7/3/25: Trump Says Don't Cut Medicaid, Scahill Reveals Hamas Strategy, Dems Turn On Israel

Ryan and Emily discuss Trump tells GOP don't cut Medicaid, Jeremy Scahill reveals Hamas strategy, CNN shook at voters turning on Israel.

 

Jeremy Scahill: https://x.com/jeremyscahill

Will Chamberlain: https://x.com/willchamberlain 

 

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 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):
All right, good morning, happy Thursday. Welcome to Breaking Points.
Hi doing, Emily doing well.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
We're on the CUSPO the fourth of July, so that's
great news.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
We are, all right. So today's program, we're.

Speaker 5 (00:43):
Going to start the Big Beautiful Bill, which I guess
Chuck Schumer changed the name, but we're still going to
call it that anyway, because we don't have any other
name for it.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Trump's Bill. Yeah, just go with that.

Speaker 5 (00:53):
I guess Trump's Bill is as we speak, cruising towards passage.
There's Keem Jeffries is speaking, and there's all kinds of
kind of parliamentary stuff that they're tying up, but it's
going to pass, so that's going to happen.

Speaker 4 (01:05):
Yeah, Mike Johnson secured the votes.

Speaker 6 (01:07):
He did some arm twisting into the wee hours of
the morning, four am. Scott Perry had to drive back
to Pennsylvania to get new clothes after vacation.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Any he's like York, So that's like people commute from
York politically.

Speaker 6 (01:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
So we'll be joined by.

Speaker 5 (01:22):
Will Chamberlain, kind of a mega man about town right,
one of the leading MAGA kind of figures in Washington.
I would say, who's gonna kind of tell us why
this is actually a good thing, that this is happening.

Speaker 6 (01:33):
Yeah, we're absolutely going to hear from Will about why
the writs is absolutely happy about what's happening right.

Speaker 5 (01:42):
Which I'm glad because it's one of those moments where
I just genuinely don't understand it. I usually like disagree,
but understand now. I have no idea why they like
this thing. I'm looking forward to hearing from Will on that.
Then we're going to be joined by Jeremy Scale, who's
been talking to sources within Hama and other resistance organizations
about their response to Donald Trump's new ceasefire proposal. We'll

(02:07):
get details from him on that.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
After that, we're going to bring in Maddi Hassen.

Speaker 4 (02:12):
We've got three guests today.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
He's going to be in the studio.

Speaker 5 (02:15):
There's been this bubbling scandal for a very long time
where the BBC commissioned an extraordinary documentary on Israeli attacks
on the medics and doctors in the medical community in
Gaza and has.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Been refusing to air it.

Speaker 5 (02:35):
It finally aired on Channel four after they just said fine,
we are not fine.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
Fine, you can take this somewhere else, we are not
running it.

Speaker 5 (02:42):
Maddy Hassen bought the global rights for it for Zeteo,
and so we're going to play a little trailer from that,
talk about the scandal, talk about.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
How how that whole thing came about.

Speaker 5 (02:54):
We've got an update on Alligator Alcatraz and just a
kil Mar Abrigo Garcia as well his case.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
There's news out of that one.

Speaker 5 (03:04):
Plus we're going to talk about zorn Mom Donnie's response
to Donald Trump saying he's going to arrest him and
deport him, and and how it kind of points away
for Democrats to be a less awful party. Yeah, at
a party that you could actually imagine being excited about.

Speaker 6 (03:19):
It's just a really interesting topic to be able to
talk to you about. After you've written books like on
this exact.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Topic, it's nice to see it flourishing a little bit.

Speaker 6 (03:28):
Yeah, So we'll get into that, and then we will
cover what happened in the Diddy trial yesterday, where he
was acquitted on three chats three counts and found guilty
on two of the less serious counts.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
So a lot to talk about today.

Speaker 6 (03:41):
Let's go ahead and start with the one big beautiful Bill, which,
as we are sitting here right now, is really on
the cusp of passage because House Speaker Mike Johnson wrangled
his conference.

Speaker 4 (03:53):
A lot of the Freedom Caucus fiscal hawks, did not
want to vote on the bill.

Speaker 6 (03:57):
They didn't want to vote on the rule, they didn't
want to vote on the to open debate on the bill,
which is the parlamentary procedure you have to do to
ultimately vote on the bill, and they are not happy
that they're being forced to come to the table on this.
So Mike Johnson and his conference had been doing intense
math trying to make sure, like they literally had to
wait for one member, Scott Perry, to drive back and

(04:19):
forth from the York areas. Ryan points out yesterday for
his vote, he thought he had more time to go
get a change of clothes because he came in after vacation,
and this is happening at like between two and four
in the morning.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
So poor went out for the Capitol Hill Press Corps.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Or Nordstrom Rack here in DC. He could have gone too.

Speaker 4 (04:35):
I was sort of confused about that.

Speaker 6 (04:37):
Mike Johnson also said that he would have loaned him close,
So all kinds of wild stuff going on.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
That was a story. He had to go home for
some other reason.

Speaker 6 (04:46):
It looked like the bill was actually on track to fail.
For a brief moment last late last night, around like
ten thirty pm, it looked like Johnson had lost the votes.
But after Trump and Johnson were twist arms all night,
they now.

Speaker 4 (05:01):
Have the votes.

Speaker 5 (05:02):
So Keen Jeffreys gets what's called a golden hour where
he can talk endlessly. Yeah, and so I think he's
an hour three. It's a real treat for of his
speech now. But when he runs out of steam then
and maybe he'll just speak for forty years, but at
some point he will run out of steam and then
they will put this on the floor and they have

(05:22):
the votes.

Speaker 4 (05:23):
He ran out of steam like two years ago to
pass it.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
So should we roll some clips first or yeah, and
then bring in Will.

Speaker 6 (05:30):
Yeah, let's get Will to react to We'll start with
this clip of Jim Jordan. So a bunch of members
were brought to the White House yesterday where Donald Trump
was working to convince them to vote for the bill.
They had a lot of reservations on it just twenty
four hours ago. So here is Jim Jordan of Ohio
on how they got to a passage.

Speaker 4 (05:49):
I do want to ask you in that context.

Speaker 7 (05:52):
It is Freedom Caucus members who are very concerned about
this bill. I'm old enough to remember when if there
was a bill on the floor that added much to
our debt and deficit. I cannot imagine you would have
been happy about it.

Speaker 4 (06:03):
In those years.

Speaker 7 (06:05):
And yet you have been approaching this a little bit differently.
What is your message to your colleagues in that group right.

Speaker 8 (06:11):
Now, Look, we all wishould save more money, but you
know this is a good bill, and I tell people
all the time, you know it's a good piece of
legislation because every single Democrat hates it. And the reason
they hate it is because this bill actually empowers Americans.
It empowers families, It cuts their taxes, it keeps their
taxes low. It says to the hardworking people who are
working and getting tips, we're not going to tax those tips.

(06:32):
It says the parents, we're going to give you school
choice in our tax code. It says the border that's
now secure under President Trump, we're going to allocate resources to.

Speaker 9 (06:40):
Keep it secure.

Speaker 8 (06:41):
And maybe most importantly, or as importantly, is it says
to hard working American families who are paying for all
this government. For people who are getting a benefit in
the welfare system, if they're able bodied, adun't guess what
from now on, they're going to have to work. So
I think it's good for all those common sense, fundamental
Republican principles. That's why the Democrats don't like it. While

(07:03):
it doesn't cut enough spending, I get it, but we
got small majorities. This is probably as good as it's
going to get. So I'm certainly for this piece of legislation.

Speaker 6 (07:11):
Okay, So Speaker Mike Johnson also addressed the let's say
imperfections from a conservative perspective, in this bill, we can
go ahead and roll a two here.

Speaker 10 (07:21):
We can't make everyone happy, It's impossible.

Speaker 1 (07:25):
This is a deliberated body. It's a legislative process.

Speaker 10 (07:28):
By definition, all of us have to give up on
our personal preferences. I never to ask anybody to come
fromise core principles, but but preferences must be yielded for
for the greater good. That's what I think people are
recognizing to come to grips with now.

Speaker 6 (07:42):
Not all Republicans had to have their arms twisted to
vote for this bill. Nancy Mace documented her journey. We
can go ahead and roll this footage that she posted
from South Carolina up to DC. She got caught up
in the same travel stuff that Ryan and I got
caught up in. But she rented a luxury sprinter van
and went to walk house and wah wah and wore

(08:02):
pajamas everywhere and posted this wonderful video of her pumping
gas and buying buying red bulls so that she could
get up in time to.

Speaker 4 (08:11):
Vote for the bill.

Speaker 6 (08:13):
And I think Ryan, on that note, this is a
good time as any to bring in Will Chamberlain of
the Article three project, who is going to talk to
us a bit about how the right is seeing passage
of this bill. Interpreting passage of this bill. Why so
many people, Nancy Mason included, are actually very happy about
the bill, unlike the sort of reluctant folks like a

(08:34):
Chip Roy. So will first of all, thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
For joining us.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
Always great to be with you.

Speaker 6 (08:39):
Now anytime you have like a reconciliation bill. Mike Johnson
is absolutely right. Not everybody is going to be happy
with every part of the bill. You have to get
your whole conference together. That's everyone from Susan Collins to
Chip Roy. And that's no easy feat of Obviously, they
ended up losing Susan Collins, but kept Murkowski. Needed to
keep Murkowski. Jade Vance cast the tie breaking vote. So

(09:01):
tell us, basically, give us your sort of big take
on why passage of this bill that will now be
on Donald Trump's desk by that fourth of July deadline.

Speaker 4 (09:09):
Why you see that as a big win?

Speaker 11 (09:12):
I guess you can fit it into two big buckets,
both of which are core parts of Trump's agenda, immigration
and tax policy. So on the immigration side, I mean
this is a twenty times increase in total funding for
immigration enforcement ten to twenty times, massively increasing the budget,
device massively spending forty five billion dollars to build the wall,

(09:32):
spending another forty five billion on detention space. I mean,
I remember having knock down, drag out fights over getting
four billion dollars to build the wall via national emergency funding.
In the first term, Congress wouldn't even breathe on it,
and now we're going to get ten times that to
solve what is has been a major priority of the
Magna movement since its inception, massive increased certain destension. All

(09:55):
this money is necessary because it's it's very hard to
engage in mass deportation. It turns out that once people
are in the country, that's a logistically challenging thing or
requires a lot of personnel, So you need the money
for it. To say you're for mass deportation and not
for the money necessary to do it is ridiculous. Don't
to change the law logistically requires sixty votes in the Senate,
but to fund enforcement of existing law requires fifty. So

(10:18):
it's a huge win on the immigration front, which we
see is the most central issue in our politics. And
I think the second big bucket would be tax policy.
No tax on tips and no tax on overtime is
a real thing, and this reinstates, reaffirms the twenty seventeen
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In the absence of this,
you'd have a massive taxi for everybody. Instead, you're having

(10:41):
massive tax cuts, keeping the massive tax cuts from twenty seventeen,
and then additionally adding some very pro working, pro working
class tax reform in terms of no tax and tips
and no tax on overtime, and to the extent there
are decreases and benefits related to work eligibility. Well, it
seems kind of obvious that if you're also massively incentivizing
work by making sure that people get more take home

(11:03):
pay from their work, you're you're sort of creating the
incentive structure that I think kind of pro working class
Republicans want, which is, we want work people who are
going out there and working to get rewarded. We just
don't want It's like Gevan's talked a lot about this
in his book. He thought, you need to reward the
working class for going to work, and but not rewards
staying at home doing nothing.

Speaker 5 (11:22):
And so that that part I understand, and so help
help me out for the parts that I don't understand,
because it makes sense to me that you guys would
do like throw billions, and I think the amount of money,
I don't even know how you're gonna be able to
spend it. But good lord, it's it's like, you know,
it's like somebody said, it's more than the Marines. It's
like it's like the amount of money going towards mass

(11:45):
deportation is absolutely stunning. But it goes into the category
of something that I disagree with, but I understand that
this is a thing that you guys have wanted like.

Speaker 1 (11:54):
That, So I get that.

Speaker 5 (11:55):
On the work encouraging, you know, making making work pay more,
encouraging people to work, that makes sense. What I don't
the parts that I don't understand, and extending the Trump
tax cuts. He did the tax cuts, so obviously he's
going to send them Like that makes sense. Part I
don't understand. So let's take the like the explosion of
the estate tax, Like basically, you're spending something like five
hundred billion to a trillion dollars in this bill to

(12:18):
make it so the threshold for people who pay the
estate tax is going from almost nobody but still raising
you know, a significant amount.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
Of money half a billion, you know, have five hundred.

Speaker 5 (12:30):
Billion to a trillion Dollars's a lot of money that
you know, wealthy people were paying in the estate tax.
It's not going to go away like so, and that
money is coming out of say extending the tax no
tax on tips, and no tax on overtime, because those
things expire pretty quickly. You could tighten the estate tax
and say, you know what the threshold for how much

(12:55):
wealth you can pass down without paying tax, it's.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
Going to go down a little bit.

Speaker 5 (13:00):
We're going to say the first two million dollars that
you want to give to your children is tax free.
It's a huge amount of money. That's that's an enormous
windfall for somebody to get. And then we're going to
take the tax revenue from that. We're going to permanently
extend all these tax these tax breaks for the working class,
tax on tips, overtime, et cetera. Instead they blow out

(13:23):
the estate tax, tons of money for Bill Gates's kids,
but they make the working class part tight like like
what why do that?

Speaker 4 (13:33):
Well?

Speaker 11 (13:33):
I mean, from a political perspective, I assume that was
necessary to get some votes in the Senate. Right, that's
my default assumption because that's not the core the core
policy drive for Trump and the Trump movement is the
immigration and the working class, tax hands and so. But
that the MAGA movement is not completely reflected in the
Senate as we've seen for the last decade. So I

(13:55):
think if you're asking from the political perspective, why are
these things that seem intension with the court, Trump policy
priorities and the bill, It's like, well, we have a
three seat majority in the Senate and effectively a two
or three seat majority in thats so you know, we
we have to give a little again, a.

Speaker 1 (14:09):
Little got it? What about the what about the energy part?

Speaker 5 (14:13):
Like I understand that Republicans in general kind of just
think clean energy is icky, like that there's it's a
problematic for reasons. But over the last year, like two
thirds of new energy production was clean energy, was batteries, wind, solar,
And we need as a country to continue the expansion

(14:34):
of the supply of energy if we're going to.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Compete against China.

Speaker 5 (14:39):
Yeah, whether it's class argument and also common sense like
you need energy to power your growing economy, whether it's
cleaner dirty, why go after the the energy industry.

Speaker 1 (14:54):
This way.

Speaker 5 (14:55):
It's it's because it goes beyond taking substance away. You know,
it adds taxes, it adds regulatory it adds all of
these obstacles that make it so that clean energy manufacturing
and energy manufacturing is made more difficult by this bill.
So that's that's that's one of the parts from like.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Who's for this?

Speaker 5 (15:13):
Because like big tech needs energy, consumers need energy, they
don't want to pay more, like who's the constituency and
what are the politics that drove that?

Speaker 1 (15:23):
And then well then we can rematicate because I know
you got to go pretty soon. So I'm not I'm
not a huge expert on energy policy.

Speaker 11 (15:29):
I'll be frank, but I've you know, there's a guy
Alex Epstein who had some good posts on this yesterday.
My understanding is that it's it's it's a kind of
technocratic argument about how what you have to do in
order to ensure that your project gets subsidized and stay subsidized,
like how quickly it gets on the grid. And if
I recall his books correctly, like don't don't hold me
to this, somebody will have to go, you know, check

(15:51):
outfore Care but his his basic argument was that it's
you know, the subs The question is like how quickly
does your solar thing have to be upperal in order
for you to get the subsidy, And they were trying
to reduce that time to ensure that these projects actually
were getting done and adding to the grid. And the
problem was if you don't have that limit, you get

(16:11):
kind of what he described as spamming of the grid,
where people are just building a lot of random energy
plants to get the subsidy without any you know, real
assessment of the fact that they'll actually be online in
a reasonable period of time. So that was one thing
I think. So that's that's one point, but I think
in general, I mean there's a lot of long term
standing and injections to solar and when they're not a

(16:32):
good reliable basis on which to build your grid. And
i mean Spain had you know, massive outages as a result.
Wind wind has all sorts of problems. These are not
like the grid especially, I mean in a lot of
places is ultimately sustained by fossil fuels, and that's not
a bad thing. We're going to i mean, we're going
to have more technology tune at more fossil fields. I
think that, and we have tons of them sitting underneath Colorado.

(16:53):
So I think that, you know, I don't think this
is but I guess the meta point would be this
isn't a core area of concern for the Trump based
your way, uh And so whether or not again one
of these questions about, you know, people looking for places
to cut spending. I think that, and you know, green
energy subsidies would be one of them.

Speaker 5 (17:10):
And the irony is that Democrats and we're critical of
this the time it put most of the subsidies into
red states, thinking, you know, because and and you know
North Carolina and Texas in particularly was also Kansas and
Iowa and Maine have built up, you know, major kind
of clean energy industries that we're gonna, you know, are
gonna are gonna get hit.

Speaker 4 (17:30):
Lisa Murkowski was ye, fighting hard.

Speaker 5 (17:33):
And so then the then Medicaid yesterday, Trump has a
bunch of Republicans over at the White House and he's
he's waxing to them about you know, how you keep
your seats, and he says, you know, the way not
to lose elections is he repeats his mantra that he's
said so often over the last eight years, don't mess
with don't touch Medicaid, Medicare and sold security. And one

(17:56):
of the members in the room is like, bro, we're
touching medical cat in this bill, not just touching it,
torching it, like massive, massive cuts. I guess, So why like,
why do that?

Speaker 11 (18:12):
Well, I mean, this is MI understanding of the Medicaid changes,
or that it's it's a work requirement. If you're able
body between the ages of eighteen and sixty five, you
need to be working twenty hours a week to get Medicaid,
which is I think. And there are exceptions obviously if
you're like caring for minor children or something like that,
or you're disabled obviously, but I think as a default

(18:32):
policy idea that sounds right to me. I don't think that, yeah,
able bodied, you know, able body people should be getting
free health insurance from the state. That seems wrong to
me if they're not. You know, that's that's about what
we don't have such life medicine.

Speaker 5 (18:47):
Right, That's easy to say, but it goes so much
further beyond that. Basically, what it does is it readjusts
the various formulas so that it's going to massively reduce
the amount of fun that is going to go to states,
and it's and also to food stamps to snap and
it's going to increase the amount that states have to

(19:08):
put in. And interestingly, because Republicans resisted the medicaid expansion
in Obamacare, which John Roberts in the Supreme Court allowed
them to do. As you I'm sure you remember, there
were so many movements in red states to push for
the medicaid expansion that a bunch of those states had
to do it through constitutional amendments done by referendum. So

(19:32):
a lot of these red states are now constitutionally obligated
to put a particular amount of their budget into medicaid.
And now they're going to get a lot less from
the federal government. And it's and hospitals are warning that,
you know, they're going to go bankrupt in rural America.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
Why do it wasn't and Holly talked a lot about this.

Speaker 5 (19:53):
This is not just you know, some you know Marxist
on this program talking about it.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
Why wasn't that a bigger concern?

Speaker 5 (20:00):
The closure of rural hospitals and the throwing off of
seventeen million people of medicaid.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
Many of them in rural America. That feels like a
MAGI issue.

Speaker 5 (20:09):
And this is one of the places where I'm back
in the phrase place of just not understanding and does
it go back to this is a coalition of the
old Republican Party that I very much do understand that
wanted to cut Medicaid for decades and they just won.

Speaker 11 (20:24):
I mean, I think again, the throwing off of people
in Medicaid, it's I mean, it's not just randomly throwing
people off. It's literally it's imposing a work requirement. And
I think even the MAGA base is pro work requirements.
I think people really should go back and read Jadie
Vance's book on Hillbiliology, Right, it's actually laid out there.
There's just this really clear difference. You know, on the

(20:47):
one hand, we want, we don't want to get rid
of Social Security, Medicare, but on the other hand, there
is this deep anger from working class Americans towards towards idlers,
towards people in their similar class not working, not having
a job, and collecting government benefits. So I think it
just basically the policy fits.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
That, as I think the message, I think the messaging
fits that. Yeah, that's right. Well, I think it's kind
of a myth that there's a.

Speaker 11 (21:15):
Well, then the knocking effects of the policy on rural
hospital I mean, people are these are projections. I'm sure
in the world where rural hospitals are actually in real
trouble and there's like real talk of closures, then the
policy will change. Right, there's certain you know, this is
a general theme. You can actually use this as call
this plan trusting. Right, there's a general theme to how
things work. This was appened in tariffs too, like you
name it. People are like, well, these catastrophic impacts for

(21:37):
a result. I'm like, well, no, there are competent people
running our government. They're component people running state governments. Before
the catastrophe hits, things will change if you are right
that the catastrophe is going to hurt. So I don't
I start. I don't know that you know that these
hospitals will close. I know people are arguing that they
might if there really is a serious problem there. I
assume it will get fixed when that happens.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
So it's like that, so that I understand, it's like,
basically we trust Trump that he's that he's going to
do do good by us. I guess last point on
the deficit, like you know that my whole life being
told that it's the thing that's going to like ruin America.
And it's like, oh, how about how about we add
a couple more trillion to it? And yeah, yeah, yeah,

(22:20):
well one minute on that one, because I know you
got to run.

Speaker 11 (22:23):
The deficit is to Republicans is global warming is to
Democrats the impending crisis that you know, always always will
happen in the next year or two and then never does.
I mean, I think that I've come to the conclusion
that I mean, the debt as a problem is is
not a problem in the way that you know, the
sort of Freedom Caucus people catastrophize it. It's just a
it's just a long term inflation problem, is the way

(22:45):
I think about it.

Speaker 5 (22:47):
That's basically how the someone the left think about it too.

Speaker 1 (22:49):
Now.

Speaker 11 (22:49):
Yeah, and and you know, ultimately did was Trump getting
people to chant, you know, reduce the deficit. No, I mean,
there's a one of the things that the Freedom Caucus
loves to do is they and this is not limited
to them, is pretending that their policy is the ultimate
Trump agenda. And it's like, no, actually, that's not what
the Trump vote base wanted. That's you know, the deficit
is like tenth on the list or fifteenth on the

(23:11):
list of concerns, and the ones that are addressed in
this bill are at number one and two.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
That's a good point.

Speaker 5 (23:15):
Well, we're gonna let you go, and then Emily and
I have a couple more things to go through.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
So helpful, Will, thanks thanks a lot.

Speaker 9 (23:20):
All right, absolutely, thank you.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Okay, So that was Will Chamberlain.

Speaker 5 (23:28):
I guess I sort of see it from their perspective
a little bit more.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
They just really trust Trump.

Speaker 5 (23:33):
Like, and I'm not saying that's rational, but I okay,
you trust Trump like the idea that you've got a
bunch of people that are saying, like, hey, and there
have been a ton of Royal hospital closures already, and
you've got people saying, if you do this Medicaid provider tax,
you kick these other people off Medicaid, these.

Speaker 1 (23:50):
Hospitals are going to close. And the counter is I
trust Trump.

Speaker 12 (23:54):
Well.

Speaker 6 (23:55):
But this is also an interesting point that, based on
what Will just said, if you don't think there's a
problem with spending overall, that this is or at least
that it's not an urgent pressing problem.

Speaker 4 (24:10):
Well, that's what I was just going to say.

Speaker 6 (24:11):
Yeah, then why make these sort of you just tweaks
to a program that Maga, as Steve Bannon has said,
MAGA loves Medicaid, MAGA is on Medicaid. Why do that
to sell tax cuts that will benefit everyone across the
entire I mean that these taxes will benefit everyone across

(24:32):
the entire entire spectrum in the short term, disproportionately will
benefit wealthy people. You could have, as people like Botch
Younger Stargun have said, just not have reauthorized the top
rate cuts.

Speaker 4 (24:43):
You could just let those expire.

Speaker 6 (24:45):
But if you don't think that there's an urgent debt
deficit problem, why are you worrying about paying for Why
are you worrying about offsetting the tax cuts at all?

Speaker 4 (24:55):
You don't have to.

Speaker 5 (24:56):
Yeah, I guess it goes back to the Republican Party
still being somewhat controlled by or at least having to
deal with It's it's like one percent.

Speaker 4 (25:08):
I'm all for smart work requirements.

Speaker 6 (25:11):
The politics of this make like just the politics of
this make absolutely no sense of packaging them together with
a tax cut for the riche.

Speaker 5 (25:20):
Yeah, And I think there's an interesting element so we'll
get to Tim Burchett here in the We Trust Trump
and also in the We do not trust Democrats and
the media, that that kind of polarized people into just
supporting the thing. And I think we watched it happen

(25:40):
in real time on CNN with Burchette on the air. Well,
you had Jim Jordan, who we played previously in this block,
saying this bill is great because all the Democrats hate it. Like,
so that's right there, that's just explicitly polarization, like the
Democrats don't like it, therefore it must be good. Burchette
went on Brianna Quilar's program on CNN and was an

(26:05):
undecided vote and Trump had brought him and some other
undecideds into the White House trying to push them into
supporting the bill, and he gets then he gets into
a fight with Brianna Quilar over whether or not the
CBO should be trusted, and she's doing a.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
Kind of haha, gotcha.

Speaker 5 (26:24):
You pushed forward a resolution that said all CBO estimates
should be read on the House floor, and now you're
saying that CBO estimates can't be trusted on this And
his argument is, yeah, CBO is the only game in
town and also that resolution didn't pass. But I think
the CBO is wrong on this. And then they go

(26:45):
back and forth for a while on whether or not
he's a hypocrite, and by the end of the interview
he's hardcore defending the bill. But he went from on
the fence, do you know what, this bill's going to
save the American Republic?

Speaker 6 (26:57):
And this is echoes the Jim Jordan point, and also
that he made in the clip we rolled earlier that
and Trump was pitching it this way.

Speaker 5 (27:05):
The left hates this left hates his built that's why
it take you and so we're going to vote yes
on this thing.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
That's actually, I think genuinely self desisive.

Speaker 4 (27:12):
The left loves this bill.

Speaker 6 (27:13):
By the way, they're salivating over this bill because they're
able to talk about entirely yeah.

Speaker 5 (27:18):
Democrature, so like they're salivating like drying shots. He's like,
I really hope the bill doesn't pass, but if it does,
we are going to win the Senate.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Let's let's say it doesn't. So anyway, yeah, let's roll
purch it.

Speaker 13 (27:27):
What did the President say to you that made you
feel maybe closer to voting?

Speaker 14 (27:33):
Yes, he talked about the economic output that we would
have that was not in the CBO scores, and and
along those lines, he talked about other things that I'm
I'm not going to share but because it was in privacy.
But I think there's a lot of things that probably
be revealed when this is passed, and I think America
will will embrace it further. I think again, once you

(27:57):
you do some things like straightening up dedicated Medicare and
you dispute a lot of the lives that are in
the media about people be getting kicked off, I think
America understands what we're up against in this.

Speaker 6 (28:08):
Well.

Speaker 13 (28:09):
The CBO, which you put so much trust in four
years and years that you passed a resolution wanting estimates
read before bills, is very clear about how many people
are going to be kicked off of healthcare until you
were against them.

Speaker 14 (28:20):
No, ma'am, No, ma'am, no, ma'am. Listen, listen if you
want to. If you want to do the editorial, just
go ahead. And you don't need me on here, but
the sea facts, sir, I wouldn't have to. I would
like to see what the economic economic output of every bill.

Speaker 4 (28:34):
You as a.

Speaker 14 (28:35):
Taxpayer shoul want that too, And the CBO is the
only organization we have. If I could allow a private
accounting firm to do it, I would much rather that happen.
But the reality is it would have to be the CBO.
And what do you have against knowing how much each
bill is spent? Why is the media posed to that?
Why do you all on the left always fight every
chance in America knowing what's going on. The problem we y'

(28:55):
all have with this bill, man, is that it gets
government out of our way and let's Americans make some
decisions and maybe hard working Americans would have a better
choice and a mayor shot at life in this country
without you all just telling us how bad things are
going and trying to construct and as you're doing with me,
trying to trying to dictate what I've said.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
Yeah, and he goes on from there.

Speaker 5 (29:16):
Just the rest of the interview just sings the praises
of the bill, and now he's for it. That clip,
to me is like in the broader interview is like
the story of our politics. It's like the issue itself
gets lost in the fact that we hate each other.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
And so then bur just like you know what, she sucks,
I'm voting for this, I'm.

Speaker 4 (29:36):
Going to yell at by CNN, so.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
I'm voting for this. It's like that don't follow that train.

Speaker 6 (29:41):
But I would also I would also notice that just
note that will started with immigration enforcement. And that's how
Stephen Miller's been selling this bill as the most important
bill for like the future of Western civilization. Is that
they believe if you don't do their definition of mass deportation,
which is different than I think the public said finishing
a mass deportation, but literally like deporting almost everybody, not

(30:03):
just the worst of the worst, but almost everybody for
assimilation and labor force reasons, then you don't have a
country anymore. So from that perspective, they would probably swallow
a lot of bad policy to pass a reconciliation bill
with massive immigration enforcement increase.

Speaker 5 (30:22):
Just do your crackdown then, Like I don't see why
they had to lump it all in, but whatever, I
didn't win. Up next, Jeremy Scayhill update US on his
reporting on the latest and the ceasefire negotiations. Ceasefire negotiations
are at an advanced stage. Jeremy Scahill, my colleague at
drop Site News, joins US now to talk about his

(30:44):
reporting on what we know about where we stand.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
Jeremy, thanks so much for being here today.

Speaker 9 (30:51):
Good to be with you, guys.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
So walk us through where we are now.

Speaker 5 (30:54):
Donald Trump several days ago announced that he had gotten
Israeli agreement on some version of a ceasefire.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
There was conspicuous.

Speaker 5 (31:03):
Silence for a while from the Israelis, but then a
media campaign started rolling out about what was in this agreement.
And my understanding though, is that only recently did Hamas
even receive a proposal.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
So what is the current situation?

Speaker 9 (31:20):
I mean, Trump is riding really high on what he
perceives to be an ultra successful military campaign against Iran,
and you know, he's had his own series of kerfuffles
in Washington over how much damage was done to Iran's
nuclear program, But clearly he feels empowered now to try
to keep the ball rolling with his own agenda in

(31:42):
the Middle East. And what we've seen happen throughout the
Trump administration is, on the one hand, Trump messages that
he wants all these wars to be brought to an end.
On the other hand, he's really fully empowered net Nyahu
to continue and intensify the war and actually to expand it,
not just in Lebanon with repeated violation of the ceasefire,
but also these twelve days of intense Israeli bombing of

(32:04):
Iran that then at the end became a joint US
Israeli bombing operation. But you know, setting aside any analysis
we could do about what really was at play there,
Trump really, i think, sees that he has momentum. And
so what happened is that earlier this week, Ron Dermer,
who is Netanyahu's point person and really kind of like
his Roger Stone of sorts, you know, his political hitman,

(32:25):
he arrives in Washington, d C. For talks with a
series of Trump administration officials, and what I'm told by
sources is basically they concocted what they felt would be
kind of the final ultimatum that would be delivered to
Hamas by regional mediators from Egypt and Katar, saying, this
is your last chance to make a ceasefire deal. You

(32:47):
saw the kind of power that we unleashed in Iran.
Now is your time to do it. There's been a
lot of reporting over the past couple of days in
the Hebrew language press the Arabic language press included as
well as in the American press about what the terms
of this proposal being put in front of Hamas are.
I'm told though, by sources on the negotiating team that
despite this flurry of media reports about what the terms are,

(33:10):
Hamas was not actually given any document until late last night.
In fact, they haven't really been able to do full
consultations within HAMAS or the other resistance factions. I've spoken
this morning to a source who's close to the negotiators
that actually has that document in hand, and in general,
what I would say is this, It is almost identical

(33:33):
in most ways to the previous ultimatum that Steve Whitkoff,
Trump's Special envoy, delivered back in May. It does not
contain any clear guarantees that Israel will not resume the
military assault on Gaza after an initial sixty day period.
It has very vague language about how humanitarian aid is
going to come into Gaza. It doesn't say anything about

(33:55):
the fate of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, this aid scam
where Palestinians being gunned down every day. It does mention
that the United Nations and the Red Crescent are again
going to be involved with the distribution of aid, but
there aren't any clear definitions. Perhaps the two most significant
changes or amendments I guess that you could say in

(34:16):
some way inch the position more toward what Hamas wanted
is that they've sharpened some of the language about President
Donald Trump. There's thirteen points in this agreement. In point
one and point thirteen, Trump is mentioned by name, and
what they're saying is that Trump is committed to an
actual end to the war, and as long as negotiations
are committed are conducted in good faith, that he wants

(34:38):
to see this two month window of a temporary truce
continue on toward a resolution of the war. Hamasto had
wanted much clearer language, and they wanted Trump to guarantee
that he would prevent Israel from resuming its military assault
on Gaza as long as the negotiations were continuing. That
language is not in this document. On a technical level,

(35:00):
the most significant change is that the Israelis back in
May wanted to have ten living captives Israelis held in
Gaza released within the first week of any ceasefire deal
sixty day deal. Halmas looked at that and said, then
it's just going to be a one week deal because
after the Israelis are freed, Nennahuo's just going to resume
the genocide. So it's not a huge change. But what

(35:23):
we're looking at now is a formula that says eight
Israelis would be released within that first week. I believe
it's on day five, and then the other two living
Israelis would be released on day fifty. You would also
have the bodies of eighteen Israelis who are deceased but
still in captivity in Gaza staggered out over the course
of those two months. What is not mentioned in the

(35:44):
document is how many of the more than ten thousand
Palestinians held in detention camps and prisons in Israel are
going to be released. That's unusual. In other agreements, there
has been some formula cited for how many Palestinian captives
are going to be released. The langue on this is
very vague, while there is not. Again, Ryan, you and
I have talked about this on this show before Hamas

(36:06):
has offered to relinquish governing authority of Gaza. They put
it in writing. It was in their draft that we
talked about on this show a couple of months ago.
It is not in the actual text of this agreement,
and you know, Israel in the United States, for whatever reasons,
have taken that term out every time Hamas has has
put it forward. But I was told last night by
a senior Hamas official that the mediators have made clear

(36:26):
to Hamas that that is a condition that Israel and
the United States are going to insist on. And what
is unclear is who takes power if Hamas does relinquish
its authority. It's not just a resistance movement, it's a government.
So a lot of questions up in the air. And
the final thing I'll say on this is that while Hamas,
I think Hamas is very seriously considering taking this deal,
even though they don't think it's a good deal, They're

(36:49):
under a lot of pressure. These guys, the negotiators, all
have family members that have been killed. People are suffering
immensely in Gaza, and there is unprecedented pressure against Hamas
right now, not in a hostile way, but in a
desperate way. Please make a deal. So I'm told that
they're giving very serious consideration to it. The question is
if they're going to be able to get some amendments

(37:10):
to this language. Last time this happened Hamas came through
and put a whole new proposal on the table. I'm
told that they're looking now at a more surgical approach
where they're going to zero in on what they've defined
as their red lines. They really don't want Israel to
be able to resume the genocide, and they want a
full Israeli withdrawal. What is not in this document is
anything about the Philadelphi Corridor, which is the very crucial

(37:32):
part of Gaza because it represents in the south of Gaza.
It represents the only gateway to a world beyond Israeli
controls for Jalestedians. It's on the Egyptian border. We reported
some days ago Ryan that mediators last week told Hamas
that they may have to be willing to concede the
timeline for an Israeli withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor. So

(37:57):
I think what we're seeing here, just to sum it up,
is it's basically the same ultimatum that was put on
the table, with a few amendments that seem aimed at
trying to give Hamas something. Hamas is very clear eyed
about it. A senior official told me last night that
Trump is a crucial part of what he called Israel's
deception operation. Even though they say that this is a deception,
they're wide eyed about it. They understand what the stakes are.

(38:20):
And so I think we're going to see some really
intense attempts at negotiation. I get the sense that Hamas
very much wants to make a deal.

Speaker 6 (38:27):
And it was announced just a couple of days ago
that Netsa Nyahu will be at the White House on
Monday Jeremy, which seems to signal confidence from the Trump
administration that something's coming. What does the timeline look like
and what did you make of that announcement?

Speaker 9 (38:41):
Yeah, I mean, you know, as often happens with Netnahho,
he sort of projects one message in English and another
message in Hebrew. Netnyahu has been totally unhinged, belligerent in
his Hebrew language remarks over the past twenty four to
forty eight hours, where he's saying, we're not going to
stop the war until Hamas is totally eradicated. We're going
to kill everyone with a gun. We're not going to

(39:02):
have Hamasa stan anymore. On the other hand, you know
what we're we're hearing is that Trump really wants to
kind of put on a show with this, I think
he wants to make a big announcement when net Nyah
who is in town. Also, we can report based on
Israeli media accounts from well connected journalists that there is
talk again of another side letter, a secret side letter

(39:25):
that Trump apparently has told the Israelis he will give
them saying that they can resume the war in Gaza
if Jimas does not leave power and disarm. So, you know,
it's sort of groundhog Day again. I think that, you know,
with Netnyah who coming to Wahington, Trump wants to put
on a big show. He wants to make a big announcement.
He wants to sort of portray himself, you know, in

(39:46):
a way that's going to go down in archival reels
that are going to be shown, you know, for decades
to come. He may get that moment. The real question
is is Trump serious about ending this war? Because if
he is, he can put net Nyahu in a corner.
The Israelis don't seem to think Trump is going to
do that. I think Netanyahu feels like this is sort
of his own victory tour of sorts. So we'll see

(40:07):
what happens.

Speaker 5 (40:08):
So to your point about hamas being under significant pressure.
Our colleague Abu Baker Abed had posted yesterday and we
could put this up maybe in post. He said, growing
in pressuring calls among Gosins to accept the Katari proposal
for a seize fire, that people are desperate beyond words
for a rest. Sixty days can offer a huge source
of relief and respite from the ongoing holocaust.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
It's better than nothing. I hope it will happen.

Speaker 5 (40:33):
I think it's a good representation of the desperation at
play here, despite the fact that Abu Baker and everybody
else understands that it could be just fifty or sixty days,
and then he resumes it again, Like how confident? Like
how what's the confidence level among people that actually, yeah,
that okay, we'll take it because it's fifty days of

(40:57):
peace or even let's say sixty days of peace. But like,
how certain are people that Nenyahu will actually just use
that side letter and go right back into war, yet
are considering it anyway?

Speaker 9 (41:11):
I mean, I think a lot of this also boils
down to Donald Trump's relationships with leaders in the Arab world.
You know, clearly Katar, Egypt others want this to be
brought to an end. They haven't, you know, ever raised
the prospect of using military force to end it. But
it's quite clear. You know that Trump has deepening relationships
with Saudi Arabia. He wants to push forward with his

(41:35):
so called Abraham Accords and get potentially Syria or Lebanon
to join on. Saudi Arabia would be the big prize,
So you know, there is some motivation for Trump to
try to make this thing stick. But at the end
of the day, you know, I spoke to a source
close to the negotiations right before I spoke to you guys,
and what he's saying is, look, they realized that after

(41:55):
thirty days or sixty days, the Israelis could resume this genocide.
But from their perspective, they still would have cards. They
would have ten living Israeli captives, they would have about
a dozen or so bodies of deceased Israelis. They don't
feel like they would have depleted everything they have, but
they will be giving up half of what they view
as the only negotiating assets that they have. I really

(42:16):
get the sense that they feel like they need to
make a deal right now. So I think we're going
to see a last minute flurry of activity where they
try to get some concessions or even get a side
letter of their own from the White House, which I've
been told by sources is a possibility, saying like, look,
we can't put this in the real deal, but as
long as Cassam Brigades and soria al coulds are not

(42:39):
firing on the Israelis, meaning that they're not the ones
breaking the ceasefire, and as long as you are negotiating
in good faith, Trump is committed to making sure aid
flow continues beyond sixty days, and that the Israelis are
not going to resume a full scorched earth bombing campaign.
I think Palestinians are in an unspeakable situation right now.
The level of desperate is off the charts. The entire

(43:02):
society is being slowly strangled to death. And these guys
negotiating this deal as cartoonishly as they're portrayed, they're not
immune to it. Some of them, their mothers have been killed,
their brothers have been killed, their children have been killed.
You know, we think of them as in a cartoonish way,
but actually, as Adam Bohler, you know, after he met
with Amas, said you know, they're human beings too, so

(43:22):
I think I think what they're trying to do is
get the best deal they can get that doesn't surrender
the cause of Palestinian liberation, and that's why they fought
so hard to get that withdrawal and a commitment that
the genocide won't be resumed.

Speaker 5 (43:33):
Well, Jeremy, thank you for your reporting on this and
thanks for joining us.

Speaker 1 (43:37):
We'll certainly continue to follow it.

Speaker 9 (43:39):
Thank you, guys.

Speaker 5 (43:43):
Israel's ongoing assault of Gaza has led to a radical
transformation of views when it comes to Israel and Palestinians.
Harriett and CNN has shocking poll.

Speaker 15 (43:54):
Numbers who Democrats sympathize more with Israelis or Palaestinians. In
twenty seventeen, the Democratic Party was a pro Israeli party.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
Look at this.

Speaker 15 (44:02):
They sympathized with the Israelis by thirteen points, more with
the Israelis than the Palestines.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
But look at this sea change.

Speaker 15 (44:08):
Now Democrats sympathize one with the Palestinians by forty three points.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Oh my god. That is a change in the margin.

Speaker 15 (44:15):
Of fifty six points over the course of just eight years.
So all of a sudden it's the pro Palestinian position
that actually reigns supreme in democratic politics, not the Israeli position.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
Now you see this, You see this among Democrats overall.

Speaker 15 (44:29):
Right, But we know that Mandani's base was younger voters
within the Democratic Party, and so I want.

Speaker 4 (44:34):
To break it down for you with younger Democrats.

Speaker 15 (44:36):
Correct, So take a look here who age eighteen to
forty nine Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis of the Palestinians. Again,
in twenty seventeen, younger Democrats sympathize one with the Israelis
by fourteen points.

Speaker 1 (44:47):
Look at this shift.

Speaker 15 (44:48):
Now Palestinians, they sympathize more with the Palestinians by fifty
seven points.

Speaker 1 (44:52):
That is an over.

Speaker 15 (44:53):
Seventy point shift in the margin in just a matter
of eight years. I rarely ever see shifts slight this
kate in which you see one side of the equation
leading by fourteen points eight years ago, and then all
of a sudden, the other side of the equation leading
by fifty seven points. The bottom line is the politics
around the Israelis and the Palestinians have shifted tremendously among Democrats,

(45:14):
and they've shifted specifically tremendously among Democrats who are under.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
The age of fifty.

Speaker 15 (45:18):
They have just shifted more so than I think that
anyone could possibly have imagined, say, eight years ago.

Speaker 5 (45:24):
Yeah, so, Emily, that is a major swing. And I'm
not shocked that there has been a shift. You can
kind of watch it happening in real time. But a
seventy point swing, yeah, among young voters. And by young,
he meant under fifty, which I'd be young and I
don't consider myself young.

Speaker 4 (45:42):
Congratulations on your newly rediscovery.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
Cort Harriett.

Speaker 5 (45:45):
And but across the board, a massive shift how much
of the and we're also staying a shift in the
Republican Party.

Speaker 4 (45:57):
Yeah, yeah, particularly that.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
In particularly among young vote. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (46:01):
So you know, how do you think this kind of
reshapes the way that this issue affects our politics?

Speaker 6 (46:07):
Well, I mean, you've written so extensively about APAC and
I think we're seeing and also like the Jonathan green
Blatz and the Anti Defamation League people, we're seeing a
complete freak out because they coasted off America's good vibes
on Israel for a really long time, especially inculcated in

(46:31):
the minds of so many Americans after nine to eleven
don't need to debate the reason. But obviously there was
just an immense sensitivity to radical terrorists in the United
States in those years, and so it was much easier
for them to frame Israel as a sort of good
versus bad Manichean dichotomy like it just was.

Speaker 4 (46:55):
They took for granted how easy that was.

Speaker 6 (46:57):
So now you see they're freak out trying to eight
people like Ramesa oz turk as hamas sympathizers.

Speaker 4 (47:05):
And I don't think the.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
Top student who was recently released but jailed for the op.

Speaker 6 (47:10):
Ed right, Yeah, just like snatched off the street by
mass apparently ice agents. And so anyway, all that is
to say they have a lot less power than they
used to, and that is going to materialize, I think
in the next couple of cycles, as politicians who take
their money realize it's not as helpful for them to

(47:33):
be taking the positions that they need.

Speaker 4 (47:35):
To in order to get the money.

Speaker 6 (47:37):
And I don't know that that'll show up right away,
but it's I mean, I think the polling is pretty
clear that it's already showed up, but I don't know
how powerful it'll be as an electoral force in the
next four to eight years, but it is going.

Speaker 4 (47:49):
To be a powerful electoral force.

Speaker 6 (47:50):
They've lost the public support that they coasted off.

Speaker 5 (47:54):
Of, and I think some of this is a is
a backlash to a PAC and the prograser a lot
kind of interfering in democratic politics in a way that
has not done them favors. And so in my last book,
the Squad has this history in it. So that poll
started in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, you get the Squad

(48:16):
elected Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar, in particular, becoming first
two Muslim women to serve in Congress. And in early
twenty nineteen Democratic Majority for Israel DMFI formed as basically
an offshoot of a pack by APAC supporters and APAC
consultants specifically.

Speaker 1 (48:39):
To push back against Talib and Omar. That was there.
That's why, that's why they rolled out.

Speaker 5 (48:45):
They said that they were seeing a current of what
they called anti Israel sentiment within the Democratic Party and
they were going to spend enormous amounts of money to
suppress that. If you look at the numbers since then,
DMFI and a pack have been engaged in the greatest
failure of political operations like ever like what an absolute

(49:12):
like catastrophe for them. If their goal was to do
the thing they set out to, they instead did the opposite.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
So they launched in twenty nineteen.

Speaker 5 (49:22):
The first candidate they ever spent money against actually was
Bernie Sanders in Iowa. They then spent enormous amounts of
money defending Guy Elliott Engel, who was the chair of
the Foreign Relations Committee Foreign Affairs Committee in the House,
who was being challenged by Jamal Bowman. They spent millions
of dollars against Bowmen, and Bowman beat him and knocked

(49:45):
him out anyway. And so what they concluded from that
twenty twenty cycle was that they had not spent enough money,
and so i DMFI raised more money. For twenty twenty two,
a pack itself launched its first ever superpack.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
It had never had a super pack before.

Speaker 5 (50:01):
They had always just done small contributions of maxing out
directly to.

Speaker 6 (50:07):
Candidates and buying goodwill with trips and.

Speaker 5 (50:11):
Those goodwill with trips, and then if you crossed us,
we will fund a primary challenger and we will take
you out. And you only have to do that a
couple of times. And then everybody else is like, Okay,
don't care this much about that issue. I'm just going
to just use tell I stand with Israel, You tell
me what to do, and I was jobs, I'll say it.
So twenty twenty two, they spend somewhere around thirty to
fifty million dollars.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Going after.

Speaker 5 (50:37):
Democrats who had said things that were sympathetic towards Palestinians,
and they succeeded. They spent like seven eight million dollars
stopping Donna Edwards from coming back to Congress because in
two thousand and nine she had voted against In two
thousand and eight, there was another Israeli war on gods,
and she had voted the wrong way on one resolution,

(50:58):
and so they were like they spent seven million dollars
to stop her. They spent many millions of dollars in
like North Carolina to stop this city council candidate needed
Alum from becoming a member of Congress. She famously had
been friends with the There were three or four Muslims students,
if you remember, in Chapel Hill who were killed in

(51:20):
like this brutal hate crime, killed because they were Muslim.
And she then became like guide into politics as a
result of that, was city council member and was trying
to go to Congress, would have won, ended up losing
by like two points because they spent like seven million
dollars against her. Then in twenty twenty four and so
across the board they really blunted the growth of.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
The squad like politicians.

Speaker 5 (51:41):
Twenty twenty four, they spend twenty million against Jamal Bowman
and knock him out, and ten million or so against
Corey Bush knock her out, and spent one hundred million
dollars in primaries across the country in the Democratic primaries,
making sure that nobody is critical Israel, and so they

(52:04):
were effectively able to beat a decent number of candidates,
Like the Democratic Caucus would look different when it comes
to Israel palestein than it does now if not for
all of this spending. Yeah, but good lord, the public.
It has not worked on the Democratic public. In fact,
if anything, it seems like it's backfired.

Speaker 6 (52:22):
Well, it often takes time, because we're not a direct democracy,
we're republic for the makeup of elected officials to catch
up with public opinion. And that's one of the things
Trump like forced among Republican voters. Is that you now
have like a Jim Banks in the Senate, for example,
or you now have And even if you dispute that

(52:43):
they're helping the working class, know that that's a raging
argument obviously, But even if you dispute that, they at
least understand public opinion, they're reflecting public opinion. And that
hasn't quite happened on this issue yet. But I don't
think either major political party understands how much it's about
to happen, because they've been scapegoating, you know, this idea

(53:04):
that all the anti Israel sentiment is anti Western Marxism,
as opposed to just saying this is insane, this is
a wildly bad policy. It's not making us safer, And
I just don't think they're fully ready for how that's
going to manifest in public opinion. Those numbers don't just

(53:25):
reflect a shift. I think they reflect, especially for younger people,
a shift in the like this is way down on
the list of most American voters. Priorities still is, but
it's getting increasingly important to people. It's becoming increasingly animating
because people are so pissed off about what they're seeing
now that the media gatekeepers are less powerful. This information

(53:48):
is coming through drop site, it's coming through breaking points,
and I don't know. The last question that I have
on this is how much of it is the way
the nets and Yahoo government has waged this war since
October seventh, And like listen, we could go back and
debate the history of how it is rules conducted itself
in previous decades before October seventh. Seems that everyone at

(54:11):
least agrees that what's happened since October seventh has been
on another scale.

Speaker 5 (54:15):
Yeah, I think, I think basically that's all all of it,
Like it's the public recoiling and what they're seeing. And actually,
for an unbelievably crystallizing example of that, let's pull can
you pull up C two?

Speaker 1 (54:30):
This is a st what.

Speaker 12 (54:32):
Appeared to be heavily armed American security contractors at one
of the sites discussed how to disperse Palestinians nearby.

Speaker 9 (54:40):
Posted on the northwest corner. Now, but the whole there,
I don't have to be too aggressive.

Speaker 12 (54:47):
At that moment, bursts of gunfire are rupped close by
at least fifteen shots. The camera's view is obscured by
a large dirt mount. The contractor who took the video

(55:08):
told ap that he saw other contractors shooting in the
direction of Palestinians who had just collected their food and
were departing.

Speaker 5 (55:15):
That's video obtained by the Associated Press that was posted
yesterday along with a long investigation into allegations from American
consultants working with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation who say that
what the Palestinians have been saying and what how Res
has reported recently is true that people connected to GHF

(55:41):
have been firing at aid seekers. And what you heard
in that video was fifteen gunshots followed by I think
you hit one, and then yeah, hell yeah boy. Now
there's a mound, so you can't see exactly what's happening.
And that apparently has even left some room for apologists

(56:04):
to say, well, you know, could who knows, who knows
what could have happened. Yeah, he said, we heard the
gun shot, and he said you hit one, and then
they celebrated hitting one. And later in that investigation, a
guy says he saw somebody fall right like after the
shot and the celebration of having hit one. They saw

(56:26):
somebody fall. This is Hamas is nowhere around here. This
is there's this is not a live battle. Between Hamas
and Kazignity.

Speaker 4 (56:32):
Right, it's not a live battle.

Speaker 6 (56:33):
But the claim that I think is I mean probably obvious,
is that there are Hamas people who are getting aid
right that they.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
I'm not saying it justifies it.

Speaker 6 (56:43):
I understaying like the plausibly are Hamas people in the crowd,
But that doesn't mean that's not what That's not what
they're going at, right, Right, might be.

Speaker 5 (56:51):
A guy who used to be part of Hamas or yeah,
but he's going and getting a box or something.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
But yeah, they're not.

Speaker 5 (56:58):
GF is not claiming that's why they're shooting at it, right,
They claim they're not shooting at them, like they straight
up deny that what you just saw in that video
is happening.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
So I play that as an example. I think of
the reason that you're seeing these.

Speaker 5 (57:13):
Numbers shift that it's horrifying and nobody can support shooting
at hungry people, unarmed hungry people.

Speaker 6 (57:24):
And one of the interesting things about after that Hiratz report,
I don't know if you picked up on this, maybe
it's maybe it's just me, maybe it's naivete, but I
thought it was very interesting that the Israeli government announced
that they were doing an investigation instead of just flatly denying.
I mean, obviously they're denying it, but they didn't miss it.

Speaker 5 (57:41):
And the reports that they changed their rules of engagement,
and you've now had IDF soldiers complaining that it's harder
to get permission to shoot these quote unquote warning shots
at people.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
After they changed the rules.

Speaker 5 (57:58):
So they said, we're not really doing this, but then
they changed the rules of engagement on whether they could
do it. And so the Democratic leadership has been, you know,
mostly immune from a lot of this pressure because of
all the money spent by DMFI an Apak.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
But let's take a look at how voters now feel
about their own Democratic leaders. This is b three.

Speaker 15 (58:22):
Party leaders Democrats who say they want to replace their
party leaders.

Speaker 1 (58:26):
Look at this.

Speaker 15 (58:27):
Sixty two percent nationally say yes, compared to just twenty
four percent who say no. That lines up with the
I the idea that Democrats view their own members of Congress,
their own leaders in Congress record low approval rating. Democrats
right now are out for blood. They want to take
out their party leaders. And you saw that with Andrew
Cuomo going Audios, amigos, goodbye, see you later.

Speaker 8 (58:46):
In New York.

Speaker 5 (58:47):
This past Tuesday and Emily that that is not the
Democratic Party that I know. The Democratic Party base has
always been any kind of support the leaders support the leadership.
To have them in this open state of rebellion, is
is it genuinely new phenomenon?

Speaker 6 (59:08):
Well, I wonder, I mean, yeah, that is a really
big distinction between what happened post Tea Party and what
happened with Democrats, because it was pretty obvious that Republicans
were furious with leadership. I think it was pretty obvious
that Democrats were had a lot of reasons to be
furious with leadership, but they kept Yeah, but I don't know.

(59:32):
I wonder if it's just because they didn't feel like
there was any alternative.

Speaker 4 (59:36):
To democratic leadership.

Speaker 6 (59:38):
And it also I think democratic leadership was much more
willingness signal cultural solidarity with the progressive wing. Meaning they
were using it and you've written about this, they were
using some of it as a shield, saying equality Act
trans rites in ways that signaled equity, in ways that
signaled solidarity with progressives.

Speaker 4 (59:57):
And I wonder actually if.

Speaker 6 (59:59):
That got them by for a decade and it's just
not working anymore.

Speaker 5 (01:00:04):
Maybe I don't know, whatever it is it's something is changing.
And also it seems like all of this has shut
Richie Torres up for a second, which is quite amazing,
but before it is just kind of amusing development. I
guess you can check out this and you can go
check out this tweet from Hammid Ben As he says,

(01:00:26):
here's a remarkable statu showing the Zoron effect. The account
Richie Torres hasn't tweeted either the word Israel or Hamas
since June eighteenth, fourteen days ago.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
Is now more. That is the longest stretch by seven days.

Speaker 5 (01:00:37):
That Torres has not tweeted one of those words since
October seventh, twenty twenty three. And you can just you know,
scroll through the Richie Torres This quote posts. So Torres
the most kind of outspoken democratic Democrat when it comes
to support for Israel, the most combative and aggressive out there.

(01:00:59):
For him be quiet for this long, I think reflects
that there is there is a centrifical force that involved
in those numbers.

Speaker 6 (01:01:09):
Hey, I mean, I can't think of Richard Torres anymore
without flashing back to Jamal Bowman with his arm around
you and Griffin at Theron River.

Speaker 4 (01:01:18):
Something else.

Speaker 6 (01:01:20):
Maybe that did it Actually, maybe that was Richie Torres
was like, you're right, and I am whack and he since.

Speaker 1 (01:01:25):
That's not rude, Jamal Boman just canceled him. It's the
bowman effect actually canceled him. Amazing things are changing.

Speaker 4 (01:01:31):
Things are changing, that's for sure,