaustion precisely. Would you
guys think that's a fair categorization. And again there is
like an isolated like weirdo I hate Jews. We don't
like that. No one likes, no one, no one in
decent society wants that. But instead it's kind of like,

(01:05:41):
can we just I don't know, make it so I
can buy a home or like deport people?

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:05:48):
Is that?

Speaker 11 (01:05:48):
Does that resonate with you?

Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
Exactly?

Speaker 11 (01:05:50):
You're not anti Israel, you don't wish them harm. You're
not you know, like cheering on Iran.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
No I support I think I want them.

Speaker 11 (01:05:59):
But you would be called in anti Semite by some
people for saying this, and I.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
Think that's ridiculous.

Speaker 9 (01:06:03):
I don't hate Jews because I think a nation should
defend themselves exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Like I think that's the most ridiculous thing ever.

Speaker 9 (01:06:10):
I feel like it's becoming like the word racism, like
we just disagree with them, so we just have to
call them a name. I don't think they're actually anti Semitic.
I think people just can't agree with them, and they
can't prove them wrong. So they just throw a word
out and be like, you're anti Semitic for because you
think that we should stop sending our money.

Speaker 1 (01:06:27):
There, breach, brother, breach, He's exactly right.

Speaker 3 (01:06:30):
There's nothing, there's actually nothing woker than anti Semitism, the
anti Semitism industrial complex, all of.

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
The hallmarks, all of the hallmarks.

Speaker 3 (01:06:38):
Of anti racism have been dialed up to one hundred
for anti Semitism under our government.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
I mean have said this before.

Speaker 3 (01:06:46):
The current Anti Semitism Task Force by the Trump administration
is as close the government has ever come to the
Department of Anti Racism proposed in Ibrahim Kenny's book, which
obviously I oppose, but you know, obviously we don't have
the same level of opposition. You know, Ron DeSantis has
got affirmative action with state resources for Jews down in Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
It's fucking nuts, okay, j hhs. Yeah, No, literally is
pursuing the anti semitism. I mean, the you know, going
the tax on the university is the snatching up of
college students, like the government censorship is just like it
is crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
Look, I hate the universities. Okay, everybody knows. Can we
all accept that I hate Harvard all all of these.
I think there's Scott like actual leeches on the US government,
on our society. I think they're bad not because of
their Middle Eastern Studies department, and that is the current
way that they are what they're currently. The current shakedown
on Columbia was you have to pay US two hundred
million dollars and then we get to install a standards

(01:07:43):
department over specifically your Middle Eastern Studies depart what.

Speaker 1 (01:07:48):
You know, this is not even a free speech.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
Then they're putting a by are we in a CBS
all right?

Speaker 3 (01:07:54):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:07:54):
And it's too much. It's all just too.

Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
Much, all right. And yeah, that's where we are. That's
currently where we are right now with the right. I
hope people wake up. You know, Steve Bannon a few
other they're fighting, but I'm skin think he's got a
good quote.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
I'll read it to after we get off the show.